Land Acquisition – Encumbrance-Free Possession – Delay Due to Litigation and Administrative Bottlenecks – The NHAI sought court intervention for expeditious possession of acquired land—Respondents cited pending arbitrations, court stays, and non-disbursement of compensation—Held: The encumbrance-free transfer of land must be prioritized—Chief Secretary of Punjab and Director General of Police directed to ensure compliance within two weeks—Failure to comply may result in contempt proceedings [Paras 6-9].

Judicial Oversight – Monitoring of Land Acquisition – Urgency of Project Completion – The Court emphasized the national importance of the project—Directed the NHAI and State authorities to submit periodic progress reports—Non-compliance with prior directions to result in strict action against responsible officers—Next hearing set for 21/03/2025 for compliance review [Paras 8-10].

Police Assistance – Protection of Possession from Disruptions – NHAI reported illegal obstructions post-possession—Held: District administration and police must provide protection to executing agencies—Failure of officials to act promptly to be reported for disciplinary action—Court directed establishment of mobile police units at project sites [Paras 7-9].

Final Decision – Directions issued for urgent resolution of pending acquisition issues—Encumbrance-free possession to be completed within two weeks—Authorities instructed to ensure law enforcement at project sites—Matter listed for compliance review on 21/03/2025 [Paras 10-11].

Civil Law - Property Dispute – Will Execution – Proof of Attestation – Sections 63 of Succession Act and 68 of Evidence Act – The plaintiff claimed ownership based on a 1936 Will executed by his grandfather, while the defendant contended that the property was ancestral and he had equal rights – Trial Court decreed ownership in favor of the plaintiff – Held: Under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, a Will must be attested by at least two witnesses and proved by examining at least one attesting witness under Section 68 of the Evidence Act – Since no attesting witness was examined, the Will was not duly proved – Trial Court’s decree set aside only on the issue of proving the Will [Paras 15-18].

Adverse Possession – Claim Not Established – No Evidence of Hostile Possession – The defendant also claimed that he had acquired ownership by adverse possession – Held: For a valid adverse possession claim, the occupant must acknowledge ownership of another party and establish hostile possession for the statutory period – Defendant failed to prove continuous, exclusive, and hostile possession – Claim of adverse possession rejected [Paras 19-21].

Presumption Under Section 90 of the Evidence Act – Inapplicable to Wills – The plaintiff argued that since the Will was over 30 years old, it should be presumed valid under Section 90 of the Evidence Act – Held: Presumption of regularity under Section 90 does not apply to Wills – A Will must be proved strictly under Section 63 of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act – No presumption of authenticity can arise unless statutory proof is satisfied [Paras 22-24].

Remand for Fresh Consideration – Requirement to Prove Will Through Attesting Witness – Since the Trial Court failed to insist on statutory compliance while admitting the Will, the High Court remanded the matter for limited reconsideration – Held: The matter is remitted back to the Trial Court for fresh findings on whether the Will is duly proved in accordance with legal requirements – If proven, the decree for declaration and possession shall stand affirmed; otherwise, relief cannot be granted based on the Will [Paras 25-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed in part – Trial Court’s judgment and decree dated 07/11/2007 in O.S. No. 3163/1990 set aside only for the limited issue of proving the Will – Matter remanded to Trial Court for fresh consideration of whether the Will is duly proved – Trial Court directed to decide the issue within four months from 25/03/2025 – Parties directed to appear before the Trial Court without awaiting fresh notice – Adverse possession claim rejected [Paras 28-30].
 

Service Law - Compulsory Retirement – Scope of Judicial Review – The petitioner challenged his compulsory retirement on grounds of procedural irregularities and alleged bias—Held: Judicial review in matters of compulsory retirement is limited to checking arbitrariness or mala fides—Employer’s subjective satisfaction cannot be substituted unless it is unreasonable or perverse—Writ petition dismissed [Paras 16-20].

Failure to Disclose Assets – Applicability of Conduct Rules – The petitioner contended that Tamil Nadu Government Servants' Conduct Rules, 1973, did not require disclosure of his wife’s independently acquired properties—Held: Judicial officers are held to higher standards of probity—High Court’s circular mandating disclosure of assets by family members is valid and binding—Non-compliance justified adverse action [Paras 18-22].

Adverse Entries in Confidential Records – Whether Premature Action Was Taken – The petitioner argued that the adverse remarks in his annual confidential report (ACR) for 2019 were recorded after the decision to compulsorily retire him—Held: Decision was based on overall service record, complaints, and integrity concerns—Review committee formed its opinion independently before ACR entries—No violation of procedural fairness [Paras 12-14].

Service Law – Whether Government Guidelines Were Ignored – The petitioner claimed that compulsory retirement guidelines issued by the State were not followed—Held: Judicial officers cannot seek parity with other government employees—High Court has discretion under judicial service rules to set higher standards—No procedural lapse found [Paras 23-24].

Final Decision – Writ petition dismissed—Order of compulsory retirement upheld—Court emphasized that judicial officers must maintain the highest standards of integrity and conduct in public life [Paras 24-26].
 

Negotiable Instruments Act – Single Complaint for Multiple Cheques – Whether Maintainable – The petitioner challenged the complaint under Section 138 of the NI Act, arguing that separate complaints should have been filed for each of the four dishonoured cheques – Contended that under Section 219 CrPC, no more than three offences can be tried together – Held: A single consolidated demand notice for multiple dishonoured cheques creates a single cause of action—Since the complaint was filed after expiry of the statutory period post-demand notice, only one offence was constituted—Filing a single complaint was legally permissible [Paras 12-14].

Section 138 NI Act – Conditions for Offence Completion – The petitioner argued that dishonour of each cheque constituted a distinct offence – Held: An offence under Section 138 NI Act is completed only when the drawer fails to make payment within 15 days of receiving a legal notice—As a single demand notice was issued for all cheques, only one offence was committed, making a single complaint maintainable [Paras 10-11].

Applicability of Section 219 CrPC – Whether Trial for Multiple Cheques Violates Procedural Law – The petitioner relied on Section 219 CrPC to argue that no more than three offences of similar nature within a year can be tried together – Held: Section 219 CrPC applies when multiple distinct offences exist—However, when a single cause of action arises due to a common legal notice, it constitutes a single offence under Section 138 NI Act—Provision of Section 219 CrPC not attracted [Paras 15-16].

Precedents – Consistent Judicial View on Consolidated Complaints – Court referred to judgments from other High Courts supporting the maintainability of a single complaint when a consolidated demand notice is issued – Held: Judicial precedents affirm that if multiple cheques are dishonoured but a single demand notice is issued, only one cause of action arises—Petitioner's reliance on Vani Agro Enterprises vs. State of Gujarat was misplaced as it involved consolidation of separate complaints rather than maintainability of a single complaint [Paras 14-15].

Final Decision – Petition dismissed – Complaint under Section 138 NI Act upheld – Interim stay vacated – Trial to proceed before Magistrate as per law [Paras 16-17].
 

Civil Writ - Medical Admission – Arbitrary Allotment of Seat – Violation of Merit-Based Selection – The petitioner, who was eligible under the NCC-Female Open Category, was denied admission to the MBBS course despite being higher in merit than the 4th respondent – The University failed to produce any record showing that the seat was properly vacated before allotment to the 4th respondent – Held: The allotment was illegal and in violation of merit-based selection principles [Paras 2-8].
Failure of University to Justify Seat Allocation – No Documentary Evidence Produced – The University claimed that the seat was vacated by a candidate who moved to another college, but no documentary proof was provided despite repeated opportunities – The Court inferred that the candidate had never taken the seat, making the subsequent allotment to the 4th respondent unlawful – Held: The University's failure to justify its actions rendered the seat allotment unsustainable [Paras 6-8].
Award of Compensation – Petitioner Lost Opportunity to Pursue MBBS – The petitioner had since joined a dental course and lost the chance to pursue a medical career due to the University’s arbitrary action – The Court awarded Rs. 7 lakhs in damages and Rs. 25,000 in costs to be paid by the University – Held: Compensation awarded for the irreparable loss suffered by the petitioner [Paras 9].
 

Matrimonial Law - Divorce – Cruelty – False Allegations Against In-Laws – Suicide Threats – Divorce Decree Upheld – Wife alleged that her father-in-law outraged her modesty without filing any complaint – She also threatened suicide and made attempts to implicate husband and in-laws – Trial Court held these acts amounted to cruelty – Appellate Court confirmed findings – Second Appeal dismissed as findings based on evidence and not perverse [Paras 3–8].

Family Law – Appellate Jurisdiction under Section 100 CPC – Reappreciation of Evidence Not Permissible – Court held that High Court cannot re-evaluate evidence in second appeal unless findings are perverse or a substantial question of law arises – No such perversity or legal error found – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 8].

Conduct of Litigant – Avoidance of Cross-Examination – Indicative of Suppression – Court noted wife avoided cross-examination on suicide attempt and appeared with mehendi on hands to frustrate proceedings – Such conduct considered while affirming Trial Court’s conclusions [Para 7].

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed – Decree of divorce upheld – No substantial question of law or perversity found – Civil application also dismissed as infructuous [Para 9].
 

Criminal Law – Rape – POCSO - Appeal against conviction – Conviction Based on Child Witness – Whether Reliable – The appellant was convicted for raping a 4½-year-old girl and sentenced to life imprisonment for the remainder of his natural life—Held: The minor victim’s testimony was clear, consistent, and corroborated by medical evidence—Child witnesses are competent if they understand and respond rationally—Conviction upheld [Paras 10-16].

Medical Evidence – Whether Corroborates Penetrative Sexual Assault – The defence argued that the intact hymen disproved penetration—Held: Explanation 1 to Section 375 IPC clarifies that "vagina" includes labia majora—Medical findings of abrasions and redness on the genital area substantiate the victim’s testimony—Penetrative sexual assault established [Paras 14-17].

Scope of "Penetration" – Definition Under IPC and POCSO Act – The appellant contended that lack of complete penetration negates rape—Held: Even the slightest penetration into the vulva or labia majora constitutes rape—POCSO Act aligns with IPC’s broad definition—Legal position reaffirmed [Paras 18-22].

Modification of Sentence – Whether Life Imprisonment for Natural Life Justified – Trial court imposed life imprisonment until death under Section 376AB IPC—Held: While the offence is grave, a fixed-term rigorous imprisonment of 25 years is sufficient—Sentence reduced from natural life imprisonment to 25 years RI, fine of ₹25,000 maintained [Paras 25-26].

Final Decision – Appeal partly allowed – Conviction confirmed—Sentence reduced to 25 years rigorous imprisonment with ₹25,000 fine—Default of fine to result in two years RI [Paras 26-27].
 

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Murder and Robbery – Conviction Upheld – The appellants were convicted under Sections 302, 120-B, 392, and 411 IPC for the murder of an elderly woman and robbery of her valuables – Held: The prosecution successfully established a chain of circumstantial evidence, including last-seen theory, recovery of stolen articles, call detail records, and forensic analysis – The appellants failed to provide any plausible explanation for their presence at the crime scene and possession of stolen goods – High Court upheld the trial court’s findings [Paras 47-49].

Last Seen Theory – Reliability of Witness Testimony – Role of Accused – The prosecution relied on the testimony of the deceased’s maid, who saw the prime accused near the crime scene before the incident – Held: The testimony of a long-term maidservant was found reliable and corroborated by call detail records and forensic evidence – No evidence of false implication was established – High Court held that the last-seen theory was applicable in the given circumstances [Paras 18-21, 47].

Forensic Evidence – Fingerprint Analysis – Admissibility of Expert Report – Chance prints lifted from the crime scene matched those of the accused – Held: The forensic evidence was collected and examined following due process – The expert report under Section 293 CrPC was admissible and corroborated other circumstantial evidence – The defence’s objections regarding mismatched dates were found inconsequential – High Court rejected claims of fabrication [Paras 36-39].

Recovery of Stolen Articles – Admissibility of Disclosure Statements – Section 27 Evidence Act – The stolen gold and cash were recovered from locations identified by the accused – Held: Recovery of stolen goods from places exclusively known to the accused created a strong presumption of guilt – The court relied on Supreme Court precedents to affirm the evidentiary value of such recoveries – The plea that disclosure statements were inadmissible was rejected [Paras 28-35].

Res Judicata in Criminal Proceedings – Abuse of Process – The accused contended that they were falsely implicated due to pressure from the victim’s family – Held: Mere allegations of influence without evidence cannot override well-established circumstantial proof – The defence witnesses failed to discredit the prosecution’s case – The court observed that raising frivolous allegations amounted to an abuse of process [Paras 42-44].

Decision – Appeals dismissed – Convictions upheld – The appellants were found guilty of robbery and murder – Sentences of life imprisonment and fines confirmed – No interference warranted in the trial court’s judgment [Paras 48-50].

Criminal Law – Quashing - Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Authorization and Gestational Age – Held: Sunrise Hospital was authorized to conduct MTP up to 16 weeks – Normal gestational age calculation using LMP showed pregnancy was within the permitted limit – No violation of Section 5(3) of the MTP Act – Proceedings quashed [Paras 6, 12-14].

Medical Termination of Pregnancy – Validity of Approval – Renewal Requirement – Held: MTP Rules do not prescribe a validity period for the approval certificate unless canceled or suspended – Since the hospital’s approval was not revoked, it remained valid – MTP conducted within authorized parameters [Paras 13-14].

Criminal Liability – Allegation of Destroying Evidence – Section 201 IPC – Held: No legal mandate requiring doctors to preserve the fetus voluntarily – Police instruction to preserve the fetus was given only after destruction – Petitioner promptly reported the crime – No intention to screen the offender – Section 201 IPC not attracted [Paras 17-22].

Legislative Recommendation – Need for Mandating Fetal Preservation in POCSO Cases – Held: No existing law mandates automatic preservation of the fetus in MTP cases involving minor victims – Court directed the State and Central Legislatures to consider amending the law – Interim direction issued to the Kerala Health Department to mandate fetal preservation until further legislation is enacted [Paras 25-26].

Decision – Criminal proceedings quashed – Direction issued to State Health Department to implement mandatory fetal preservation in POCSO-related MTP cases – Copy of judgment to be forwarded to law secretaries of Kerala and Union of India for legislative consideration [Paras 24-26].