Civil Suit – Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof on Plaintiff – Plaintiff sought declaration of title and injunction for Ac.0.73 cents in Sy.No.106/6 – In a suit for declaration, plaintiff must succeed on strength of his own title and not on weakness of defendants’ case – Failure to establish valid title to entire extent claimed fatal to suit [Paras 15–17].

Title to Immovable Property – Gift Deed – Excess Extent – Application of Nemo Dat Principle – Gift deed executed for Ac.0.73 cents though donor had title only to Ac.0.68 cents – Donor cannot convey better title than what she possessed – Registration of document does not cure defect of title – Gift valid only to extent of donor’s ownership [Paras 18–22, 27–28].

Partition – Documentary Evidence – Pre-existing Rights – Registered partition deed of 1963 established that Ac.0.20 cents out of Ac.0.88 cents in Sy.No.106/6 fell to branch of defendants – Revenue records and Tahsildar’s evidence corroborated defendants’ title – Plaintiff’s claim beyond Ac.0.68 cents untenable [Paras 18–24].

Revenue Records – Limited Evidentiary Value – Pattadar passbooks and revenue entries do not confer title by themselves – Title must be traced to valid source – Revenue documents cannot override registered partition deed and title documents [Paras 24–25].

Adverse Possession – Pleadings Mandatory – First Appellate Court held plaintiff perfected title over Ac.0.05 cents by adverse possession – No pleading or issue on adverse possession – Adverse possession cannot be inferred without specific pleadings and proof of animus possidendi – Finding held perverse and unsustainable [Paras 26, 29].

Section 100 CPC – Scope of Second Appeal – High Court can interfere where findings of First Appellate Court are perverse, based on no evidence or contrary to settled law – Erroneous application of adverse possession and misreading of evidence justified interference [Paras 14, 26, 29–30].

Decision – Second Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court set aside – Trial Court’s dismissal of suit restored – Plaintiff held entitled to title only for Ac.0.68 cents and not Ac.0.73 cents – No costs [Paras 30–31].

Excise Law – Confiscation of Vehicle – Section 71 Odisha Excise Act – Independent of Criminal Trial – Vehicle seized and confiscated for alleged transportation of 51 litres of illicit NDP IMFL – Confiscation proceedings independent of outcome of criminal trial – Authority empowered to confiscate property if satisfied that offence under the Act has been committed – Criminal adjudication pending no bar to confiscation [Paras 6, 9–10].

Confiscation Proceedings – Satisfaction of Authority – Requirement of Reasoned Finding – Confiscating and appellate authorities failed to record clear satisfaction with reasons to believe that the offending vehicle was used in commission of offence – Mere reliance on seizure report without independent assessment held insufficient – Absence of discussion vitiates confiscation order [Paras 14–15].

Burden of Proof – Owner’s Defence of Lack of Knowledge or Connivance – Under Section 71(5) Odisha Excise Act, burden lies on owner seeking release to prove vehicle was used without his knowledge or connivance and that reasonable precautions were taken – However, such burden arises only after authority records foundational satisfaction regarding use of vehicle in commission of offence [Paras 8, 13–14].

Procedural Fairness – Quasi-Judicial Duty of Confiscating Authority – Authorized Officer vested with powers of civil court to summon witnesses, receive evidence and compel production of documents – Failure to examine witnesses and mechanical reliance on investigating officer’s report amounts to denial of effective adjudication – Principles of natural justice emphasized [Para 14].

Mens Rea – Relevance in Confiscation Statutes – Though excise statutes may exclude mens rea by implication, confiscation power must be exercised cautiously – Innocent owner’s claim of lack of knowledge cannot be brushed aside without proper inquiry – Reliance placed on principles laid down by Supreme Court in analogous NDPS confiscation cases [Paras 11–12].

Judicial Review – Remand for Fresh Consideration – High Court refrained from deciding merits of confiscation – Matter remanded to Appellate Authority for fresh adjudication with opportunity of hearing to both sides – Appellate Authority directed to pass reasoned, speaking order in accordance with law [Para 15].

Decision – Writ Petition disposed of – Excise Appeal Case No.31 of 2025 remanded to Commissioner of Excise, Odisha, Cuttack for fresh consideration – Opportunity of hearing to be granted to petitioner and prosecution [Para 15].

GST Law – Assessment Order – Document Identification Number (DIN) / Reference Number (RFN) – Petitioner challenged assessment order in Form GST DRC-07 contending absence of DIN – Court held that Reference Number (RFN) auto-generated by GST portal upon digital signing is sufficient compliance – DIN/RFN generated electronically cannot be treated as absent merely because DIN is not separately mentioned – Contention rejected [Paras 9–11].

GST Proceedings – Electronic Issuance – Digital Signature – Challenge to pre-show cause notice (DRC-01A) and show cause notice (DRC-01) on ground of absence of physical or digital signature – Held: Notices and orders issued through GST portal are mandatorily digitally signed – Generation of RFN itself evidences affixture of digital signature – Absence of physical signature inconsequential [Paras 9–11].

Delay and Laches – Writ Jurisdiction under Article 226 – Assessment order passed on 12.06.2024 and appeal rejected on 16.07.2025 – Petitioner failed to explain delay either in approaching appellate authority or High Court – Writ petition filed only after initiation of recovery proceedings – Held: Petition liable to be dismissed on ground of laches [Para 8, 12].

GST Recovery – Attachment Proceedings under Section 79 – Attachment notice issued after assessment and rejection of appeal – When assessment order is valid and writ petition suffers from delay, recovery proceedings cannot be interdicted [Paras 3, 12].

Precedents – Consistency in GST Adjudication – Court relied upon its earlier decisions dated 26.09.2025 and 31.01.2026 holding that RFN/DIN generated by portal satisfies statutory requirement and digital signature is implicit in electronic issuance – Principle of consistency applied [Paras 10–11].

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – Assessment order and attachment notice upheld – No costs – Pending applications closed [Para 13].

Criminal Law – Murder – Road Rage Incident – Sudden Quarrel – Absence of Intention – Incident arose out of a sudden traffic altercation when motorcycle touched car – No prior animosity or premeditation – Assault by fist and leg blows only – No weapon used or recovered – Held: Essential ingredients of intention and knowledge required for offence under Section 302 IPC not made out [Paras 15, 21].

Medical Evidence – Cause of Death – Pre-existing Heart Disease – Causal Link – Post-mortem revealed severe coronary artery disease with 100% blockage of right coronary artery and enlarged heart – Doctor deposed deceased was high-risk cardiac patient and had suffered earlier heart attack – Injuries not opined to be independently sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature – Held: Death could not be attributed solely to assault and medical evidence weakens prosecution’s case under Section 302 IPC [Paras 18–20].

Eyewitness Testimony – Related Witnesses – Doubtful Presence – PW-7 and PW-9 claimed chance presence while proceeding to a baraat and a party respectively – Their natural presence at the spot found improbable – Evidence of related witnesses required cautious scrutiny and corroboration – Held: Eyewitness version insufficient to sustain conviction for murder without strong corroboration [Paras 16].

Section 300 IPC – Clauses ‘Firstly’ and ‘Thirdly’ – Non-applicability – No intention to cause death or bodily injury sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death – Injuries though serious were inflicted without knowledge of deceased’s cardiac condition – Held: Conviction under Section 302 IPC unsustainable [Paras 21].

Culpable Homicide – Section 304 IPC – Non-attraction – For Section 304 IPC, intention or knowledge of likelihood of death is sine qua non – Appellants had no knowledge of pre-existing heart ailment – Incident occurred in heat of moment without lethal means – Held: Case does not fall under either Part I or Part II of Section 304 IPC [Paras 22–24].

Grievous Hurt – Section 320(8) IPC – Hurt Endangering Life – Post-mortem showed subarachnoid haemorrhage, blunt force trauma to head and extensive liver laceration involving about 30% of organ with internal bleeding – Brain and liver being vital organs – Injuries inherently life-endangering – Held: Injuries constitute grievous hurt under Section 320(8) IPC [Paras 26–27].

Alteration of Conviction – Section 302 to Section 325 IPC – Considering nature of injuries, absence of intention, sudden quarrel and medical evidence – Conviction altered from murder to voluntarily causing grievous hurt – Held: Appellants liable under Section 325 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 30].

Sentence – Period Already Undergone – Release Ordered – Appellants had already undergone nearly three years of incarceration – Maximum punishment under Section 325 IPC being seven years – Sentence restricted to period already undergone – Appellants directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Paras 28–31].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC set aside – Conviction altered to Section 325/34 IPC – Sentence limited to period already undergone – Appellants ordered to be released – Bail bonds discharged.

Domestic Violence Act – Residence Rights – Shared Household – Voluntary Relocation – Petitioner-wife resided in Green Park property for several decades after marriage – She voluntarily shifted in April 2023 to alternate accommodation at Safdarjung Enclave owned by husband for medical treatment along with baggage – Subsequent attempt to re-enter Green Park denied – Held: Premises earlier occupied do not qualify as “shared household” in presenti when wife has consciously and voluntarily shifted and established alternate residence [Paras 23, 27–28].

Section 2(s) DV Act – Meaning of “Shared Household” – Present and Subsisting Relationship – Though definition of shared household is broad, it does not create a perpetual right to re-enter any past residence – Shared household must be subsisting and existing in praesenti – Mere historical residence does not entitle restoration when arrangement has been consciously given up – Held: Green Park property not a shared household for purposes of Section 19 relief [Paras 24, 28].

Section 17 & Section 19 DV Act – Right to Residence – Scope and Limits – Right under Section 17 protects woman from being rendered roofless – Section 19 confers discretionary and equitable power to grant residence order or alternate accommodation – Statute does not confer indefeasible right to insist upon residence in a particular property when suitable alternate accommodation of same standard is available – Held: Denial of restoration justified where alternate accommodation exists [Paras 16, 19, 26].

Domestic Violence – Economic Abuse – Denial of Entry – Alleged denial of re-entry into Green Park property examined – No evidence of forcible dispossession or coercion – Petitioner not rendered shelter-less and continued to reside in Safdarjung Enclave property owned by respondent – Held: Denial of entry does not amount to domestic violence in nature of economic abuse in facts of case [Paras 28].

Appreciation of Conduct – Intention to Permanently Shift – Petitioner herself described Safdarjung Enclave as current residence in DV complaint, affidavits and police complaints – Affixation of name plate outside Safdarjung property indicative of settled residence – Conduct inconsistent with claim of temporary displacement – Held: Shifting was conscious and voluntary, not temporary [Paras 23, 27].

Property Dispute vs. DV Proceedings – Misuse of Statute – Dispute predominantly inter se property dispute between family members – DV Act cannot be used to convert civil property dispute into criminal proceedings – Protective statute cannot be stretched to compel re-entry into premises abandoned by choice – Held: Proceedings under DV Act not maintainable for such relief [Paras 15, 30].

Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Scope of Interference – Inherent jurisdiction to be exercised sparingly – Interference warranted only in cases of perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error – Orders of MM and ASJ based on appreciation of material on record – Held: No perversity or infirmity warranting interference [Paras 29–30].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Orders of Magistrate and Appellate Court upheld – Petitioner not entitled to residence order directing re-entry into Green Park property – No interference under Section 482 Cr.P.C.

Urban Development Law – Revision under Section 41(3) of U.P. Urban Planning and Development Act – Maintainability against demand notice – Demand notice quantifying liability and threatening coercive action held to be a final order – Revision maintainable – Power of State Government under Section 41(3) is wide enough to examine legality and propriety of such demand – Objection to maintainability rejected [Paras 22–35].

Urban Development Law – Revisional Jurisdiction – Review of Revisional Order – State Government exercising powers under Section 41(3) has no jurisdiction to review its own revisional orders – Successive review applications not maintainable – Orders dated 29.05.2024 and 07.11.2024 passed on review set aside [Paras 24–25, 35, 45].

Allotment of Land – Residential Township – Reduction in leased area – Zero Period – Lease deed executed in 2010 – Subsequent correction/supplementary deed executed in 2014 reducing leased area by about 40% due to quashing of land acquisition by Courts – Delay not attributable to allottee – Held: Allottee entitled to zero period benefit till execution and registration of supplementary deed dated 29.04.2014 – Revisional order to that extent upheld [Paras 37–41, 44–45].

Zero Period – Claim based on stay orders – Revisional authority granted zero period for period 16.03.2016 to 04.08.2017 for part land – On review found that no stay order was operating – Direction granting zero period for said period held unsustainable and set aside [Paras 20–21, 42–43, 45].

Stamp Duty – Refund – Pendency of writ petition before High Court – Revisional authority directed refund of excess stamp duty despite pendency of Writ-C No. 6647 of 2020 – Held: Such direction unsustainable in law – Direction for refund set aside [Paras 18, 42–43, 45].

Delay and Laches – Objection – Explanation regarding administrative approvals and legal opinions accepted – Writ petition held not barred by laches [Paras 26–27].

Relief – Partial interference – Orders passed in review quashed – Original revisional order upheld only to extent of granting zero period till 29.04.2014 – Directions for refund of stamp duty and additional zero period set aside – GNIDA directed to issue revised demand notice granting zero period benefit and to refrain from coercive action on compliance [Para 45].

Decision: Writ Petition allowed in part – Review orders dated 29.05.2024 and 07.11.2024 set aside – Revisional order dated 19.10.2023 upheld to limited extent – Matter disposed of with directions.

Service Law – Adhoc / Work-Charged Service – Counting for Seniority and Pay Fixation – Respondents appointed as Clerks on ad-hoc basis by an authority not competent under the service rules – Posts not advertised and appointments made dehors the rules – Termination later held illegal by Industrial Tribunal with direction of reinstatement and full back wages – Held: Grant of reinstatement with back wages does not automatically confer right to count ad-hoc service for seniority or promotion when initial appointment itself was illegal and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 11–12].

Service Law – Effect of Reinstatement with Full Back Wages – Continuity of Service – Tribunal awarded reinstatement with full back wages but did not grant continuity of service – Courts below erred in presuming deemed continuity merely from reinstatement and back wages – Held: In absence of lawful initial appointment and express grant of continuity, pre-regularisation service cannot be counted for service benefits [Paras 2, 6, 11].

Service Jurisprudence – Illegal Appointment – Distinction between Irregular and Illegal Appointments – Appointment made by incompetent authority without following recruitment rules treated as illegal – Such service cannot be equated with service rendered pursuant to regular appointment – Counting such service would amount to treating unequals equally, offending Articles 14 and 16 [Paras 12–13].

Precedent – Direct Recruit Class-II Engineering Officers’ Association Case – Supreme Court reiterated – Only ad-hoc service rendered after appointment in accordance with rules or after consideration of eligible candidates can be counted for seniority – Ad-hoc service rendered through back-door entry excluded [Para 13].

Civil Suit – Declaration – Trial Court and First Appellate Court wrongly decreed suit holding ad-hoc service countable due to reinstatement with back wages – Judgments held contrary to settled law – Interference in second appeal justified [Paras 5–7, 14].

Decision: Regular Second Appeal allowed – Judgments and decrees of Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court set aside – Suit of respondents dismissed.

Criminal Law – Bail – Murder Case – Invocation of MCOCA – Stringent Conditions under Section 21(4) – Reasonable Grounds of Non-Guilt – Applicant sought bail in murder of former Minister Baba Siddiqui, where offences under BNS, Arms Act and MCOCA were invoked – Prosecution alleged applicant’s role as member of organised crime syndicate based on two phone calls to co-accused and alleged international calls – Held: Mere proof of phone calls without material showing knowledge or participation in organised crime insufficient to prima facie establish guilt – Confessional statements of key accused did not name applicant – No substantive material to link applicant with conspiracy – Reasonable grounds exist to believe applicant is not guilty for purpose of Section 21(4) MCOCA [Paras 10–14].

MCOCA – Section 21(4) – Interpretation – Embargo on Bail – Scope – Court required to record satisfaction of twin conditions: reasonable grounds to believe accused not guilty and unlikely to commit offence on bail – “Reasonable grounds” means more than prima facie suspicion but less than proof of innocence – Findings to be tentative and confined to bail stage – Court must balance seriousness of offence with quality of material against accused [Paras 9, 15–17].

Evidence – Call Detail Records – Confessional Statements – Evidentiary Weight at Bail Stage – Prosecution relied on mobile extraction showing two calls made by applicant to A-15 using hotspot of third party – Held: Mere telephonic contact does not establish complicity unless nexus with organised crime is demonstrated – Allegation of international calls unsupported by identification of recipients – Confessional statements of A-5 and A-15 detailed roles of several accused but conspicuously omitted applicant – Absence of naming significant at bail stage [Paras 10–11].

Photographic Evidence – Firearms – Limited Probative Value – Photograph of applicant holding firearm recovered from mobile phone – Held: Does not establish participation in murder conspiracy – Prosecution case itself that weapons used were sourced from Rajasthan – Existence of firearm photograph insufficient to connect applicant to offence [Para 12].

Financial Transactions – Alleged Funding of Syndicate – Insufficient Proof – Prosecution allegation of applicant depositing money in ATM in Punjab unsupported by affidavit or documentary material – Mere fact of applicant being resident of Punjab and ATM deposit in Punjab insufficient to infer financial assistance to organised crime syndicate [Para 13].

Likelihood of Re-offending – No Criminal Antecedents – Young Age – Applicant aged 22 years with no criminal antecedents – Alleged contact limited to one co-accused through phone call – Held: No material to suggest likelihood of committing offence under MCOCA if released on bail [Para 18].

Decision: Bail Application allowed – Applicant enlarged on bail subject to stringent conditions including execution of PR bond, regular reporting to DCB/CID, surrender of passport, restriction on travel, non-tampering of evidence and cooperation with trial – Observations held to be prima facie and not to influence trial.

Criminal Law – Further Investigation – Power of Magistrate – Limits on Directions to Police – Complaint alleging cheating, forgery and criminal breach of trust referred for investigation under Section 175(3) BNSS – Police filed negative final report – Magistrate refused to accept final report and ordered further investigation under Section 173(8) CrPC – However, Magistrate also directed Investigating Agency to obtain FSL report regarding disputed signatures and conduct investigation in a specified manner – Revisional Court affirmed such directions – Held: While Court is empowered to order further investigation, it cannot dictate the manner, method or mode of investigation – Such directions amount to unwarranted judicial interference in statutory domain of police [Paras 15–22, 29–31].

Investigation – Exclusive Domain of Police – Separation of Powers – Scheme of Chapter XII CrPC shows investigation including collection of evidence, forensic examination and manner of inquiry lies exclusively with Investigating Agency – Court’s role commences after submission of report under Section 173 CrPC – Magistrate may accept or reject final report but cannot compel police to investigate from a particular angle or collect specific evidence – Direction to conduct investigation in a particular manner held without jurisdiction [Paras 20–23].

Further Investigation – Section 173(8) CrPC – Scope – Power under Section 173(8) enables further investigation and submission of supplementary report – Investigating Officer retains discretion as to manner of collecting further evidence – Court cannot supervise or micro-manage investigation even while directing further investigation [Paras 21–22, 26].

Monitoring vs Supervising Investigation – Distinction – Courts may monitor investigation to ensure fairness, promptness and absence of external influence – Supervising or directing execution of investigative steps, including forensic examination, impermissible – Supervision would prejudice fair trial and encroach upon executive function [Paras 27, 30].

Precedents – Supreme Court – Binding Principles – Reliance placed on M.C. Abraham v. State of Maharashtra, State of U.P. v. Aman Mittal, Manohar Lal Sharma v. Principal Secretary, and D. Venkatasubramaniam v. M.K. Mohan Krishnamachari – Reiterated that courts cannot direct police to submit report in accordance with judicial view or prescribe investigative steps – Judicial interference limited to ordering further investigation, not manner thereof [Paras 23–28].

Relief – Partial Allowance – Order directing further investigation upheld – Directions prescribing manner of investigation including FSL examination of signatures set aside – Investigating Agency directed to conduct further investigation independently and in accordance with law [Paras 31–32].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Petition partly allowed – Orders of Magistrate and Revisional Court set aside to the limited extent of directing investigation to be conducted in a particular manner – Direction for further investigation sustained – Investigating Agency to proceed independently as per law – All pending applications disposed of.