Municipal Law – Solid Waste Management – Contract Cancellation – Petitioner No.1, Pollution Control Committee, filed a writ petition to direct the Municipal Corporation for scientific disposal of municipal solid waste and dead animals – Municipal Corporation awarded contract to petitioner No.2 for setting up a solid waste management plant – Lease deed executed but petitioner No.2 failed to obtain necessary clearance from Pollution Control Board – Contract cancelled and lease possession not given – Cancellation challenged on grounds of lack of opportunity for hearing – Held, petitioner No.2 failed to obtain mandatory clearance, rendering the contract cancellation justified – Judicial review of concluded contracts limited unless public law element involved – No merit in challenge to cancellation without possession or proper clearance. [Paras 1-38]

Contractual Obligations – Regulatory Compliance – Analysis – Held – Compliance with Pollution Control Board authorization critical for validity of waste management contracts – Public interest in ensuring environmental safety – Judicial review does not extend to non-statutory contract breaches absent a public law element – Petitioner No.2’s failure to meet basic contractual condition of obtaining clearance justified contract termination – Procedural arguments regarding lack of hearing academic without possession or clearance. [Paras 18, 34, 36]

Decision – Dismissing Writ Petition – Court finds cancellation of contract and lease justified due to non-compliance with regulatory requirements – No merit in procedural arguments – Petition dismissed – Municipal Corporation directed to re-award contract within six months, ensuring compliance with regulatory norms for public safety. [Para 38-39]

Land Acquisition - Determination of Market Value - Appeals - A batch of 226 appeals challenging awards by the Reference Court regarding the market value of land acquired for Jhajjar Thermal Power Plant - Held, Market value must be assessed based on the date of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Policy dated 06.05.2007 of assessing value on the date of the award, not permissible - Court directed to use the date of notification for calculation - Appeals Allowed in Part, market value reassessed accordingly [Paras 2.1, 3.4, 5.21].

Evidence Admissibility - Analysis - Held, Applications to admit additional evidence allowed - High Court as the first appellate court must reappreciate evidence, ensuring the market value reflects the date of notification under Section 4, not the award date - Discrepancies in Reference Court’s reliance on state policy corrected [Para 5.5].

Decision - Reassessment of Compensation - Court mandates reassessment of market value from the date of notification, rejecting the policy-based approach by the Reference Court - Revised compensation to be determined [Para 5.21].

Land Revenue – Correction of Khasra Girdawari during Civil Suit – Legal Prohibition – The revenue authorities allowed the correction of khasra girdawari during the pendency of a civil suit involving the same land, despite the existence of a status-quo order. – Held: Once a civil suit is pending, and a status-quo order is in place, it is inappropriate and contrary to law for the revenue authorities to make corrections in the revenue records. Such entries would have no bearing on the rights adjudicated by the civil court.

Multiple Applications for Correction – Abuse of Process – The respondents filed multiple applications for khasra girdawari correction after earlier applications were rejected or withdrawn. – Held: Repeated attempts by the respondents to alter the khasra girdawari during litigation are impermissible and amount to an abuse of the process of law. The revenue authorities failed to consider the effect of earlier rejections.

Revenue Authorities and Civil Court Jurisdiction – Pendency of Civil Suit – While the revenue authorities have the duty to maintain accurate records under Section 34 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, they must refrain from making changes to khasra girdawari entries when disputes are pending in a civil court, particularly when a status-quo order is in effect. – Held: Revenue authorities cannot pass orders contrary to civil court directions or alter the position reflected in the status-quo order.

Precedents Relied Upon – Reference to Supreme Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court judgments clarified that the pendency of civil proceedings restrains revenue authorities from intervening in matters under adjudication. – Held: The law requires revenue authorities to hold their hands when civil suits are pending, and entries made during such time would be surreptitious and not binding.

Decision: The High Court allowed the writ petition, setting aside the orders of the Financial Commissioner, Commissioner, and Collector. The original order of the Assistant Collector adjourning the application sine die until the resolution of the civil suit was restored.

Criminal Law – Rape of Minor – Conviction under Section 376(2)(f) IPC – Appeal against conviction for raping a 7-year-old girl – Victim's testimony corroborated by medical evidence – Delay in lodging FIR explained due to non-identification of the accused initially – High Court finds testimony of the minor victim credible and consistent with the prosecution’s case – No evidence suggesting false implication – Conviction and 10-year sentence upheld. [Paras 1-26]

Evidence Law – Testimony of Child Witness – Reliability – Victim’s testimony found credible and free from exaggeration – Minor victim’s consistent statements during investigation and trial deemed reliable – High Court emphasizes that child witness testimony should not be rejected unless tutored or unreliable – Court finds no tutoring or unreliability in victim’s statements. [Para 22]

Delay in Lodging FIR – Explanation and Impact – Delay due to victim's inability to initially identify the accused – High Court accepts delay as properly explained – Emphasizes that delay in sexual offence cases can be due to various reasons including family’s hesitation – Delay does not affect credibility of prosecution’s case. [Paras 14, 17]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – High Court upholds trial court’s judgment and sentence – Finds no merit in the appeal – Confirms 10-year rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000 under Section 376(2)(f) IPC – Emphasizes statutory minimum punishment for rape of a girl under 12 years. [Para 26]

Tax Law - Right to Appeal Under Section 39 - State's Right to Appeal – The petitioner challenged the Tribunal's decision dismissing their appeal under Section 39(2) of the Haryana General Sales Tax Act, 1973, as not maintainable and the subsequent review application – Court held that Section 39(2) does not limit the right of appeal to any particular person or party and includes the State – The existence of revisionary powers under Section 40 does not negate the right of appeal under Section 39(2) – Right to appeal under Section 39(7) against orders in revision does not preclude appeals under Section 39(2) – Petition allowed, Tribunal's orders set aside, and appeal restored for merit-based disposal. [Paras 5, 7, 8]

Judicial Principles - Interpretation of Appeal and Revision Provisions – The Tribunal erroneously concluded that the appeal was not maintainable by misinterpreting Sections 39 and 40 – Revisionary powers under Section 40(1) are distinct from the right to appeal under Section 39(2) – The Tribunal failed to recognize the State's right to appeal and misread the legislative scheme of the Act. [Paras 6-7]

Procedural Law - Review and Appeal Mechanisms – The Tribunal's denial of the State's appeal and review application was based on a restrictive interpretation of the Act – Court clarified that the appeal and revision are separate remedies and one does not exclude the other – The legislative intent was to provide a comprehensive appeal mechanism under Section 39. [Paras 6-7]

Decision: Petition allowed – Impugned orders of the Tribunal dated 12.08.2005 and 30.11.2007 set aside – Appeal before the Tribunal restored to file and directed to be disposed of on merits. [Para 8]

Contract Law – Recovery of Amount – Suit for Recovery – Contractor claimed recovery of ₹3,85,371/- comprising security deposit, earnest money, and payment for additional work completed under supplemental agreement – Trial Court decreed the suit – Appellants contended substandard work and deductions due to deficiencies – No evidence produced to prove alleged substandard work – Held: Plaintiff entitled to recovery of the amount as the defendants failed to substantiate their defense with credible evidence [Paras 15–19].

Interest on Recovery – Discretion of Court – Trial Court awarded interest at 12% per annum from date of suit till decree and 6% per annum thereafter – Appellate Court noted steep fall in bank lending rates – Reduced interest rate to 6% per annum from date of suit till realization – Held: Discretion under Section 34 CPC rightly exercised to award reasonable interest, modifying excessive rate granted by Trial Court [Paras 20–23].

Defendant’s Obligations – Withholding of Payments – Contractor completed work as per agreement and supplemental agreement – No evidence that amounts due under supplemental agreement were cleared – Withholding of ₹1,85,371/- as security deposit, ₹50,000/- as earnest money, and ₹50,000/- for Package No.3 Road work found unjustified – Held: Defendants failed to prove their claims of deficiencies or justification for withholding payment [Paras 14–17].

Quality Control Report – Unsubstantiated Allegations – Appellants relied on Quality Control Wing report alleging substandard work to justify deductions – Report not supported by cogent evidence or witness testimony – Held: Allegation of substandard work without evidence insufficient to defeat contractor’s claim [Paras 18–19].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Judgment and decree modified to reduce the rate of post-suit interest to 6% per annum – Principal sum of Rs. 3,85,371/- payable with interest from the date of filing the suit until realization – No costs awarded [Paras 24-25].
 

Criminal Law – Murder – Conviction Based on Eyewitness Testimonies – Reliability Questioned – Conviction challenged on the grounds of delay in lodging FIR and inconsistencies in prosecution evidence – Held: Delay of eight hours in filing the complaint and further delay in dispatching FIR to the Magistrate cast significant doubt on the prosecution's case – Contradictions between the testimonies of eyewitnesses (P.Ws. 4 and 9) regarding the number of accused involved, coupled with no injuries on P.Ws. 4 and 9, weakened the prosecution's claims – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 19, 26–29].

Delay in FIR – Implications on Prosecution Case – FIR filed eight hours after the incident despite the proximity of the police station – Held: Unexplained delay undermined the credibility of the complaint and indicated possible afterthoughts – Delay also observed in FIR reaching the Magistrate [Paras 10, 28].

Inconsistencies in Witness Testimonies – Impact on Conviction – P.W.4 identified six accused, while P.W.9 claimed 50 individuals attacked the deceased – Divergence in testimonies undermined the prosecution's version – Benefit of doubt granted [Paras 19, 29].

Decision: Conviction in S.C. No. 1 of 2012 dated 31.12.2016 set aside – Appellants acquitted of all charges – Bail bonds discharged [Paras 30–31].
 

Temporary Injunction – Rejection – Lack of Prima Facie Case, Balance of Convenience, Irreparable Loss – The appellant challenged the trial court's order dismissing her application for a temporary injunction. The appellant claimed a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss in her favor, arguing that the land was purchased from the income of joint business, and the mutation was fraudulently obtained by the respondent. The trial court had dismissed the application citing lack of possession by the appellant and the significant delay in challenging the mutation. The High Court upheld the trial court's decision, emphasizing that without possession and a timely challenge to the mutation, no prima facie case was established. [Paras 1-26]

Analysis – Civil Court Jurisdiction – ‘Hiba’ under Muslim Law – The appellant's arguments regarding the wrongful mutation based on ‘hiba’ (gift) were rejected, as affidavits supporting ‘hiba’ were not rebutted by the appellant. The court held that civil courts could not adjudicate on matters pertaining to revenue records without a declared khatedari right. The trial court’s reliance on the judgment in Pyarelal v. Shubhendra Pilania was deemed appropriate, establishing that civil suits without a declaration of khatedari rights are not maintainable. [Paras 5-18]

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the trial court had not erred in rejecting the temporary injunction application. The appellant's failure to prove possession and the significant delay in challenging the mutation were decisive factors. The appellant was advised to seek appropriate relief in the revenue court. [Paras 26-27]
 

Personal Injury Compensation - Motor Vehicle Accident - Assessment of compensation for injuries sustained in a road accident - Claimant suffered multiple fractures to the left ankle, underwent surgeries, and incurred medical expenses - Claimant's income assessed based on income tax return prior to the accident - Assessment of permanent physical disability and future loss of earnings - Award for pain and suffering, transportation charges, attendant charges, and loss of amenities of life - Interest awarded from the date after 30 days of injury - Appeals by claimant and insurance company dismissed, as compensation awarded by the Tribunal upheld. [Para 1-23]