Land Acquisition – Lapse under Section 11-A – Delay in Award – No Lapse If Delay Caused by Court Stay – Petitioner claimed acquisition lapsed as award under Section 11 was made more than 11 years after Section 6 declaration – Held: Delay was due to stay orders obtained by adjacent landowners – Exclusion of stay period justified award being within 2-year limitation – Acquisition not deemed lapsed [Paras 13–18, 20]

Subsequent Purchaser – Lack of Locus to Challenge Acquisition – Petitioner acquired property via settlement deed in 2012, long after Section 4 notification (1989), Section 6 declaration (1990), and award (2001) – Court held that petitioner, as subsequent purchaser, could not question validity of completed acquisition [Paras 14–15, 20]

Revenue Records – Patta Mutation – Not Binding on Title – Petitioner relied on patta in her name to assert ownership – Held: Patta mutation behind petitioner’s back had been remitted for reconsideration – But ownership claim could not override completed acquisition process [Para 19]

Common Acquisition Notification – Stay in One Case Binds Others – Relying on Abhey Ram, Om Prakash, and other Supreme Court decisions – Held: Interim stay obtained by some landowners under a common acquisition notification binds authorities from proceeding further, even against other landowners who did not obtain stay – Authorities justified in not passing award during such period [Paras 16–18]

Decision: Writ petition dismissed – No lapse of acquisition proceedings – Petitioner, as post-acquisition title holder, cannot claim title against Housing Board – No costs – Connected writ miscellaneous petitions also closed [Paras 20–21]

Criminal Law – Inherent Powers – Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Quashing of Proceedings – Court empowered to prevent abuse of process and secure ends of justice – Proceedings against petitioner examined at threshold [Paras 1–3, 10–11].

Section 498A IPC – Scope of “Relative of Husband” – Neighbour or Stranger – Petitioner alleged to be neighbour of complainant’s matrimonial home – No blood relation or relation by marriage – Neighbours do not fall within ambit of “relative” under Section 498A – Penal provision to be construed strictly [Paras 8–10].

Matrimonial Disputes – Roping in Third Parties – Allegation of Instigation Alone Insufficient – Mere allegation that neighbour instigated husband does not attract offence under Section 498A IPC – No specific overt acts constituting cruelty alleged against petitioner [Paras 4, 8].

Charge Sheet – Scrutiny of Allegations – Name of Petitioner Absent from Core Allegations – Charge sheet and complaint do not disclose prima facie case against petitioner – Continuation of proceedings would amount to misuse of criminal process [Paras 8–10].

Precedent – Binding Supreme Court Law – Ramesh Kannojiya v. State of Uttarakhand – Neighbours cannot be implicated under Section 498A IPC – Reliance placed on Vijeta Gajra v. State of NCT of Delhi and U. Suvetha v. State – Strict interpretation of “relative” reiterated [Para 9].

Decision – Proceedings Quashed – Criminal Petition Allowed – Entire proceedings in C.C. No. 32092/2021 quashed qua petitioner – Observations confined only to petitioner and not to influence trial against other accused [Paras 10–11].

Civil Law – Withdrawal of Suit – Plaintiff’s Right to Abandon – Dominus Litis – Plaintiffs, having settled with Defendant No. 5, sought to abandon the suit against him and delete Plot No. 73 from the suit – Trial Court rejected the application citing pendency of counter-claim by other defendants – Held: Under Order 23 Rule 1 CPC, plaintiffs have absolute right to unconditionally withdraw suit or part thereof – Court cannot compel plaintiff to continue suit – Rejection of amendment to delete co-defendant and suit plot unsustainable [Paras 14–21, 41].

Civil Procedure – Counter-Claim – Maintainability Against Co-Defendant – Abuse of Process – Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 sought to raise a counter-claim against Defendant No. 5 to recover Rs.1.61 crores under a 2008 agreement – Added declaratory relief against plaintiffs to sustain counter-claim – Held: Under Order 8 Rule 6-A CPC, counter-claim must be against plaintiff – Mere inclusion of a relief against plaintiff is insufficient if it is a subterfuge to target a co-defendant – Counter-claim primarily against D5 not maintainable [Paras 25–40].

Amendment of Pleadings – Amendment to Written Statement with Counter-Claim – Liberal Standards Do Not Apply Where Claim Is Legally Impermissible – Trial Court erred in allowing amendment when main intent was to set up a legally barred counter-claim against co-defendant – Liberal standard for amendment of written statement cannot justify permitting unlawful claims [Paras 23–24].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Common order of Trial Court set aside – Amendment of plaint to delete Defendant No. 5 and suit plot allowed – Amendment of written statement and counter-claim by Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 rejected – Rule made absolute [Para 42].

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Economic Offences – Petitioners sought anticipatory bail in FIR alleging cheating and criminal breach of trust in a housing redevelopment project – Petitioners, allegedly acting in concert, misrepresented ownership and control over two flats and induced complainant to invest Rs.1.91 crores – Despite MoUs and arbitral proceedings, FIR disclosed cognizable offences – Custodial interrogation held necessary in light of allegations of forged representations and financial misappropriation – Bail applications dismissed [Paras 1, 6, 7, 20-24]

Cheating – Misrepresentation of Ownership – Petitioners claimed to represent 11 flats before Arbitrator, though they owned only 9 – Two flats allegedly belonged to complainant, who was not party to arbitral proceedings – Petitioners knew complainant paid Rs.1.91 crores, but falsely recorded Rs. 40 lakhs – Allegations of deliberate misrepresentation found plausible at this stage [Paras 6, 15, 21]

Anticipatory Bail – Custodial Interrogation – Economic Offences – Supreme Court rulings relied upon to highlight seriousness of economic offences – Held: Custodial interrogation of petitioners necessary to trace money trail and examine alleged conspiracy – Protection under anticipatory bail would obstruct further investigation [Paras 22-23]

Civil vs Criminal Dispute – Petitioners argued dispute was civil and settlements were executed – Court held such documents do not negate FIR allegations at this stage – Matter involves serious allegations of inducement, fraud, and misuse of investor funds – Civil proceedings do not preclude parallel criminal liability [Paras 10-11, 21]

Decision: Anticipatory bail applications dismissed – Custodial interrogation held necessary in view of serious economic offences and prima facie material suggesting conspiracy, misrepresentation, and financial misappropriation – Observations in judgment confined to bail issue only [Paras 24-26]

Industrial Disputes Act – Section 17B – Payment of Wages During Pendency of Writ – Respondent workman terminated in 2002 – Labour Court directed reinstatement with 50% back wages – Writ petition filed by employer, stay granted in 2007 – Workman filed application under Section 17B in 2018, claiming unemployment – Employer failed to rebut affidavit denying gainful employment – Held: Workman entitled to last drawn or minimum wages from date of application (07.05.2018) till date of superannuation in 2023 [Paras 1-3, 10-11, 15-19]

Delay – Effect on 17B Relief – Delay of 12 years in filing 17B application explained as due to financial hardship – Court declined retrospective relief but allowed limited relief from date of application till superannuation – No bar on relief under 17B merely on account of delay where unemployment established and not rebutted [Paras 5, 10, 18-19]

Employer's Burden – Rebutting Affidavit of Unemployment – Once workman filed affidavit of unemployment, burden shifted to employer to prove gainful employment – Mere assertions insufficient – No proof adduced by employer – Held: Workman entitled to protection under Section 17B [Paras 12-14, 16]

Scope of Court’s Power under Section 17B – Court must grant interim relief where statutory conditions are satisfied – Merits of main case not relevant at interim stage – Minimum wages can be awarded in place of last drawn wages in appropriate cases [Paras 17-18]

Decision: Application under Section 17B allowed in part – Respondent entitled to last drawn or minimum wages (whichever is higher) from 07.05.2018 till deemed superannuation in 2023 – Arrears to be paid within six weeks – Monthly payment to continue till 2023 as per direction – Writ petition to remain pending [Paras 19-21]

Bail – Spurious Liquor Deaths – Multiple Accused – Differentiated Role – Six bail applications arising out of a single case involving alleged manufacture, supply and sale of spurious liquor leading to death of five persons and hospitalization of several others – FIR disclosed consumption of liquor purchased from petitioners and co-accused – Charge-sheet filed for serious offences under BNS and Odisha Excise Act – Held: Gravity of offence, societal impact, and prima facie material disentitle main accused from bail [Paras 1–4, 6–8].

Bail Jurisprudence – Scope of Judicial Discretion – Parameters – Court reiterated settled principles governing grant of bail – Discretion to be exercised judiciously and not mechanically – Reliance placed on Prasanta Kumar Sarkar v. Ashis Chatterjee and Jagjeet Singh v. Ashish Mishra – Factors such as prima facie case, gravity of offence, antecedents, and likelihood of influencing trial emphasized – Detailed evaluation of evidence at bail stage held impermissible [Paras 5–6].

Medical and Forensic Evidence – Limited Scrutiny at Bail Stage – Petitioners relied on CFSL viscera reports indicating absence of poison in deceased – Prosecution relied on CE report showing presence of ammonium nitrate and ammonium sulphate in seized liquor and medical opinion of possible multi-organ failure – Held: Comparative analysis of forensic and medical reports not permissible at bail stage; existence of prima facie material sufficient [Para 7].

Criminal Antecedents and Role of Accused – Relevance – Several petitioners found to have prior antecedents relating to illicit liquor – Allegations of manufacture, supply and sale of unauthorized liquor without licence – Recovery of liquor and urea from houses of co-accused – Bail declined considering active role and antecedents [Paras 7–9].

Village Headman – Absence of Direct Role – Bail Granted – Petitioner Balaram Bisoyi alleged only to have assisted co-accused in sale of liquor as village headman – No direct allegation of selling liquor or supplying spurious liquor – No criminal antecedents – Manner of assistance not clearly spelt out – Held: Case distinguishable; bail granted with conditions [Paras 8–10].

Decision – Bail granted to petitioner Balaram Bisoyi in BLAPL No. 3948 of 2025 subject to conditions – Bail applications of all other petitioners rejected – Applications disposed of accordingly [Paras 9–11].

Service Law – Compassionate Appointment – Pre-2015 Claims – Petitioner sought voluntary retirement on medical grounds in 2013, 14 years before superannuation, and applied for compassionate appointment of his physically disabled son – Claim rejected in 2017 on grounds that 2015 scheme was inapplicable to cases before 05.08.2014 and that no medical incapacitation certificate was submitted – Held: Petitioner’s application dated 09.04.2014 fell within Clause 24 of 2015 Scheme and had to be considered under Circulars of 2005 and 2007 – Circular dated 24.09.2007 provided for ex gratia payment in lieu of compassionate appointment for employees retiring before age 55 due to incapacitation – Bank erred in insisting on certification by medical board where scheme did not so require [Paras 4, 24–34, 36–37]

Ex Gratia Compensation – Eligibility under 2007 Circular – Employee voluntarily retired before 55 due to incapacitation and made timely application – Circular B(iii) of 24.09.2007 provides entitlement to ex gratia payment without need for medical board certification – Bank’s denial based on technicalities rejected – Petitioner's medical retirement accepted without objections, indicating implied recognition of incapacitation – Rejection of benefit arbitrary and unsustainable [Paras 25–33]

Policy Interpretation – Clause 24 of 2015 Scheme – Applications pending as on 04.08.2014 or made before that date must be dealt with under earlier circulars – Bank’s failure to apply Clause 24 and denial of relief under 2007 Circular was unjustified – Bank directed to process ex gratia compensation within 12 weeks [Paras 26, 36–38]

Compassionate Appointment – Financial Hardship – Bank’s argument that petitioner was receiving pension and retiral benefits not relevant – Held: Financial need not sole determinant – Purpose of compassionate appointment includes broader social obligation – Case law in Canara Bank v. M. Mahesh Kumar and Malaya Nanda Sethy applied [Paras 12–13, 35]

Decision: Writ Petition allowed – Impugned communication dated 16.01.2017 set aside – Respondent Bank directed to consider petitioner’s application for appointment of son on compassionate grounds and grant ex gratia compensation under Clause B(iii) of Circular dated 24.09.2007 – Payment to be processed within 12 weeks [Para 38]

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Allegation Not Substantiated – Appellant-husband sought dissolution of marriage under Section 27(1)(d) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 alleging mental and physical cruelty – Evidence adduced by appellant found to be inconsistent, contradictory, and lacking corroboration – No documentary proof produced to support allegations of cruelty – Trial court rightly found allegations to be general and unsubstantiated – Decree of divorce rightly denied [Paras 26, 45–52, 53]

Appellate Review – Standard of Perversity – Findings of Family Court Held Not Perverse – High Court held that judgment of the Family Court was based on appreciation of pleadings and evidence – No material ignored nor any irrelevant material considered – Judgment did not suffer from perversity or arbitrariness as defined by the Supreme Court in Arulvelu v. State – Appeal dismissed [Paras 28–30, 55–57]

Cruelty – Definition and Scope – Legal Test for Matrimonial Cruelty – Reiterated that cruelty must be grave, weighty and more than ordinary wear and tear of married life – Allegations must be specific and substantiated – Mere temperamental incompatibility or trivial disputes do not amount to cruelty – Principles from Dastane v. Dastane, Shobha Rani, Bhagat v. Bhagat and Joydeep Majumdar discussed and applied [Paras 33–42]

Evidence – Contradictory Statements – Husband’s Chief and Cross-Examination Contradicted – Appellant’s own testimony inconsistent regarding period of alleged cruelty and cohabitation – Testimony of witnesses (including mother and neighbours) found contradictory and tutored – Documentary evidence (photographs, police complaints) filed by respondent-wife supported her case [Paras 44–54]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Decree passed by Family Court upheld – No perversity or legal error found – No interference warranted [Paras 58–59]

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty and Desertion – Husband alleged wife was quarrelsome, threatened to poison his blind parents, took his ATM card and money, and deserted him – Evidence led by husband found to be uncorroborated and lacking documentary support – In contrast, wife produced uncontroverted oral and documentary evidence including cybercrime and police complaints against the husband for uploading semi-nude images, digital abuse, and dowry-related harassment – Held: Cruelty not established by husband – Instead, cruelty by husband proved based on wife’s credible evidence [Paras 20, 40-44]

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Allegation by husband that wife deserted him since 19.05.2020 – Wife demonstrated she left due to cruelty, threats, and unsafe environment – Evidence showed she was compelled to leave due to abuse – Held: No voluntary or unjustified desertion by wife – Desertion not proved – Section 23(1)(a) of Hindu Marriage Act applied – Husband cannot take benefit of his own wrongdoing [Paras 33-37, 45-49]

Family Law – Perversity of Judgment – Husband claimed judgment of Family Court was perverse – High Court held trial court considered evidence thoroughly including respondent's uncontroverted witnesses and criminal proceedings substantiating her case – Held: No perversity or legal error – Family Court’s findings well-supported – Appeal dismissed [Paras 21-22, 51-52]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Divorce denied – Judgment of Family Court upheld – No proof of cruelty or desertion by wife – Pending interlocutory applications also disposed of