Limitation – Delay in Filing Appeal – Section 24 of the Abolition of Inams Act, 1955 – Appeals filed after 33 years – Barred by limitation – Appeals against ORCs issued in 1981 and 1991 were filed in 2013 after an abnormal delay of 22 and 33 years – The appellate authority has discretionary power to condone the delay, but the respondents neither filed an application for condonation nor provided a reasonable explanation for the delay – Held: The appeals were barred by limitation, and the orders of the Additional Collector setting aside the ORCs were unsustainable [Paras 14-18].

Fraud – Pleading and Proof – Mere Allegation Insufficient – Burden on the Alleging Party – The respondents contended that the ORCs were obtained fraudulently without notice – However, fraud must be specifically pleaded and proved – No such pleading was made in the appeal, nor was any evidence led to establish fraud – Held: The order setting aside the ORCs based on fraud was erroneous as the respondents failed to prove their claim [Paras 19-22].

Res Judicata – Prior Civil Suit and Appeal – Suppression of Material Facts – The respondents had earlier filed a suit (O.S. No. 34/2004) for declaration and possession, which was dismissed on 31.12.2012 – Thereafter, they challenged the ORCs through appeals in 2013 – Having failed to succeed in the suit, they could not re-agitate the issue before the Revenue Authority – Held: The appeal against the ORCs was an attempt to circumvent the civil court's decision and amounted to an abuse of process [Paras 23-26].

Protected Tenancy – Rights of Legal Heirs – Section 40 of the Tenancy Act – The respondents claimed rights as legal heirs of a protected tenant – However, they failed to prove possession on the date of vesting (01.11.1973), which is a prerequisite for granting ORCs – The petitioners, on the other hand, established continuous possession – Held: The petitioners' ORCs were valid, and the respondents failed to establish any claim over the subject land [Paras 27-30].

Doctrine of Election – Approbate and Reprobate – Withdrawal of Suit and Subsequent Appeal on the Same Grounds Not Permissible – The respondents had withdrawn their suit against the petitioners in 2011, acknowledging the ORCs – Thereafter, they challenged the ORCs in appeal – Held: A party cannot accept a benefit under a proceeding and later challenge the same – The appeal was not maintainable [Paras 31-33].

Judicial Review – Quasi-Judicial Orders – Revenue Authorities Bound by Law of Limitation – The Additional Collector exercised jurisdiction without considering the bar of limitation and without proper appreciation of the facts – Held: The impugned order was liable to be set aside as being perverse and in violation of settled legal principles [Paras 34-36].

Decision: The writ petitions were allowed. The orders of the Additional Collector setting aside the ORCs were quashed. Liberty was granted to the parties to raise their contentions in A.S. No. 7 of 2019 pending before the Senior Civil Judge, Shadnagar.

Bail under NIA Act – Right to Speedy Trial – Petitioners accused of directing preparation of explosive bombs for political purposes—NIA investigation revealed connections with law enforcement and local administration—Court acknowledges serious allegations but emphasizes the right to a speedy trial—Held: Delay in trial cannot justify indefinite detention—Bail granted with stringent conditions to prevent witness intimidation [Paras 9-12].

Influence over Investigation – Risk of Witness Tampering – NIA submitted that petitioners had significant political influence and attempted to mislead the investigation—Protected witnesses disclosed their alleged role in bomb-making—Held: Though allegations are serious, continued detention is unwarranted given the delay in trial—Strict bail conditions imposed to prevent intimidation of witnesses and interference in trial [Paras 4, 12].

Fundamental Rights – Balancing National Security and Liberty – Supreme Court precedents stress that gravity of allegations cannot override Article 21 rights—Court referred to recent decisions holding that prolonged pre-trial detention must be avoided—Held: Petitioners cannot be kept in custody indefinitely, but their movement must be restricted to ensure fair trial [Paras 10-11].

Quashing of Second FIR – Separate Investigation Justified – Wife of deceased accused filed FIR alleging suppression of facts—NIA contended that FIR was not a second FIR but a continuation of investigation—Held: Multiple FIRs permissible when new facts emerge—Reference made to Pradeep Ram v. State of Jharkhand, (2019) 17 SCC 326 [Paras 4, 7].

Conditions for Bail – Preventing Witness Intimidation – Given petitioners' political influence, court imposes stringent bail conditions—Restricted movement, mandatory attendance, monitored communication, and residence away from case jurisdiction—Held: Bail granted, but breach of conditions will lead to automatic cancellation [Paras 12-13].

Decision: Bail granted with stringent conditions – Petitioners to remain within New Town, Rajarhat jurisdiction – Strict monitoring by NIA – Any violation of conditions will result in bail cancellation [Paras 12-13].
 

Constitutional Law – Challenge to Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978 & Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 – Not Considered – The Petitioners initially sought to challenge the constitutional validity of the Constitution (44th Amendment) Act, 1978, and the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984 – However, no substantial arguments were advanced in this regard – Court restricted its analysis to the land acquisition dispute – Held: No findings recorded on constitutional validity due to lack of argumentation [Para 12].

Land Acquisition – Delay in Declaration Under Section 6 – Explanation to Section 6(1) Applies – Declaration Held Valid – The Petitioners contended that the Section 6 declaration made on 22 July 2014 was beyond the one-year period from the last publication of Section 4 notification on 31 May 2013 – The Court held that the statutory explanation to Section 6(1) excluded periods when proceedings were stayed by court orders – Since interim relief had been granted to the Petitioners, the delay was not fatal – Held: Section 6 declaration valid and not lapsed [Paras 28-34].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings Under Section 11-A of the 1894 Act & Section 25 of the 2013 Act – Rejected – Petitioners argued that since the award was made on 16 July 2016, beyond the statutory period, acquisition proceedings lapsed – The Court applied the precedent in Executive Engineer, Gosikhurd Project Ambadi, Bhandara, Maharashtra Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation v. Mahesh and held that delays due to judicial orders were to be excluded – Further, it was held that acquisition proceedings did not lapse under either the Old Act or the New Act – Held: Acquisition proceedings not vitiated by delay [Paras 35-45].

Land Acquisition – Public Purpose – Cooperative Sugar Factory – State’s Funding as Determinative Factor – Petitioners contended that the third Respondent, a cooperative sugar factory, was not a "corporation owned or controlled by the State" under Section 3(cc) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as its government shareholding was below 51% – The Court held that since the acquisition was partly funded by the government, it was deemed for a "public purpose" under Section 6(3) of the Act – Held: Acquisition valid, irrespective of state shareholding in the cooperative society [Paras 51-64].

Judicial Review – Conclusivity of Section 6 Declaration – Limited Scope for Challenge – The Court reiterated that a Section 6 declaration under the Land Acquisition Act is conclusive evidence that land is required for a public purpose – Petitioners failed to challenge the State’s financial contribution to the acquisition, which was a decisive factor – Held: Acquisition upheld as lawful and for a public purpose [Paras 58-60].

Land Acquisition – Procedural Compliance – Government Resolution of 14 June 2001 – Not Binding – Petitioners argued that the Government Resolution (GR) required Section 6 declarations to be made within six months – The Court held that such resolutions are internal guidelines and cannot override statutory provisions – Held: GR not enforceable against statutory timelines [Para 50].

Judicial Precedents – Lapse of Acquisition – Stay Orders & Exclusion of Time – Supreme Court Rulings Followed – The Court applied the principle established in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, (2020) 8 SCC 129, which held that judicial delays must be excluded when calculating statutory limitation periods for acquisition proceedings – Held: No lapse of acquisition under statutory provisions [Paras 41-47].

Decision: The Court held that the land acquisition proceedings did not suffer from any procedural illegality or lapse under the provisions of either the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – The Section 6 declaration was made within the legally permissible period after excluding judicially imposed delays – The acquisition was for a public purpose as it was partly funded by the State, rendering the percentage of government shareholding in the cooperative society irrelevant – No fraud was found in the acquisition process – Petition dismissed – However, interim relief restraining possession was extended for eight weeks to enable the Petitioners to seek further remedy before the Supreme Court [Paras 66-67].
 

Bail under NDPS Act – Commercial Quantity – Conscious Possession – Applicant sought bail in a case involving seizure of 1880 grams of MDMA, well above the commercial quantity threshold of 10 grams – Prosecution established that the applicant inquired about the parcels containing contraband, attempted to collect them while concealing his identity, and fled upon sensing law enforcement presence – Held: Applicant’s conduct indicates knowledge and involvement, satisfying prima facie conscious possession under the NDPS Act [Paras 8-9] – Decision: Bail denied.

*Rigors of Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – In cases involving commercial quantities of narcotics, bail can only be granted if the Court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty of the offence and is unlikely to commit another offence while on bail – Given the weight of the seized contraband and the ongoing investigation into a larger drug trafficking conspiracy, the Court found that the applicant failed to meet the twin conditions under Section 37(1)(b) of the NDPS Act [Paras 10-12] – Decision: Bail application dismissed.

Ongoing Investigation – Risk of Absconding – Co-accused absconding – The applicant’s brother-in-law and driver, key suspects, remain untraceable – CBI argued that releasing the applicant could compromise the investigation into an international drug trafficking syndicate – Held: Given the gravity of the offence and potential risk of absconding or tampering with evidence, bail cannot be granted at this stage [Paras 11-12] – Decision: Bail denied.

Duration of Incarceration – Speedy Trial – Applicant argued for bail on the ground of prolonged custody – Court held that while the right to a speedy trial is fundamental, the ongoing investigation into international drug trafficking justifies continued judicial custody – No indication of undue delay attributable to the prosecution [Paras 13-14] – Decision: Bail denied.
 

Criminal Law – Quashing - Retaliatory FIR – Timing of Complaint – Malicious Prosecution Inferred – The husband filed a suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act on 18/10/2023, and the wife lodged the FIR shortly thereafter on 27/10/2023. No explanation was provided for the delay in filing the complaint, despite her claim of being driven out of the matrimonial home on 21/04/2023. Held, the FIR appears to be a retaliatory measure rather than a genuine grievance [Paras 6-7].

Omnibus Allegations – Lack of Specific Role Attribution – Quashing Justified – The FIR contained general allegations without assigning specific roles to the accused. Statements recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were identical and lacked independent corroboration. The charge sheet also failed to establish the role of each accused, violating the principles laid down in Sharif Ahmed v. State of U.P., 2024 SCC OnLine SC 726. Held, continuation of proceedings would be an abuse of process [Paras 7, 10-11].

Medical Evidence – Contradictions in Injury Report – The private opposite party alleged physical assault by the husband, but her medical report showed no external injuries. Despite this, the injury was classified as "simple" without any basis. Held, such contradictions cast doubt on the veracity of the allegations [Para 8].

Exercise of Inherent Powers – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – The High Court has the authority under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash proceedings where the allegations lack substance, and the prosecution appears to be an abuse of legal process. Held, in the absence of prima facie evidence, allowing the case to continue would be unjustified [Paras 9, 12].

Decision: The criminal revision petitions are allowed. The proceedings in G.R. Case No. 895 of 2023 before the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dantan, Paschim Medinipur, are quashed. The petitioners are set at liberty and discharged from their bail bonds.

Service Law – Judicial Interference in Disciplinary Proceedings – Charge-Sheet Not a Punishment – Writ Petition Dismissed – Petitioner challenged the charge-sheet on the ground that he played no role in preparing the DPR and was relieved before the Revised Technical Sanction was granted – High-Level Inquiry Committee found that the collapse of the bridge was due to faulty DPR that failed to consider the catchment area and flood discharge from Sanjay Sarovar Dam – Petitioner signed and approved the PMGSY check-list, which formed the basis for technical sanction – Held: Courts should not interfere in disciplinary proceedings at the charge-sheet stage unless issued by an incompetent authority or in violation of natural justice – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 15-19].

Service Law – Negligence vs. Misconduct – Departmental Inquiry Necessary – No Interference by Court – Petitioner argued that mere negligence in signing a faulty DPR does not amount to misconduct – High-Level Committee found that the petitioner failed to notice major discrepancies in the DPR, including the omission of a 20 km upstream dam, affecting flood calculations – Held: Whether the petitioner’s role was mere negligence or misconduct is a matter of departmental inquiry – No interference warranted at the pre-mature stage [Paras 14-17].

Service Law – Retirement and Disciplinary Action – Proceedings Can Continue – No Mala Fide Found – Charge-sheet issued three days before the petitioner’s retirement – Petitioner argued mala fide intent to harass – Court held that since the incident occurred during petitioner’s tenure, inquiry was validly instituted – Held: Issuance of charge-sheet before retirement does not automatically establish malice – Writ petition dismissed [Paras 7-11].

Decision: Writ Petition Dismissed – Court declined to interfere in the departmental inquiry, holding that the petitioner’s role in checking the DPR, approving technical details, and signing project documents required proper examination in disciplinary proceedings – No costs imposed [Paras 18-19].

Criminal Law – Murder - Appeal against Conviction - Murder vs. Culpable Homicide – Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC – Grave and Sudden Provocation – The accused, deceased, and their friend had been drinking alcohol throughout the day. The deceased misbehaved with the accused’s wife in the presence of her family members, leading to a confrontation. In the heat of the moment, the accused struck the deceased with firewood. Held, the accused did not have the intention to cause death, and the act was committed under grave and sudden provocation, bringing the case under Exception 1 to Section 300 IPC. The conviction under Section 302 IPC was modified to Section 304 Part II IPC [Paras 21-23].

Intention vs. Knowledge – Application of Section 304 Part II IPC – The accused struck the deceased 2-3 times with firewood, causing fatal head injuries. The prosecution did not establish premeditation or intent to kill. Held, the accused could be imputed with knowledge, not intent, that his act was likely to cause death, warranting punishment under Section 304 Part II IPC instead of Section 302 IPC [Paras 29-33].

Sentence Modification – Reduction from Life Imprisonment to Seven Years – The Sessions Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC. Considering the circumstances of the offence, the High Court reduced the punishment to seven years rigorous imprisonment under Section 304 Part II IPC, along with a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, to be paid to the victim’s wife [Paras 34-35].

Decision: The appeal is partly allowed. The conviction under Section 302 IPC is set aside, and the appellant is convicted under Section 304 Part II IPC. The sentence is modified to seven years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,00,000, failing which he shall undergo an additional six months rigorous imprisonment. The conviction and sentence under Sections 326 and 324 IPC remain unaltered. If the fine is realized, Rs. 1,50,000 shall be given to PW4, the victim’s wife.
 

NDPS Act – Bail – Stringent Conditions under Section 37 – The accused was found in a passenger bus with a carton containing heroin concealed inside an inverter—Held: Under Section 37 of the NDPS Act, bail cannot be granted unless the Court is satisfied that the accused is not guilty and is unlikely to commit any offence while on bail—No prima facie material establishing that the accused had no knowledge or possession of the contraband—Bail denied [Paras 3-4, 9-12].

Conscious Possession – Prima Facie Evidence – Legal Precedents – Petitioner argued that the accused was merely a passenger and had no knowledge of the carton found under his seat—Held: Whether the accused was in conscious possession is a matter of trial—Court relied on Avtar Singh v. State of Punjab and Kishore Bira v. State of Odisha to highlight that passive presence alone does not establish possession—However, at this stage, the burden is on the accused to establish lack of knowledge—Bail cannot be granted on presumptive grounds without trial evidence [Paras 5-6, 10].

Public Interest – Drug Menace – Societal Harm – Court emphasized the severe impact of drug-related offences on youth and society—Held: NDPS offences must be dealt with stringently to deter drug trafficking—Referred to Shri. Khupliansum v. State of Meghalaya and Dataram Singh v. State of U.P. to highlight the need for judicial discretion in bail matters—Court refused to grant bail given the social and legal ramifications of drug crimes [Paras 7-8].

Trial Progress – Swift Disposal – No Unnecessary Delay – Prosecution submitted that only three witnesses remained to be examined—Held: Since trial is at the stage of charge consideration and is likely to be completed expeditiously, granting bail at this juncture is inappropriate—Accused has the right to defend himself during trial [Paras 10-12].

Decision: Bail application dismissed – Court not satisfied that the accused is not guilty – Trial to proceed expeditiously – No costs awarded [Paras 12-13].
 

Service Law – Ad-hoc Appointment – Non-renewal of Contract as Discriminatory Action – The petitioner, who had served as an Assistant Professor (Forensic Science) on a contractual basis for three years, was not granted renewal of her contract, while two similarly placed candidates were retained – Held: Non-renewal of the petitioner’s contract without a formal order while renewing contracts of other similarly placed candidates amounts to discriminatory treatment and prima facie victimization – Interim relief granted directing status quo [Paras 2, 5.1].

Principle of Non-replacement of an Ad-hoc Employee by Another Ad-hoc Employee – The petitioner contended that an ad-hoc employee cannot be replaced by another ad-hoc employee – Held: The university failed to produce any formal order scrapping the recruitment process or justify non-renewal of the petitioner’s contract – Court directed maintenance of status quo concerning petitioner’s employment until further orders [Paras 5.2, 5.2.1].

Ad-Interim Relief – Absence of a Formal Termination Order – The court noted that no formal order was issued terminating the petitioner’s contract or notifying her about non-renewal – Held: In light of precedents and an earlier similar case (Brijeshkumar Sinha v. Vice Chancellor, Rashtriya Raksha University & Ors.), where status quo was granted, the petitioner deserves interim relief – Status quo directed concerning her employment [Paras 5.2.1, 5.3].

Decision: Notice issued, returnable on 11th February 2025. In the meantime, since no formal order was passed regarding the termination or non-renewal of the petitioner’s contract, the respondents are directed to maintain status quo concerning her service conditions, as if the employment contract has not been terminated or put to an end.