Constitutional Law – Reservation – State-Specificity – NEET PG Admissions – Out-of-State Reserved Category Candidates – Benefits Confined to State of Origin – Petitioner Federation challenged minutes of meeting dated 18.02.2026 directing that SC/ST/OBC candidates of other States would be treated as General category for State Quota NEET PG counselling and would not receive benefit of reduced qualifying percentile notified by Central Government on 13.01.2026 — Held: Under Articles 341, 342 and 342A of the Constitution, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Socially and Educationally Backward Classes are notified State-specifically and their reservation benefits are confined to the State in relation to which they are notified — reserved category status acquired in one State cannot be claimed in another State — Clause 4 of Rajasthan State Instruction Booklet, which treats reserved category candidates of other States as unreserved, is in consonance with constitutional scheme, Act of 2008 and PGMER 2023 — impugned minutes merely reiterate existing policy and introduce no new condition — writ petition dismissed [Paras 8–9.2, 16–18].

100% Domicile-Based Reservation – Contention Repelled – Impugned decision does not amount to 100% domicile-based reservation as out-of-State reserved category candidates are not rendered ineligible; they may participate against unreserved/General category seats subject to qualifying criteria applicable to General category — restriction is only on extension of reservation benefits notified for reserved categories of Rajasthan to candidates from other States — cases relating to wholesale domicile-based reservation held distinguishable on facts [Paras 10–10.1].

Relaxed Qualifying Percentile – Category-Specific Threshold – Once reserved seats are exhausted and treated as unreserved, candidates seeking admission thereagainst must satisfy General category qualifying criteria — candidates of reserved categories of other States cannot claim admission against unreserved seats by availing relaxed percentile prescribed for reserved categories — such a proposition would conflate distinct eligibility regimes and is impermissible in law [Paras 11–11.2].

Medical Admissions – Seat Utilisation vs. Merit – PG Medical seats are of national importance and should ideally be filled — however, filling seats cannot be achieved by compromising minimum standards of merit or in derogation of constitutional and statutory framework — lowering of qualifying percentile by Central Government has already addressed the concern of vacant seats to a significant extent — candidates not meeting prescribed qualifying criteria cannot be granted admission merely to prevent seats from remaining vacant [Para 12–12.1].

Estoppel – Petitioner Acquiesced to Governing Framework – Clause 4 of the Instruction Booklet was consistently applied throughout all counselling rounds — Petitioner Federation never challenged said Clause at any earlier stage — having acquiesced to governing framework, Petitioner is estopped from challenging the same at the stage of stray vacancy round [Para 13.1].

Negative Equality – Impermissible – Admission granted to one Dr. Divyanshu Chitravanshi purportedly on basis of reserved category NEET score against General category seat pertained to All India Quota and not State Quota — even if deviation occurred in an individual case, courts cannot perpetuate or compound an illegality; principle of negative equality cannot be invoked to claim similar treatment in contravention of governing legal framework [Paras 14–14.1].

Decision: Writ petition dismissed — Impugned decision dated 18.02.2026 upheld — Stay petition and pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law – Attempt to Murder vs. Grievous Hurt – Sections 307 and 325 IPC – Conviction – Accused stabbed complainant PW-1 in the abdomen and PW-2 (son of complainant) on the neck and abdomen with a knife during a sudden quarrel over sprinkling of water – Trial Court convicted accused under Section 325 IPC and not Section 307 IPC on the ground that weapon was not recovered and MLCs did not specify depth of injuries – State filed appeal for conviction under Section 307 IPC and enhancement of sentence – High Court finds no perversity or illegality in Trial Court's appreciation of evidence – Held: Non-recovery of weapon and absence of medical opinion on depth of injuries, coupled with the fact that the act was not premeditated but arose from a sudden quarrel, disentitle the prosecution from establishing the intent requisite under Section 307 IPC – Conviction under Section 325 IPC maintained – State's appeal dismissed [Paras 22–32].

Section 307 IPC – Ingredients – Intention – Non-Recovery of Weapon – To sustain conviction under Section 307 IPC it must be shown that the act was done with such intention or knowledge as would have made it amount to murder had death ensued – Where the incident arose not from premeditation but from sudden provocation over a trivial issue, and medical evidence does not establish depth of stab injuries or sufficiency to cause death in the ordinary course, the requisite intent for Section 307 IPC is not made out – Non-recovery of the weapon assumes significance in such cases where the weapon constitutes the core of the prosecution story [Paras 30–32].

Quashing – Post-Conviction Compromise – Section 528 BNSS – Non-Compoundable Offence – Inherent Powers – High Court's power under Section 528 BNSS is not curtailed by the non-compoundable nature of an offence – Where parties have amicably settled their disputes of their own free volition, and the offence is non-heinous and predominantly of a private nature, the High Court may quash proceedings including post-conviction, keeping in view the nature and circumstances of the offence, the manner of settlement, and the conduct of the accused – Ends of justice do not invariably require incarceration and the Court may adopt a pragmatic approach – Accused being first-time offender, sole earning member, having shown good conduct, and the dispute arising from a trivial matter between neighbours are relevant considerations [Paras 35–40].

Sentence – Probation – Post-Conviction Settlement – Belated Compromise – While compromise arrived at after conviction warrants caution, the Court may release accused on probation where the offence is non-heinous, not premeditated, and arose from a sudden quarrel – Accused to be placed on probation of good conduct for one year upon furnishing personal bond – Accused directed to deposit cost of Rs. 50,000/- with Army Central Welfare Fund as a condition of settlement given the belated stage at which compromise was arrived at [Paras 38–41].

Decision: CRL.A. 442/2023 filed by the State dismissed – Conviction of accused under Section 325 IPC maintained – Accused released on probation of good conduct for one year upon furnishing personal bond of Rs. 10,000/- with surety – Accused directed to deposit cost of Rs. 50,000/- with Army Central Welfare Fund within four weeks – CRL.A. 255/2021 and CRL.M.C. 1952/2025 disposed of accordingly.

Ferry Ghat – Transfer During Pendency of Writ Petition – Circumvention of Court Proceedings – Zilla Parishad transferred Ramchandrakhali ferry ghat to the Panchayat Samity by resolution dated 12.03.2025, after receipt of notice of the writ petition served on 06.01.2025 – Transfer effected despite pendency of proceedings amounts to defiance of court and an attempt to overreach the Court – Transfer held devoid of legal sanction – All subsequent acts including lease granted to added respondent declared illegal – Zilla Parishad directed to take back the ferry ghat within two weeks and float fresh tender within one week thereafter under the Jaladhara scheme notification dated 28.01.2020 [Paras 7, 9, 10].

Ferry Ghat – Classification as "Small" – Revenue Loss – Lease Amount – The Zilla Parishad sought to justify transfer on the ground that Ramchandrakhali was a small ferry ghat – Held: Classification unsustainable as the ferry ghat carries a lease amount of Rs. 17,96,850/- compared to Rs. 72,000/- for Chandipur Masjidbati ferry ghat – Panchayat Samity leased out the ghat at a much lower rent than could have been fetched by the Zilla Parishad, resulting in revenue loss to the State exchequer – Ferry ghat similarly placed with the other three ghats reverted to the Zilla Parishad; pendency of writ petition cannot be a ground to distinguish it [Paras 2, 9].

Writ Jurisdiction – Acts in Defiance of Court – Principle Against Overreaching – Where a respondent, upon receiving notice of court proceedings, hurriedly effects a transfer with a view to circumventing the impending order or to steal a march over the opponent, such act is liable to be set aside – Reliance placed on Ranjit Kumar Halder v. State of West Bengal (CPAN 1424 of 2003 in WPST No. 612 of 2003) and Daniel v. Ferguson, (1891) 2 Chancery Division 27 – Held: Transfer of ferry ghat after notice of writ petition falls squarely within this principle [Paras 8, 9].

Decision: Writ Petition disposed of – Transfer of Ramchandrakhali ferry ghat to Panchayat Samity set aside – Zilla Parishad directed to take back the ferry ghat within two weeks and float fresh tender within one week thereafter – Added respondent permitted to participate in fresh tender and to take necessary steps in accordance with law if aggrieved by acts of Panchayat Samity – Added respondent to continue operating the ferry ghat until fresh tender notice is floated – No order as to costs.

Co-operative Milk Union – Government Land – Lease – Resumption – Validity of G.O. – Petitioner/E.R.C.M.P. Union challenged Ext.P15 G.O. dated 11.06.2025 bifurcating two acres of puramboke land, limiting 70 cents to the petitioner and allotting 130 cents to the 6th respondent/K.L.D. Board for a Central Government scheme – Petitioner contended that a 99-year lease was subsisting and could not be unilaterally resumed – Government contended that no formal lease deed existed and the Munnar chilling plant was never transferred to the 4th respondent/K.C.M.M.F – Held: Lease in favour of K.C.M.M.F. established through Government decisions and orders despite absence of formal deed – Munnar chilling plant included in the transfer – Government power to resume under Rule 15(4) of Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 lawfully exercised – Sufficient notice given – Writ Petition dismissed [Paras 2, 9, 14, 19, 21].

Lease – Creation Without Formal Deed – Co-operative Entities – Government Decisions – Cabinet Resolution – Petitioner Union claimed benefit of 99-year lease granted in favour of 4th respondent/K.C.M.M.F. vide Ext.P3 G.O. dated 24.06.1985 – Government disputed existence of concluded lease in absence of formal lease deed – Held: A narration of chronological events from 1969 through Cabinet Notes (Ext.P19), G.O.s (Exts. R3(d), P3, P5, P5(a)) and valuation reports clearly establishes lease in favour of K.C.M.M.F. – Absence of formal lease deed cannot, by itself, lead to conclusion that no lease was created – Petitioner Union, acting under the Federation, is entitled to claim the benefit of such lease [Para 9].

Transfer of Munnar Chilling Plant – Whether Excluded From Lease – G.O. Interpretation – Respondents relied on clause 5.0 of Ext.R6(j) G.O. dated 07.11.1998 to contend that the Munnar chilling plant does not find mention therein and was therefore never transferred to K.C.M.M.F – Held: Ext.R6(j), issued to effect financial re-adjustments and share arrangements, cannot nullify transactions already completed – Specific reference to the Munnar chilling plant in Ext.R6(e) G.O. and earlier instruments establishes its inclusion in the transfer – Non-mention in clause 5.0 of Ext.R6(j) cannot be given extra significance against the weight of other G.O.s – If Government intended to exclude the Munnar plant from transfer, it ought to have expressly stated so and resumed possession in a manner known to law [Paras 12–14].

Government Power – Resumption of Leased Land – Rule 15(4), Kerala Land Assignment Rules, 1964 – Government lease of puramboke land governed by the Kerala Government Land Assignment Act, 1960 and Rules framed thereunder – Rule 15(4) empowers the competent authority to terminate a lease after 60 days' written notice to the assignee, if land is required for Government or public purposes – Impugned Ext.P15 resumed 130 cents out of the leased 2 acres for use by the K.L.D. Board in connection with a Central Government scheme, which constitutes a public purpose – Held: Action of the Government is traceable to Rule 15(4) and legally sustainable [Paras 16–19].

Notice – Substantial Compliance – 60 Days' Notice – Rule 15(4) – Petitioner Union contended that mandatory 60 days' notice under Rule 15(4) was not given before issuance of Ext.P15 – Held: A series of meetings commencing from 01.02.2024, committee inspections, deliberations by Secretaries, and multiple opportunities to produce title documents afforded sufficient notice to the petitioner Union – The purpose of the notice requirement is to enable the lessee to relocate; since 70 cents were retained by the petitioner for its continued operations, no question of relocation arose – Doctrine of substantial compliance applies – No violation of notice requirement [Paras 20–21].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed.

Land Acquisition – Amendment of Appeal – Enhancement of Compensation – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Appellant's land acquired under notifications dated 13.02.2004 under Sections 4, 6 and 17(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Land Acquisition Collector fixed market value at Rs. 19,660/- per sq. m. – Reference Court enhanced compensation to Rs. 29,956.48 per sq. m. in one case and Rs. 26,896.62 per sq. m. in another – Appellant filed Appeals in 2009 restricting claim to Rs. 40,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- per sq. m. respectively due to financial constraints – Subsequent coordinate bench judgments dated 29.10.2024 in M/s Anant Raj Projects Ltd. v. Union of India & Anr. fixed market value at Rs. 1,30,000/- per sq. m. for similarly situated adjacent lands acquired under the same notification – Appellant sought amendment to enhance claim to Rs. 1,30,000/- per sq. m. – Held: Amendment allowed subject to condition that Appellant shall not be entitled to interest on enhanced amount for the period from filing of Appeals till filing of Applications [Paras 1–44].

Amendment of Pleadings – Order VI Rule 17 CPC – Scope and Principles – Amendment of pleadings may be allowed at any stage of proceedings – Two essential conditions for grant of amendment are: (i) it must not work injustice to the other side, and (ii) it must be necessary for determining the real question in controversy – Court should adopt a liberal approach – Amendment should be refused only where the other party cannot be placed in the same position as if the pleading had been originally correct and the amendment would cause irrecompensable injury – Court must avoid hyper-technical approach and amendments should ordinarily be allowed especially when opposite party can be compensated by costs [Paras 19–25].

Land Acquisition – Nature of Amendment – Change of Claim Amount – Amendment confined to enhancement of quantum of compensation does not alter the nature or character of proceedings – Where foundational facts, identity of acquired land, and cause of action remain unchanged, and amendment does not introduce new factual foundation or require additional evidence, the amendment merely enlarges the relief within the same cause of action already pleaded and is permissible under Order VI Rule 17 CPC [Paras 26–28, 32].

Delay in Seeking Amendment – Balance of Equities – Interest – While Order VI Rule 17 prescribes no time limit for seeking amendment, delay by the Appellant in filing applications after a considerable lapse of time cannot be ignored – Balance of justice met by allowing amendment while protecting Respondents against financial prejudice arising from delay – Held: Appellant entitled to seek amendment to claim just compensation but shall not be entitled to interest on the enhanced amount for the period of delay attributable to the late filing of Applications [Paras 33–41].

Sections 148 and 149 CPC – Inapplicability – Respondent's reliance on Sections 148 and 149 CPC and the judgment in Manoharan v. Sivarajan & Ors. held misconceived – The controversy herein does not pertain to enlargement of time for any procedural act nor to deficiency of court fees – Said provisions and the ratio of the cited judgment have no application to the facts of the present Applications [Paras 29–31].

Decision: Applications under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151 CPC allowed – Appellant permitted to amend claim amounts in LA.APP. No. 450/2009 and LA.APP. No. 515/2009 to Rs. 1,30,000/- per sq. m. – Appellant shall not be entitled to interest on enhanced amount from date of filing of Appeals till date of filing of Applications – Additional court fee and amendments to be deposited/carried out within six weeks – No order as to costs.

Intellectual Property – Trade Mark – Interim Injunction – Infringement and Passing Off – 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' Mark – Two cross-suits filed between Ashiana Ispat Limited (AIL) and Kamdhenu Limited (KL) concerning the mark 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' (Impugned Mark) – AIL claims ownership by virtue of 2002 Agreement and long user since 2002 and seeks injunction against KL for passing off – KL, registered proprietor of 'KAMDHENU', 'KAMDHENU GOLD' and 'KAMDHENU GOLD TMT', claims infringement and passing off by AIL – Court finds AIL has not established prima facie case of prior user or independent goodwill – KL establishes prima facie case for infringement and passing off – Held: Interim injunction granted in favour of KL; AIL's application for interim injunction dismissed [Paras 36–59].

Trade Mark – Assignment vs. Licence – 2002 Agreement – Nature and Effect – AIL claimed the 2002 Agreement constituted a trade mark assignment under which KL unequivocally relinquished rights over the Impugned Mark and recognised AIL as absolute owner – Held: Assignment is a permanent transfer of proprietary rights whereas a licence is a permitted use without transfer of ownership – A plain reading of Clauses 5, 22–26 of the 2002 Agreement indicates that the parties operated within a licensor-licensee framework – Clause 24 expressly made AIL's ownership contingent upon final registration of the Impugned Mark – No registration ever obtained by AIL – Pervasive control retained by KL including termination rights confirms the arrangement was in substance and effect a licence user arrangement and not an assignment [Paras 20–29].

Trade Mark – Permitted Use – Section 48(2) of Trade Marks Act – Goodwill – Use of a trade mark by a licensee is deemed to be use by the proprietor for all purposes under the Trade Marks Act – AIL's advertisements during subsistence of 2002 Agreement constituted permitted use and any goodwill generated thereby enured to the benefit of KL as licensor – AIL's invoices from 1997 to 2024 did not bear the Impugned Mark but bore marks of KL – AIL therefore failed to establish independent prior user and goodwill in the Impugned Mark [Paras 38–44].

Contract – Novation – Section 62 of Contract Act – 2021 Agreement – Novation of 2002 Agreement – Recital E of 2021 Agreement expressly took note of 2002 Agreement and recorded that the product CTD bars/Tor Steel covered by 2002 Agreement had become obsolete and that AIL wished to continue the arrangement for manufacture of next-generation TMT bars under the Mark 'KAMDHENU NXT' – Mutual intention of parties to substitute 2002 Agreement with a new arrangement discernible from the terms and commercial context of 2021 Agreement – Held: Prima facie 2021 Agreement constitutes a novation of the 2002 Agreement [Paras 30–35].

Maintainability – Specific Performance – Declaratory Relief – Termination of Agreement – AIL filed suit for specific performance of 2002 Agreement disputing both novation and applicability of termination letter dated 19.09.2024 to 2002 Agreement – Where a party disputes that a contract has been terminated, unilateral termination may constitute repudiatory breach entitling the aggrieved party to treat the contract as continuing and seek specific performance without first obtaining declaratory relief – Distinction drawn from I.S. Sikandar (supra) where termination was undisputed – Maintainability objection kept open for determination on merits [Paras 7–14].

Family Arrangement – Licensor-Licensee – Estoppel – AIL's claim of joint family management and joint development of 'KAMDHENU' Mark rejected – All three agreements between AIL and KL expressly stated the parties were unrelated, distinct and separate entities operating on a purely commercial and contractual basis – All rights in trade marks and goodwill vest in corporate entities and not individual directors or families – Claims based on family arrangement do not impact legal rights between unaffiliated commercial entities – AIL as licensee/ex-licensee estopped from challenging KL's proprietary rights in KAMDHENU Mark and its formatives [Paras 17–19, 44].

Interim Injunction – Balance of Convenience – Irreparable Harm – Products at issue are reinforcement steel bars used in transportation and infrastructure projects where safety and structural integrity are critical – Any defect in goods bearing the Impugned Mark likely to be associated with KL thereby damaging KL's reputation and goodwill – Such harm cannot be adequately compensated in monetary terms – Balance of convenience favours KL as registered proprietor of 'KAMDHENU', 'KAMDHENU GOLD' and 'KAMDHENU GOLD TMT' – Held: Defendants in KL Suit restrained from manufacturing, marketing, selling or dealing in products bearing the Impugned Mark or any deceptively similar mark incorporating 'KAMDHENU' as an essential feature [Paras 45–57].

Decision: I.A. No. 14115/2025 in CS(COMM) 569/2025 filed by Kamdhenu Limited allowed – Defendants in KL Suit jointly and severally restrained from using the Impugned Mark 'AL KAMDHENU GOLD' or any mark bearing 'KAMDHENU' as an essential feature in relation to steel products – I.A. No. 3990/2025 in CS(COMM) 130/2025 filed by Ashiana Ispat Limited dismissed.

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 163A – Personal Accident Cover – Owner-Insured – Jurisdiction of MACT – Deceased owner of motorcycle died in accident caused by unknown vehicle – Legal heirs filed claim petition under Section 163A before Motor Accidents Claims Tribunal – Tribunal awarded Rs. 15,00,000/- with interest at 7.5% p.a. relying on personal accident package policy – Held: Owner/insured, not being a third party, is not entitled to claim compensation under Section 163A before the MACT relying upon personal accident coverage – Award set aside – Appeal allowed [Paras 6, 9, 10].

Third Party Liability – Owner vs. Third Party – Section 147, Motor Vehicles Act – Scope of Compulsory Insurance – Risk to the owner/insured of the vehicle is not required to be covered under Section 147 of the Motor Vehicles Act – Owner/insured or legal heirs of deceased owner cannot maintain a petition under Section 163A before the MACT for injuries/death relying upon personal accident cover – They may directly approach the insurer under the personal accident cover and in case of failure, approach the Consumer Forum or other appropriate forum [Paras 6, 9, 10].

Conflicting Decisions – Reference to Larger Bench – Supreme Court – Issue of whether legal heirs of vehicle owners who died in accidents can claim compensation under no-fault liability provisions of Section 163A, or whether such claims are limited to third party liability, referred by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) Nos. 15447–48 of 2024 (Wakis Afrin (Minor) v. National Insurance Co. Ltd.) to a larger bench due to conflicting decisions of coordinate benches – High Court held the present case governed by its own earlier binding precedent [Para 9].

Plea of Limited Liability – Stage of Raising – Distinguishing Supreme Court Precedent – In Manjusha v. United India Assurance Co. Ltd. (2025 SCC Online SC 1512), the Supreme Court allowed the claimants' appeal since the plea of limited liability was neither raised before the Tribunal nor in the Memorandum of Appeal – Distinguished: In the present case, the Insurance Company raised the question of limited liability in the Memorandum of Appeal – Hence the said decision held inapplicable [Para 9].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed – No costs – Award dated 04.03.2024 in M.C.O.P. No. 688 of 2021 set aside – Respondents/petitioners at liberty to directly approach insurer under personal accident cover and if not compensated, to approach Consumer Forum or other appropriate forum – Connected miscellaneous petitions closed.

Specific Performance – Sale Agreement – Two Agreements Executed Same Day – Public Policy – Section 23, Indian Contract Act – Plaintiff's assignor and original defendant executed two sale agreements on the same day in respect of 8 acres of land — one registered at a sale price of Rs. 50,000/- per acre and another unregistered at Rs. 2,82,000/- per acre — admitted intention being to evade stamp duty and registration charges — Held: Though the contracts for sale of properties are individually lawful, the object and intention behind executing two such agreements is unlawful as it defeats the provisions of law and causes loss to the exchequer — Both sale agreements held void as against public policy under Section 23 of the Indian Contract Act — Plaintiff not entitled to relief of specific performance of a void contract [Paras 22, 22.1].

Assignment of Contractual Rights – Privity of Contract – Section 15, Specific Relief Act – The original agreement holder Sivaraman assigned his rights and liabilities under both sale agreements to the plaintiff — Neither Ex-A.1 nor Ex-A.2 was in the nature of a personal contract, nor did they contain any clause prohibiting assignment — Terms of both agreements permitted execution of sale deed in favour of Sivaraman or his nominees — Held: Assignment by Sivaraman in favour of plaintiff is valid — Privity of contract exists between plaintiff and original defendant — Assignee entitled to seek specific performance in absence of express or implied prohibition against assignment [Paras 16, 17, 18].

Payment Receipts – Genuineness – Burden of Proof – Defendants alleged that Ex-A.3 and Ex-A.4, receipts for Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 9,00,000/- respectively, were fabricated using blank signed papers obtained by the plaintiff's father in earlier money transactions — Held: Defendants failed to prove the foundational fact of any money transaction between the original defendant and the plaintiff's father — Ex-A.3 and Ex-A.4 bear the original defendant's thumb impression and signature, are duly stamped, and are supported by the evidence of attesting witnesses P.W.1 to P.W.3 — Nothing elicited in cross-examination to discredit their testimony — Payment receipts held genuine and true — Trial Court's contrary finding set aside [Paras 19, 20, 21].

Money Decree – Unjust Enrichment – Void Contract – Though the sale agreements are void on account of unlawful object, the money transactions of Rs. 2,00,000/-, Rs. 6,00,000/- and Rs. 9,00,000/-, totalling Rs. 17,00,000/- paid as part sale consideration are not tainted by illegality — Denial of recovery of the said amount to the plaintiff-assignee would result in unjust enrichment of the defendants — In the interest of justice and equity, money decree granted for Rs. 17,00,000/- with simple interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit till realisation from the properties left behind by the original defendant [Para 24].

Permanent Injunction – Possession – Section 53A, Transfer of Property Act – Plaintiff, even on his own pleadings, did not take possession under any registered document — In evidence, plaintiff admitted that the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties — Plaintiff not in lawful possession — Not entitled to the relief of permanent injunction — Trial Court's denial of injunction affirmed [Para 23].

Decision: Appeal Suit allowed in part — Relief of specific performance and permanent injunction declined — Money decree passed in favour of plaintiff for Rs. 17,00,000/- with simple interest at 6% per annum from date of suit till realisation — No order as to costs in Original Suit or Appeal Suit.

Land Acquisition – Reference Court – Power of Remand – Jurisdiction – Land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Collector awarded compensation of Rs. 1,14,39,264/- vide award dated 13.11.2019 – Reference Court set aside the award and remanded the matter to the Collector for fresh determination under the Act of 2013 – Held: Reference Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appellate court but a court of original jurisdiction – Power of remand is an appellate power which the Reference Court does not possess – Reference Court can only affirm the award or enhance the compensation; it has no jurisdiction to set aside the award and remand the matter – Impugned judgment set aside – Matter restored to Reference Court for fresh decision on merits [Paras 8–14].

Reference under Section 18 – Nature of Proceedings – The reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act is not an appeal against the award of the Collector – It is in the nature of original proceedings wherein the claimant occupies the position of a plaintiff and must establish that the compensation offered is inadequate by producing material evidence – The Reference Court exercises original jurisdiction and not appellate jurisdiction – Power of remand must be expressly found within the statute and no such provision exists either in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Act of 2013 [Paras 8–9, 12].

Act of 2013 – Applicability – Reference Court held that compensation should have been determined under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, which came into force on 01.01.2014 – Even if such view were correct, the Reference Court was bound to itself determine the compensation under the Act of 2013 and could not remand the matter to the Collector – Both respondent's counsel fairly conceded that the Reference Court exceeded its jurisdiction in remanding the matter [Paras 5, 7, 12].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and award dated 25.03.2023 set aside – LAR No. 1 of 2021 restored to its original number before the Reference Court – Reference Court directed to decide the reference on merits within six months from production of certified copy of this order [Paras 14–15].