Land Acquisition – Delay and Laches – Writ Petition Filed After 23 Years – Dismissal Upheld – Appellants, claiming to be legal representatives of late Manchaiah, challenged land acquisition notifications issued in 1991 and 1993 by filing a writ petition only in 2017 – Single Judge dismissed the petition on the ground of inordinate delay while granting liberty to seek compensation – Division Bench upheld the dismissal, holding that a litigant who fails to enforce rights within a reasonable period must be treated as a 'fence-sitter' and cannot challenge completed acquisition proceedings – Held: Inordinate delay without justifiable explanation extinguishes the right to challenge [Paras 2, 13, 24, 26]

Notification Issued in Name of Deceased – Revenue Records Relied Upon – No Fault of Authority – The acquisition notifications named late Manchaiah as khatedar/anubhogdar though he had died on 13.08.1981, a decade before the preliminary notification – Court held that the authority was justified in relying solely on the Record of Rights prevailing on the date of notification and was not obliged to conduct a roving inquiry into title or ownership – Appellants' failure to mutate names in revenue records after a decade disentitles them from challenging the notification [Paras 7, 8, 9]

Constructive Notice – Ignorance of Acquisition Proceedings Not Accepted – Land acquisition for over 1000 acres in Basavanahalli Village constituted 'talk of the town' – Appellants' plea of non-receipt of individual notice rejected as gazette publication and public notice under Section 4 of the LA Act amounts to constructive notice – Held: Appellants cannot plead ignorance to justify enormous delay in filing the petition [Paras 10, 11, 12]

Possession – Mahazar by Revenue Inspector – Valid Taking of Possession – Physical possession taken on 13.08.2001 by Special Revenue Inspector of MUDA under mahazar in presence of villagers, followed by publication of notification under Section 16(2) of LA Act on 13.02.2002 – Objection to competence of revenue inspector raised for first time in appeal and not permissible – Held: Possession duly taken; cyclostyle form of mahazar and absence of land owner at site do not invalidate taking of possession after such lapse of time [Paras 12, 13]

Non-Deposit of Compensation – Does Not Vitiate Acquisition – MUDA admitted non-deposit of compensation due to discrepancies in land extent – Held, following Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, that non-deposit of compensation does not result in lapse of acquisition proceedings once possession has been taken – Appellants granted liberty by Single Judge to submit representation for compensation and compensatory site on par with Smt. Puttamma [Paras 20, 21]

Non-Utilization of Land – Not Abandonment of Acquisition – Appellants argued land remained undeveloped and hence acquisition should be declared abandoned – Held: Once award is passed and possession taken, land vests with the State free of encumbrances and the authority may use vested land for any public purpose – Non-utilization of a portion in a large scheme of over 1000 acres cannot be treated as abandonment of the entire acquisition [Paras 23, 25]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order of learned Single Judge upheld – Appellants' possession over acquired land after vesting declared unlawful – Respondent authority empowered to dispossess such persons – No order as to costs.

Service Law – Family Pension – Muslim Marriage – Proof of Nikah – Petitioner married deceased employee after death of his first wife – Nikahnama and affidavit of Kazi produced – Husband in Section 125 Cr.P.C. proceedings admitted factum of marriage – Corporation rejected claim citing non-registration of Nikahnama, absence of nomination, lack of entry in service book and objection of children – Held: Registration of Nikah not compulsory under Muslim law unless specifically mandated – Clear admission by deceased husband constitutes best evidence – Impugned orders quashed – Corporation directed to treat petitioner as legally wedded wife and grant family pension with arrears [Paras 9, 12–15].

Pension – Nomination – Effect – Mere absence of petitioner’s name in nomination form or service record cannot disentitle legally wedded spouse from family pension – Nomination not determinative of marital status – Family pension not dependent solely on service book entries – Denial on such grounds arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 10, 13].

Evidence – Admission – Maintenance Proceedings – In maintenance application under Section 125 Cr.P.C., deceased husband expressly admitted marriage through Nikah ceremony – Such admission amounts to substantive and material evidence of marital relationship – Corporation erred in ignoring judicial record and criminal proceedings between parties [Paras 11–13].

Administrative Law – Compliance with Court Directions – Despite earlier remand directions to reconsider legality of marriage and MoU, Corporation reiterated rejection without appreciating material documents – Non-consideration of relevant evidence amounts to grave irregularity and renders decision arbitrary [Paras 5.4, 13, 15].

Family Settlement – Effect on Pension Rights – Memorandum of Understanding between widow and children regarding retiral dues does not affect statutory right to family pension – Receipt of certain retiral benefits by children pursuant to MoU estops them from disputing petitioner’s marital status – Alleged suppression of receipt of Rs.2,00,000/- held immaterial [Para 14].

Relief – Arrears and Interest – Corporation directed to prepare family pension papers and pay arrears on or before 15.05.2026 – In default, arrears to carry interest @ 6% p.a. from 16.05.2026 till realization – Regular pension to continue thereafter [Paras 15.1–16].

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned orders dated 17/18.05.2019 and 14.05.2024 quashed and set aside – Petitioner declared legally wedded wife of deceased employee – Corporation directed to grant family pension and pay arrears within stipulated time – Rule made absolute – No order as to costs.

Banking Law - "As Is Where Is" Clause in SARFAESI Auction – Not an Absolute Shield But Not an Absolute Warranty Either – Limits of Secured Creditor's Duty of Disclosure – Bank of Maharashtra, acting as a secured creditor, auctioned leasehold industrial properties under the SARFAESI Act on an "as is where is" and "what is where is" basis – Clause 12 of the auction notice expressly warned that any dues, penalties, or charges levied by any authority on the property would be borne by the purchaser in addition to the sale price – The successful bidder, Respondent, paid ₹6,07,12,000/- and received a Sale Certificate dated 29.12.2018 representing the property to be free from encumbrances "known to the secured creditor" – Upon approaching UPSIDA for mutation of leasehold rights, the Respondent was asked to pay arrears of lease rent and transfer charges of ₹25,06,846/- pertaining to the pre-auction period – Respondent paid these dues under protest and filed a suit for recovery – Commercial Court held the Bank liable, observing that the "As Is" clause did not absolve the Bank of its duty of disclosure – Held: The protection of an "as is where is" clause is not absolute, but its efficacy depends on whether the seller acted bona fide or actively concealed facts – "The finality of a judicial or statutory auction is a matter of public policy" and allowing a purchaser to recover pre-sale dues after unconditional acceptance of the sale certificate would "render the 'as is where is' clause otiose and create perpetual uncertainty for secured creditors" [Paras 9, 10, 13, 14, 20].

Duty of Disclosure Under Section 55(1)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act and SARFAESI Rules – Scope and Limits When "Known Encumbrances" Are Expressly Qualified in Sale Certificate – Under Section 55(1)(a) of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, a seller is bound to disclose material defects known to the seller but not to the buyer – Rule 8(6)(f) of the Security Interest (Enforcement) Rules, 2002 mandates disclosure of "any other thing which the authorised officer considers it material for a purchaser to know in order to judge the nature and value of the property" – The Sale Certificate explicitly qualified the encumbrance-free status as being "known to the secured creditor" – Respondent failed to produce evidence establishing that the Bank had actual knowledge of the specific UPSIDA dues and deliberately suppressed them – Held: In the absence of fraud or active misrepresentation, neither of which was proved, "the contractual terms must be enforced" – The Bank "did not violate its statutory duty of disclosure under the SARFAESI Rules or the Transfer of Property Act" [Paras 11, 16, 19, 21].

Principle of Caveat Emptor and Estoppel of Sophisticated Auction Purchaser – Respondent Estopped From Claiming Reimbursement After Unconditional Acceptance – The UPSIDA dues constituted charges relating to the leasehold nature of the property, which were a matter of public record and discoverable by a simple inquiry with UPSIDA as the lessor – The Respondent, having bid over ₹6.07 Crores, was "presumed to be a sophisticated commercial entity" expected to "exercise due diligence commensurate with the value of the transaction" – Clause 13 of the auction terms placed the onus on bidders to investigate title, statutory dues, and encumbrances prior to bidding – Respondent accepted the Sale Certificate unconditionally and took physical possession on 01.01.2019 without protest – Held: "The Respondent, having voluntarily accepted the risk of unknown encumbrances, is estopped from seeking reimbursement for the UPSIDA dues" [Paras 15, 17, 18, 21].

Commercial Court's Error in Applying Standard of Absolute Warranty of Title to SARFAESI Auction – Impugned Judgment Set Aside – The Commercial Court "erroneously applied the standard of an absolute warranty of title, which does not exist in SARFAESI auctions unless specifically promised" and failed to appreciate that Clause 12 of the auction notice constituted "a specific contractual allocation of risk regarding statutory dues" – The "as is" clause in the present case was "supplemented by a specific warning regarding statutory dues," distinguishing the case from precedents involving active concealment by banks [Paras 14, 15, 19, 22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned Judgment and Decree dated 31.01.2023 set aside – Suit filed by the Respondent dismissed – Pending application stands closed [Paras 23, 24].

Compensation On Account Of Non-Delivery Of Goods - Railways Act, 1989 – Non-delivery of Goods – Seizure under Legal Process – Section 93(d) – Consignment seized by Forest Department – Railways pleaded statutory exemption – Held: Mere seizure under legal process does not automatically absolve railway – Proviso to Section 93 mandates proof of reasonable foresight and care – Failure to inform claimant for five years amounts to willful negligence – Railways liable to compensate [Paras 24-28].

Reasonable Foresight and Care – Proviso to Section 93 – Notice under Section 106 served – Railways remained silent regarding seizure despite receipt of notice and pendency of claim – Duty to communicate reason for non-delivery to enable claimant to pursue remedy – Non-communication defeats object of Section 106 and amounts to breach of statutory responsibility [Paras 21, 26-27].

Locus Standi – Endorsee of Railway Receipt – Endorsement on Parcel Way Bill directing delivery to appellant – Endorsee competent to maintain claim under Section 16 of the Railway Claims Tribunal Act – Objection regarding locus rejected [Para 20].

Notice under Section 106 – Sufficiency of Service – Notice received by railway authorities – Absence of diary number not fatal – Service proved by seal and signature – Requirement satisfied [Para 21].

Compensation – Quantum and Interest – Value of undelivered goods proved – Respondents directed to pay Rs. 1,12,806/- with interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of Original Application till realization [Para 29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment dated 14.08.2019 of Railway Claims Tribunal, Guwahati Bench set aside – Respondents directed to pay compensation of Rs. 1,12,806/- with 9% interest per annum from 01.11.2013 till realization – Records to be remitted to Tribunal.

"Advocates Are Officers of the Court and Equal Stakeholders" – Medical Emergency of Advocate's Family as Ground for Adjournment – Scope of Judicial Discretion in Balancing Disposal of Old Cases Against Genuine Hardship – Defendants' Advocate sought postponement of final hearing fixed on 21.02.2026 on the ground that his wife was diagnosed with brain hemorrhage, requiring his personal care and support for at least one month – Trial Court, though acknowledging the medical reason in paragraph No. 3 of its order, rejected Applications at Exhibits-281 and 283 citing the imperative of disposing of old cases in terms of directions issued in District Court's Inspection Note of 2024–2025 – Held: "When a legitimate request of such a nature appears to be a genuine request on the face of record, there should be no reason as to why the learned Trial Court should not consider it" – The medical ground, duly substantiated by documentary evidence, warranted a more considered appreciation by the Trial Court [Paras 3, 8, 12].

Preponing of Final Hearing and Its Consequences – Trial Court's Discretion to Pre-pone Must Factor Unforeseen Personal Exigency of Advocate Conducting Matter Throughout – Final hearing was originally fixed for 04.04.2026 but was pre-poned to 21.02.2026 by the Trial Court in view of observations in paragraph No. 2 of the impugned order and directions in the District Court Inspection Note – The Defendants' Advocate had conducted the matter all throughout the trial, and witness examination had been fully completed, with only final arguments remaining – Court held that preponing the hearing in such circumstances, without adequately weighing the Advocate's personal emergency, compounded the ignominy of the Defendants who would have been forced to engage a new Advocate at the eleventh hour [Paras 4, 5, 6, 8].

Forthrightness of Counsel and Undertaking to Make Alternate Arrangements – Counsel for Appellants undertook that if the same Advocate remains unable to appear on 04.04.2026 due to further medical exigency, the Defendants will ensure adequate alternate arrangements – Court noted that "the forthrightness with which Ms. Musale has made the application impels" it to allow the Appeal – No notice or interim relief was required to be issued separately as the Trial Court remained seized of the final hearing [Paras 12, 13].

Decision: Appeal from Order and Interim Application disposed of – Impugned order dated 17.02.2026 passed below Exhibits-281 and 283 modified to the extent that the Suit shall be heard for final arguments on 04.04.2026 instead of 21.02.2026 – Rest of the Trial Court's order remains unchanged – Order passed without expressing any opinion on the merits of the Suit [Paras 14, 15, 16].

Protection of Young Woman – Custody Restoration – Court’s Preventive Intervention – Petitioner No.1, a 19-year-old girl, produced before Court from Open Shelter for Girls, Srinagar – Court observed that timely judicial vigilance prevented the life of the young girl from going astray – Custody restored to her mother with directions to police to ensure safe return to native place and verification of travel details [Paras 1, 12–13].

Judicial Oversight – Possible Exploitation of Young Girls – Alleged Nikahnama and Role of Religious Preacher – Court expressed concern over alleged involvement of self-proclaimed peers/tantriks and religious intermediaries in luring vulnerable girls – Held: Matter has wider societal implications involving safety and security of young and gullible girls, particularly in rural areas, requiring deeper judicial scrutiny [Paras 6, 8].

Writ Jurisdiction – Continuation of Proceedings Suo Motu – Court declined to treat the matter as a routine custody restoration case – Proceedings directed to continue suo motu to examine larger issues including conduct of individuals involved and systemic concerns relating to protection of vulnerable girls [Paras 6–7].

Role of Advocate – Judicial Scrutiny – Court directed issuance of notice to Advocate who filed the petition, requiring his personal appearance – Court warned that coercive measures may be taken if he evades service of notice [Paras 17–19].

Appointment of Amicus Curiae – Protection of Vulnerable Women – Advocate appointed as amicus curiae to assist Court in examining broader issues related to safety, security, and exploitation of young girls – Social worker requested to assist amicus in the proceedings [Paras 14–16].

Protective Directions – Counselling and Police Protection – Court directed psychological counselling through One Stop Centre authorities and ordered SSP to ensure safety of the petitioner and her mother from any harm or intimidation by the other petitioner or his associates [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Custody of petitioner restored to her mother – Amicus curiae appointed – Notice issued to concerned advocate – Authorities directed to provide counselling and protection – Matter to continue for further consideration.

Income Tax – Survey under Section 133A – Voluntary Disclosure – Additional Income of Rs.1,14,20,100/- offered by letter dated 29.09.2016 pursuant to survey dated 27.09.2016 – Income declared in return filed on 20.11.2017 and tax paid – No retraction of disclosure nor revision under Section 139(5) – For first time before Tribunal, assessee contended income was non-existent and admitted under coercion – Held: Such plea involves mixed question of fact and law and cannot be entertained without foundational facts – Tribunal justified in rejecting contention – No substantial question of law arises [Paras 7–11, 13–17, 20].

Income Tax – Powers of Tribunal – Additional Grounds – Reliance on National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. – Tribunal empowered to entertain new grounds if pure question of law arising from facts on record – However, where assessee had not raised plea before Assessing Officer or CIT(A) and no factual foundation exists, Tribunal not bound to adjudicate – Discretion properly exercised [Paras 9–11].

Income Tax – Admission in Return – Binding Nature – Assessee consciously declared additional income in return nearly 14 months after survey – Contention of continuing coercion untenable – Statutory remedy of revised return not availed – Admission not retracted at any stage – Sanctity and finality attached to return of income cannot be undermined [Paras 12–16, 18].

Income Tax – Section 115BBE – Challenge before CIT(A) confined only to rate of tax at 60% – Assessee sought taxation at normal rate and never disputed taxability per se – Conduct demonstrates acceptance of taxability – Subsequent challenge impermissible [Paras 14, 18].

Income Tax – Burden of Proof – Admitted Income – Once income voluntarily declared in return, it is not for Assessing Officer to establish evidentiary basis – Self-assessment cannot be disowned without availing statutory mechanism – Findings of Tribunal are findings of fact and not shown to be perverse [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – No substantial question of law – Order of Tribunal upheld.

Senior Citizens Act – Scope and Ambit of Section 23 – "Transferee" vs. "Children/Relative" – Property Registered in Name of Wife Not Covered – Senior citizen-Petitioner sought transfer and injunction in respect of two flats standing in the registered name of Respondent No. 3 (wife), alleging that the purchase consideration was paid by him – Tribunals below held that the reliefs sought were beyond the purview of the Senior Citizens Act – Court examined Section 23, which provides that where a senior citizen transfers property subject to the condition that the transferee shall provide basic amenities and physical needs, and the transferee defaults, such transfer may be declared void by the Tribunal – Held: "The sine qua non for invocation of Section 23 of Senior Citizens Act is that the ownership property of a senior citizen has been transferred, in any manner whatsoever, subject to the condition of providing basic amenities and physical needs" – Since the registered documents stood in the name of Respondent No. 3, and no transfer by the Petitioner was established, Section 23 was inapplicable [Paras 14, 15, 22].

Maintenance Under Senior Citizens Act – Wife Not a "Relative" Within Section 2(g) – No Claim for Maintenance Pressed – Section 4 read with Section 2(g) of the Senior Citizens Act entitles a senior citizen to claim maintenance from children or relatives, where "relative" is defined as a legal heir of a childless senior citizen in possession of, or set to inherit, his property – Petitioner had children and therefore his wife, Respondent No. 3, did not fall within the definition of "relative" under Section 2(g) – Further, no claim for maintenance was pressed before the Tribunal or before the High Court – Held: The statutory scheme for maintenance operates within defined categories and the wife cannot be impleaded for maintenance in a case where the senior citizen is not childless [Para 13].

Property Dispute Disguised as Senior Citizens Act Claim – Appropriate Forum is Civil Court – Petitioner's Remedy Lies in Declaration of Title, Not Before Senior Citizens Tribunal – The Petitioner's claim was premised on the assertion that the purchase consideration for the two properties was paid by him, though registered in the name of Respondent No. 3 – Court held that "the Petitioner's claim for ownership right in the properties is premised on the ground that the consideration in respect of the said two premises was paid by him, in which case the remedy of the Petitioner is to approach the Civil Court for seeking declaration of his right, title, and interest in these properties" – Relief of injunction would entail an inquiry into ownership rights, which is entirely outside the purview of the Senior Citizens Act [Paras 15, 16].

Overriding Effect of Section 3 – Misplaced Reliance in Absence of Conflict With Other Enactment – Petitioner invoked Section 3 of the Senior Citizens Act, which grants overriding effect to the Act in cases of conflict with other enactments – Court held that Section 3 is attracted only when a conflict between the Senior Citizens Act and another enactment is demonstrated – In the present case, no such conflict was shown, rendering reliance on Section 3 entirely misplaced [Para 17].

Referred Cases Distinguished – Nayana Sudhir Shah, Ramkrishna Pandey, Sri Venkataiah and Urmila Dixit – None Applied to Present Facts – In Nayana Sudhir Shah & Ors. vs. Sudhir Premji Shah & Ors., the subject properties were self-acquired properties of the senior citizen himself, factually distinct from the present case where the registered title stood in the wife's name – In Ramkrishna Pandey vs. State of Chhattisgarh, a Gift Deed executed in favour of a nephew was challenged under Section 23, constituting a direct transfer by the senior citizen – In Sri Venkataiah vs. State of Karnataka, the Petitioner was the absolute owner of agricultural land and challenged a Gift Deed procured by his daughters after false assurances – In Urmila Dixit vs. Sunil Sharan Dixit & Ors., the Supreme Court upheld the Tribunal's power to order eviction where property was gifted by a senior citizen to her son under a condition of maintenance that was breached – Held: All four decisions are clearly distinguishable on facts as none involved a situation where the property was not originally owned or transferred by the senior citizen but was purchased in the name of the respondent [Paras 18, 19, 20, 21].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – No interference warranted under Article 227 of the Constitution of India – Impugned order of the Appellate Authority confirmed – Rule discharged – Petitioner directed to approach the Civil Court for declaration of ownership rights, if so advised [Para 23].

Banking Law – MSME Borrower – Pre-Payment Charges – Contractual Stipulation vs. MSME Code – MSME borrower challenged levy of pre-payment charges by bank upon premature closure of loan – Bank levied charges pursuant to Clause 5(ii) of hypothecation agreement and sanction letter providing 2% pre-payment charges in case of takeover by another bank – Held: Clause 5.3(H) of Code of Banks’ Commitment permits prepayment without penalty only where loan is repaid from borrower’s own sources – Code does not prohibit levy of pre-payment charges where loan is taken over by another bank – Contractual clause valid and enforceable [Paras 8–9.2, 12].

Commercial Contracts – Sanctity of Contract – Binding Nature of Loan Agreement – Once parties voluntarily enter into loan agreement with clear stipulation for pre-payment charges, they are bound by its terms – Courts cannot rewrite commercial contracts on equitable considerations – Borrower estopped from disputing agreed terms after having availed benefits of loan [Paras 10–10.4].

Doctrine of Estoppel – Approbate and Reprobate – Borrower who consciously accepted contractual conditions and acted upon them cannot later challenge pre-payment charges as illegal – Party cannot accept benefits under agreement and subsequently question its obligations – Principle reiterated with reference to Supreme Court precedents [Paras 10.2, 10.5].

MSME Code – Nature and Scope – Code of Banks’ Commitment is a statement of voluntary best practices – Does not override or nullify express contractual terms mutually agreed between parties – Cannot be read so as to supplant binding commercial agreements [Paras 12].

Pre-Payment Charges – Computation – Burden of Proof – Plea that charges were wrongly calculated on entire sanctioned amount rejected – Appellant failed to produce cogent evidence regarding outstanding amount as on date of prepayment – Trial Court justified in rejecting claim for recovery [Paras 11].

RTI Reply – Evidentiary Value – Information supplied under Right to Information Act indicating general position regarding MSMEs does not amount to binding admission overriding contractual terms – Cannot confer substantive rights contrary to agreement [Para 13].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Commercial Matters – Findings of Commercial Court based on correct appreciation of contractual documents and settled legal principles – No perversity or legal infirmity shown – No interference warranted in appeal [Paras 14–15].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 10.05.2023 passed by Commercial Court No.2, Jodhpur affirmed – No order as to costs [Paras 15–18].