Requisition and Compensation – Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Enhancement of Rent – Kolkata Municipal Corporation (KMC) challenged the enhancement of rent compensation assessed by the First Land Acquisition Collector – Respondent challenged a letter proposing a fresh inspection – Single Judge upheld the rent assessment but revoked the proposed inspection – Court found the assessment lacked proper measurement and was thus invalid – Directed a fresh determination in line with Division Bench’s previous directives [Paras 1-35].

Administrative Procedure – Requirement for Measurement – Division Bench directed measurement for meaningful determination – First Land Acquisition Collector failed to measure premises before assessment – Issued letter for inspection after final memo – Court found the process flawed and invalidated the assessment – Emphasized proper adherence to directives for accurate compensation [Paras 22-35].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – Held – Memo dated 12th August, 2021, along with memos dated 29th December, 2020, and 29th June, 2021, canceled – Directed fresh determination of rent compensation within two months – Letter dated 19th July, 2022, declared infructuous – No order as to costs [Para 34-35].
 

Withholding of DCRG – Rule 3A of Part III KSR – Legality of withholding DCRG pending judicial proceedings – Tribunal found withholding DCRG illegal when no judicial proceedings were instituted – Quashment of vigilance case – Original petition challenging Tribunal’s order granting interest on withheld DCRG dismissed [Paras 1-17].

Right to Interest on Delayed DCRG – Equitable Considerations – Despite absence of statutory provision, interest on delayed DCRG payment justified under Articles 14, 19, 21, and 300 of the Constitution – Precedents support payment of interest on delayed retirement benefits [Paras 11-15].

Vigilance Proceedings – Quashing of FIR – Respondent absolved of charges – No misconduct found – Government’s earlier admission of respondent’s innocence pivotal in deciding entitlement to interest [Paras 3, 9-10, 15].

Decision:Writ Petition Dismissed – Orders by Tribunal upheld – State directed to comply with Tribunal’s direction to pay interest within six weeks from the date of receipt of this judgment [Paras 16-17].

Tenancy and Possession – Recovery of Premises – Plaintiff company, lawful tenant of the suit premises, sought recovery of possession from defendants – Defendant No.1 initially permitted temporary occupation but failed to vacate as promised – Defendant No.1 inducted third parties into premises without authority – Court held that plaintiff entitled to recovery of possession and defendants to vacate [Paras 1-19].

Mesne Profits – Enquiry Ordered – Special Officer appointed to ascertain mesne profits due to unauthorized occupation – Court directed an enquiry to determine the amount payable to plaintiff – Remuneration for Special Officer to be initially borne by plaintiff but recoverable from defendants [Para 20].

Decision – Decree for recovery of possession granted – Defendants directed to hand over vacant possession – Enquiry into mesne profits ordered to be completed within four months – Case listed for further hearing post submission of enquiry report [Paras 21].

Education Law – Examination Results Cancellation – Violation of Principles of Natural Justice – Lucknow University’s negligent conduct in withholding a student’s B.Sc. results and subsequent failure to communicate the cancellation of exams – High Court quashes University’s actions as arbitrary and illegal – Petitioner awarded costs for damages to educational prospects due to the University's negligence – [Paras 1-24].

Administrative Law – Non-communication of orders – Order dated 21.05.2012 not communicated to the petitioner, rendering it non-est and non-existing – Subsequent orders based on the non-communicated order deemed illegal and arbitrary – University’s failure to conduct a proper inquiry and provide an opportunity to the petitioner criticized – [Paras 10-21].

Cost Imposition – High Court imposes compensatory costs of Rs. 2 lakhs on Lucknow University for negligent actions that caused delay and harm to the petitioner’s educational career – Purpose of costs to discourage mala fide actions and compensate for inconvenience and expenses caused to the petitioner – [Paras 22-24].

Decision – Writ Petition Allowed – Held – The actions of Lucknow University, including the non-communication of essential orders and negligent conduct, were in gross violation of natural justice principles – The University is ordered to pay Rs. 2 lakhs as compensation to the petitioner within two months – [Para 24].

Evidence Law – FSL Report – Application for FSL report on blood-stained clothes and weapons dismissed by the trial court for being filed belatedly – Held, application for adducing evidence should be filed at the stage of prosecution evidence and not at the committal stage – Trial court’s dismissal based on incorrect premise – Order set aside [Paras 1-12].

Trial Procedure – Stage for Filing Applications – Prosecution’s application for FSL report should be entertained during the prosecution evidence stage – Trial court erred in dismissing the application for delay – Importance of FSL report in establishing the role of the accused emphasized [Paras 8-11].

Decision:

Petition allowed – Order dated 02.03.2024 set aside – Prosecution’s application for FSL report allowed – Articles to be sent for FSL analysis and report to be submitted to the trial court.

Competitive Examination – Correctness of Answer Keys – Appellants challenged the decision of the Expert Committee regarding the correctness of the answer key for question No.135 of Question Booklet Series-104C – The committee initially marked option “(B) Toda” as correct but changed it to option “(D) Gagron” upon objections – High Court emphasized the limited scope of judicial review in such matters, relying on expert opinion unless demonstrated to be patently wrong – Appeals dismissed, no interference warranted in the committee’s decision [Paras 1-39].

Judicial Review – Limited Scope – Court reiterated that judicial intervention in academic matters, particularly concerning answer keys, should be minimal – Re-evaluation not permissible unless the key is demonstrably incorrect without requiring detailed reasoning – Presumption in favor of the examining authority unless clear errors are evident [Paras 17-22, 36-37].

Decision: Both appeals dismissed – Court upheld the Expert Committee’s decision – Emphasized the necessity of relying on expert evaluations in academic matters – No grounds for interference found.
 

Co-operative Societies – Redevelopment of Housing Societies – Petitioners challenged the orders of the State Government relating to the redevelopment projects – Contention regarding the inadequacy of the consent obtained from the members and non-compliance with statutory requirements – High Court held the State’s orders to be mechanical and without proper consideration of members’ rights – Orders set aside [Paras 1-35].

Consent of Members – Statutory Requirement – Emphasized the necessity for obtaining the consent of at least 70% of the members as per the Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act – Failure to obtain valid consent renders the redevelopment agreement void ab initio – High Court highlighted the importance of transparency and fairness in obtaining members’ consent [Paras 20-25].

Developer Obligations – Compliance with Regulations – Court scrutinized the obligations of developers under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats Act and the Development Control Regulations – Found significant non-compliance with mandatory disclosures and project timelines – Developers directed to adhere strictly to statutory norms [Paras 26-30].

Decision: Writ Petitions Allowed – Held – Orders by State Government set aside – Court mandated strict compliance with statutory procedures for redevelopment, ensuring members’ rights and interests are protected – Directed developers to rectify non-compliance and adhere to timelines and disclosures as per the applicable laws** [Paras 31-35].
 

Suspension of Sentence – POCSO Act – Appellant convicted under Section 6 and Section 10 of the POCSO Act, as well as under Section 323 IPC – Sentenced to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and additional terms – Application for suspension of sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. – Appellant has already served 7 years and 3 months in custody – No other criminal antecedents against the appellant – Suspension granted subject to conditions [Paras 1-9].

Judicial Considerations – Appeal Duration – Acknowledged that the appeal is likely to take time – Decision to suspend sentence taken to prevent undue hardship to the appellant during the pendency of the appeal – Emphasis on no criminal antecedents and significant duration already served [Paras 5-9].

Conditions for Suspension – Suspension of sentence granted on furnishing a personal bond of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety of the like amount – Conditions imposed: appellant to remain available on mobile, report to the police officer telephonically monthly, reside at the specified address, inform any change of address, and be present for court hearings [Para 9].

Decision:  Suspension of sentence granted – Application disposed of – Appellant to comply with specified conditions during the suspension period [Paras 10-12].

Criminal Procedure – Bail Conditions – Imposition of Unusual Conditions – Petitioner released on bail with condition to deposit passport – Petitioner did not possess passport – Trial Court failed to consider affidavit and investigating officer’s statement confirming non-possession – Trial Court directed Petitioner to deposit passport within four months, implying Petitioner must apply for one – High Court held Trial Court exceeded its powers and imposed conditions not required for bail – Condition modified to deposit passport if any [Paras 1-16].

Modification of Bail Conditions – Requirement of Reasonableness – High Court emphasized necessity of considering factual circumstances and existing possessions of accused while imposing bail conditions – Held that imposing condition to deposit non-existent passport amounts to compelling accused to create new document [Paras 10-14].

Decision:

Criminal Writ Petition allowed – Condition for deposit of passport modified to “deposit the passport, if any” – Petitioner already released on bail under modified condition – Rule made absolute in above terms [Paras 15-18].