Municipal Law – Unauthorized Construction – No Building Permission – Applicant alleged that Respondents No. 1 and 2 raised illegal commercial construction without sanction on House No. 233/42, Nai Sadak, Gwalior – Municipal Corporation confirmed construction was carried out between 2016–2017 without prior approval – Notices issued by Corporation in 2016 and 2017 to stop construction went unheeded – Trial Court rejected application under Section 307(5) of MP Municipal Corporation Act – Held: Order of Trial Court set aside as new construction without permission was established [Paras 1–4, 14, 19–22].

Building Inspection – Report by Municipal Commissioner – Commissioner personally inspected property on Court's direction – Found a three-storey structure used for commercial purposes – Assessed age of building as 7–8 years, constructed without prior municipal approval – Respondents objected but refused scientific testing to determine building age – Held: Refusal to allow testing supports inference of unauthorized construction – Inspection report accepted [Paras 9–12, 14–15].

Evidentiary Value – Photographic Evidence – Photographs filed by applicant of under-construction building matched existing structure – Supported Municipal Commissioner’s findings – Held: Photos establish prima facie case of new unauthorized construction [Para 14].

Binding Nature of Civil Judgments – Earlier Civil Suit Filed by Respondents – Judgment in Civil Suit No. 244A/2017 and R.C.A. No. 205/2019 held that no new construction was raised – Held: Applicant was not a party to those suits – Findings not binding as they were not judgments in rem – Respondents failed to involve applicant despite being aware of his complaints – Findings in those civil proceedings not applicable to applicant [Paras 15–18].

Administrative Law – Duty of Municipal Corporation – Corporation admitted multiple notices issued to stop construction – Failed to enforce stoppage or demolish building despite illegality – Court directed sealing and demolition of entire structure – Compliance mandated within fixed timeline [Paras 19–23].

Procedural Law – Civil Revision – Trial Court failed to consider evidence of unauthorized construction and Commissioner’s findings – Refusal to allow scientific testing weighed against respondents – Held: Trial Court committed material illegality – Civil revision allowed with costs [Paras 21–22].

Decision: Order of Trial Court dated 22/07/2024 rejecting application under Section 307(5) of MP Municipal Corporation Act set aside – Application allowed – Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, directed to seal building immediately and demolish it within one month – Costs of ₹25,000 imposed on Respondents No. 1 and 2 to be deposited within one month – Failure to comply will invite contempt proceedings [Paras 22–24].

Specific Performance – Time as Essence – Waiver – Immovable Property – Agreement to sell dated 25.08.1990 required payment of ₹25,000 by October 1990 – Defendants issued successive notices (23.02.1991 and 26.03.1991) granting further time – Held: Conduct amounts to waiver; time not essence under Section 55 of Contract Act – Defendants themselves kept contract alive; cannot later plead breach [Paras 8–15].

Readiness and Willingness – Plaintiff produced affidavit, bank statement and cheque of ₹25,000 sent on 09.04.1991 – Defendants refused due to escalated market price – Admission of DW-1 that sale deed would be executed only at current market rate – Held: Plaintiff continuously ready and willing; defendants in breach under Section 16(c) of Specific Relief Act [Para 16].

Discretionary Relief – Specific Relief Act – Equity – Plaintiff acted diligently; defendants extended time and later refused due to rise in prices – Conduct shows attempt to resile from concluded bargain – First Appellate Court rightly granted decree of specific performance – No perversity or misapplication of law [Para 17].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree of First Appellate Court affirming specific performance upheld – Agreement dated 25.08.1990 enforceable [Paras 18–19

Property Law – Communal Land – Order I Rule 8 CPC – Adverse Possession by State – Identity of Land – State estopped from claiming adverse possession – Suit partly maintainable – Declaration granted for Hal Plot No.1575; claim rejected for “Smasana” land [Paras 15–29].

Communal Land – “Smasana” – Necessity of Representative Suit – Non-Joinder – Suit Not Maintainable – Hal Plot No.1563 recorded as “Smasana” is communal land in which entire village has common interest – Plaintiffs failed to comply with mandatory requirements of Order I Rule 8 CPC before seeking declaration of title – Villagers of Mouza Attopur-Badapokharital being necessary parties, suit in respect of A.0.03 decimals of Hal Plot No.1563 rightly dismissed by courts below – Held: No error in concurrent findings dismissing claim regarding “Smasana” land [Paras 15–18].

Adverse Possession – Plea by State – Impermissible – Implied Admission of Plaintiff’s Title and Identity of Property – State pleaded long possession and prescriptive title over A.0.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575 – Such plea amounts to implicit admission of plaintiffs’ title and identity of the suit land – As per settled law, the State cannot perfect title by adverse possession against its own citizens – Trial Court’s and First Appellate Court’s findings denying identity and ownership unsustainable – Held: State precluded from claiming adverse possession; plaintiffs’ title stands established [Paras 19–25].

Title and Identity – Establishment through Defendant’s Admissions – Reversal of Concurrent Findings – Once State claimed adverse possession, identity of A.0.09 decimals in Plot No.1575 stands admitted – Concurrent findings that plaintiffs failed to identify suit land contradicted legal effect of State’s plea – High Court interferes with concurrent findings under Section 100 CPC as findings were perverse and contrary to settled principles [Paras 22–26].

Relief – Partial Decree – Declaration of Title and Direction for RoR Correction – Suit dismissed for A.0.03 decimals of Hal Plot No.1563 (“Smasana”) – Suit decreed for A.0.09 decimals of Hal Plot No.1575 – Plaintiffs declared owners; State declared to have no right, title or interest – Possession confirmed in favour of plaintiffs – State directed to correct RoR accordingly – Appeal allowed in part [Paras 27–29].

Criminal Law - Money Laundering – Freezing of Property – Requirement of "Reason to Believe" – Section 17(1A), PMLA – Freezing orders dated 05.09.2018 passed by ED under Section 17(1A) were held invalid as they were based solely on "suspicion" without material or reasons recorded in writing – Court held "suspicion" is not equivalent to "reason to believe" and cannot justify action under PMLA – Procedural non-compliance with Rules 3 and 4 of the 2005 Freezing Rules also found – Held: Orders unsustainable in law [Paras 59–67]

Attachment Proceedings – Section 8(3), PMLA – Misreading of 90-day Clause by Tribunal – Tribunal’s interpretation that investigation must be completed within 90 days under Section 8(3)(a) was held erroneous – Court clarified: 90-day limit pertains to duration of attachment/retention during investigation, not to the investigation itself – Held: No statutory time limit prescribed for completion of investigation under PMLA [Paras 37–42]

Property Freezing – Whether Person Must Be Accused – Respondent not named as an accused, but husband was – Court followed Union of India v. J.P. Singh and held that continuation of freezing under Section 8(3) does not require the person holding property to be an accused, as long as property is linked to alleged money laundering and prosecution complaint is pending [Paras 45–48]

Procedural Safeguards – Violation of Section 17 and Related Rules – Freezing orders failed to show compliance with mandatory procedure under Section 17(1), (1A), and (4) – No proper “reason to believe”, no material disclosed to Adjudicating Authority as required – Court reiterated that freezing impacts right to property under Article 300A and strict adherence to procedure is essential [Paras 52–68]

Function of Adjudicating Authority – Misapplication of Terminology – Confusion Between Retention, Continuation, Confirmation – Court found the adjudicating authority’s orders mechanically reproduced pleadings and failed to apply mind – Incorrect terminology used (retention granted when continuation was sought) – Held: Process vitiated due to non-application of mind and procedural errors [Paras 71–79]

Statutory Interpretation – Specific Terms Not Interchangeable – Court clarified that terms such as "freezing", "retention", "continuation", and "confirmation" are distinct and refer to different statutory processes – Lumping them together renders the orders legally defective [Paras 74–75]

Decision: Appeals dismissed – Freezing orders held illegal and procedurally defective – Tribunal’s decision to unfreeze accounts upheld – Procedural safeguards under PMLA not followed – ED’s reliance on suspicion without material held unsustainable – Pending applications disposed of – No costs awarded.

Service Law – Municipal Recruitment – Sanitation Workers – Daily wage CLR workers with long years of service permitted to participate in selection pursuant to interim court orders – Selection conducted on merits along with Employment Exchange candidates – Wider zone of consideration permissible – No illegality in appointing daily wagers who succeeded in selection – Employment Exchange-only restriction not absolute – Writs by daily wage workers allowed; writs by Employment Exchange candidates dismissed [Paras 19–27].

Regularisation – Daily Wage / CLR Workers – No automatic right to regularisation – However, when daily wage workers were allowed to participate in a full, competitive selection process and emerged successful, their appointment cannot be denied – Distinction drawn between “regularisation as of right” and “appointment after due selection” [Paras 19–21].

Employment Exchange – G.O. dated 22.04.1982 – Employment Exchange sponsorship mandatory in ordinary circumstances – However, following Excise Superintendent v. K.B.N. Visweshwara Rao principle, Employment Exchange cannot be sole channel – Fair selection requires wider notification or inclusion of eligible workers – Daily wage workers validly included in selection pursuant to Court order – No bar to considering them on merit [Paras 20–22].

Constitutional Law – Equality in Public Employment – Restricting selection exclusively to Employment Exchange candidates may deprive eligible persons of opportunity – Court relied on Visweshwara Rao to uphold broader zone of consideration – Selection found fair, merit-based, and uniform for both groups [Paras 21–23].

Recruitment Process – Validity – Municipality produced consolidated select list; no allegation of exclusion, bias or mala fides – All candidates (Employment Exchange nominees + CLR workers) evaluated under same criteria – Selection upheld as lawful [Para 23].

Relief – Petitioners (CLR workers) in WP(C) Nos. 15142 & 15146/2023 directed to be appointed as Substitute Sanitation Workers as per merit list – WP(C) 15500/2023 & 20483/2025 (Employment Exchange candidates) dismissed except to extent selected candidates among them will be appointed – WP(C) 37605/2024 partly allowed with direction to include CLR workers with >10 years’ service in future selection in Thrippunithura Municipality [Final Paras].

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder – Section 307 IPC – Distinction in Role of Co-Accused – Appellants Vishunath and Arjun Pasi convicted under Section 307 IPC for causing injuries to Kallu – Injured deposed that Arjun Pasi fired at him with a country-made pistol causing a firearm wound in lower abdomen/pelvis, a vital part – Vishunath allegedly hit with a danda on the hand, a non-vital part – Held: Though both were convicted under Section 307 IPC, the nature of assault and intention attributable to each is different – Injury caused by danda not sufficient to cause death – Sentence of Vishunath modified accordingly [Paras 3–5, 7–9, 15–18]

Criminal Law – Credibility of Witness – Hostile Witnesses – While complainant and other eye-witnesses (PW-2, PW-3, PW-6, PW-7) turned hostile, injured (PW-1) gave a consistent and detailed account of the attack – Held: Injured is the best witness in assault cases – Trial court correctly relied on his testimony to establish individual roles – Minor contradictions do not vitiate core evidence [Paras 8–11, 15]

Criminal Procedure – Sentence Modification – Court distinguishes between active firearm assault and minor physical injury – Role of Vishunath not involving deadly weapon or vital injury – While upholding conviction under Section 307 IPC, sentence reduced to 8 months RI with fine – Sentence of Arjun Pasi for 3 years RI upheld in full [Paras 17–18]

Decision: Criminal appeal partly allowed – Conviction of both appellants under Section 307 IPC upheld – Sentence of appellant No.1 (Vishunath) modified to 8 months rigorous imprisonment with fine of ₹2,000 – Default sentence reduced to 1 month simple imprisonment – Sentence of appellant No.2 (Arjun Pasi) of 3 years RI with fine of ₹2,000 confirmed – Trial court to ensure compliance [Paras 18–20]

Eviction – Unregistered Lease Agreement – Section 107 TPA – Clause Barred Eviction – Lease dated 11.07.1990 contained clause barring landlord from initiating eviction proceedings – Trial and revisional courts held the lease inadmissible as it was unregistered – Held: Clause 3 implied lease in perpetuity exceeding one year – Required registration under Section 107 of TPA and Section 17(1)(d) of the Registration Act – Courts below rightly excluded it from evidence – Petitioner’s claim of month-to-month tenancy was contradicted by the terms of the document [Paras 10–19]

Eviction – Service of Notice – Section 106 TPA – Service by Refusal – Petitioner alleged that refusal of notice was not proved by calling postman – Held: Presumption of service arises under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and Section 14 of the Post Office Act when postal endorsement shows refusal – It is for the addressee to rebut the presumption by leading cogent evidence – Mere denial by tenant is insufficient – Trial and revisional courts rightly accepted notice as served [Paras 20–23]

Presumption of Valid Service – Statutory Interpretation – Post Office Markings – Court reaffirmed that postal endorsements such as “refusal” are prima facie valid – Cited authoritative judgments including Prem Bahadur Dalela, Ugrasen v. Parmeshwari Devi, and Ganga Ram v. Phulwati – Held: Sender need not examine postman unless presumption is rebutted [Paras 22–23]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – Lease agreement rightly excluded from evidence due to lack of registration – Notice under Section 106 TPA deemed validly served by refusal – Order of eviction and recovery of arrears of rent upheld – No interference warranted [Paras 24–25]

NDPS Act – Bail – Section 27A – Illicit Traffic – Misuse of Provision – Bail Allowed – Petitioners, one seeking anticipatory bail and the other regular bail, were arraigned under Section 27A NDPS Act based solely on recovery of heroin (5g and 21g) and INR 1000 in cash – Court found that the investigating agencies invoked Section 27A without prima facie evidence of financing illicit traffic or harboring offenders – Held: Mere possession of small amount of cash, even if seized alongside contraband, does not meet threshold under Section 27A – Drug money must be directly linked to financing of organised illicit traffic – Mechanical invocation of Section 27A to trigger rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act deprecated – Interim bail orders made absolute [Paras 2, 3, 7, 12–15, 21–22, 35, 39–41, 44–45, 50–53]

NDPS Act – Section 37 – Twin Conditions – Non-Applicability Without Evidence Under Section 27A – Court reaffirmed that before applying the twin conditions of Section 37, prosecution must first establish a prima facie case under Section 27A – Held: Absence of foundational evidence linking the recovered cash to financing illicit trafficking disentitles the prosecution from relying on Section 37 to oppose bail [Paras 11, 37–39, 52]

Criminal Jurisprudence – Legal Tender – Presumption of Lawful Possession – Burden on Prosecution – Recovered cash of INR 1000 treated as lawful possession – Held: Currency is legal tender and presumed lawful unless prosecution proves illicit derivation or nexus with drug crime – Strong suspicion cannot substitute evidence – Bail cannot be denied merely because currency was recovered along with narcotics [Paras 20, 26–30, 44–46]

Investigative Abuse – Capricious Use of Section 27A – Judicial Scrutiny Required – Court cautioned against capricious use of Section 27A by police to trigger bail embargo under Section 37 – Held: Courts must lift the veil and demand concrete evidence before endorsing such allegations – Penal provisions must be interpreted strictly and proportionately [Paras 14, 39, 51]

Decision: Bail petitions allowed – Interim orders made absolute – Invocation of Section 27A NDPS Act found unwarranted – Rigours of Section 37 held inapplicable – Pending applications disposed of.

Hindu Law – Joint Family Property – Sale by Karta – Plaintiffs, sons of the first defendant, challenged sale of 0.70 cents of ancestral property made by their father (first defendant) in favour of his brother (second defendant) – Property was ancestral, and plaintiffs had birthright – Held: Sale deed not binding on plaintiffs’ 2/3 share – Valid only to the extent of first defendant’s 1/3 share – Alienation by karta not for legal necessity or benefit of estate – Such sale is voidable, not void – Trial court’s finding upheld [Paras 14–20, 23(a)–(b)].

Property Law – Validity of Sale – Ancestral Property – Settlement deed in favour of first defendant does not convert ancestral property into self-acquisition – Nomenclature of document irrelevant – Legal character of property remains unchanged – Coparceners cannot be divested of birthright through unilateral settlement by father [Paras 15–16].

Burden of Proof – Legal Necessity – Under Mitakshara law, burden lies on purchaser (second defendant) to prove sale by karta was for legal necessity – Mere indebtedness or personal hardship of the karta not sufficient – Held: Second defendant failed to discharge burden – Plaintiffs entitled to protection of their undivided share [Para 17].

Partition – Sale During Minority – Plaintiffs, being minors at the time of sale, entitled to challenge the alienation – Since sale not shown to be for necessity or benefit of family, transaction is not binding on their share – However, second defendant entitled to seek equitable allotment in final decree from vendor’s (first defendant’s) share [Paras 19–21].

Equity – Final Decree Proceedings – Trial court’s direction to allot “0.70 share” to second defendant modified – Held: Precise metes and bounds to be fixed during final decree based on value and soil condition – Sale deed to be honoured only to the extent of first defendant’s share [Paras 21–22, 23(c)].

Decision: Appeal dismissed with modification – Sale deed dated 10.10.2005 held valid only to the extent of first defendant’s 1/3 share – Not binding on plaintiffs’ 2/3 share – Second defendant entitled to equitable allotment from first defendant’s share in final decree – No order as to costs [Para 23].