Land Ceiling – Re-determination of Surplus Land – Transitory Provisions under U.P. Amending Acts of 1973 and 1976 – Fresh proceedings under Section 10(2) after statutory amendments held valid – Earlier discharge of notice in 1964 not operating as res judicata – Clubbing of wife’s land upheld – Failure to exercise statutory choice under Section 12-A – Writ petition dismissed.

Ceiling on Land Holdings – Re-determination of Surplus Land – Jurisdiction of Authorities – Notice under Section 10(2) of the Act of 1960 issued in 1962 was discharged in 1964 – Subsequent notice issued on 15.05.1976 pursuant to statutory amendments introduced by U.P. Amending Act No. 20 of 1976 – Held: Amendments brought a complete change in the scheme of the Act and mandated compulsory re-determination of surplus land declared prior to 10.10.1975 – Fresh proceedings initiated after amendment were within jurisdiction and not barred by earlier determination [Paras 4–5, 35–36, 69–71].

Transitory Provisions – Section 19 of U.P. Act No. 18 of 1973 – Limited Scope – Section 19(2) applies only to proceedings under Section 14 and Chapters III and IV of the Principal Act which were pending at the commencement of the Amending Act – Does not apply to proceedings relating to determination of surplus land which had already concluded – Held: Petitioner not entitled to continuation of proceedings under unamended Act of 1960 [Paras 30–34, 68].

U.P. Amending Act No. 20 of 1976 – Section 31(3) – Mandatory Re-determination – Legislature intended re-determination of all surplus land orders passed prior to 10.10.1975 within two years – Expression “may” in Section 31(3) held mandatory in nature – Notice dated 15.05.1976 issued in furtherance of statutory mandate – Proceedings valid and lawful [Paras 35, 50–51, 69].

Res Judicata – Section 38-B – Bar Excluded – Section 38-B expressly excludes application of res judicata in ceiling proceedings – Earlier findings or decisions rendered prior to commencement of Section 38-B cannot bar retrial or re-determination under amended law – Discharge of notice in 1964 did not preclude fresh determination [Paras 36, 61, 69–71].

Section 13-A – Rectification vs Fresh Proceedings – Power under Section 13-A confined to correction of mistakes apparent on the face of record within prescribed limitation – Cannot be invoked to invalidate fresh proceedings initiated under Section 10(2) after statutory amendments – Reliance on Devendra Nath Singh v. Civil Judge, Basti held misconceived [Paras 52–55].

Family – Clubbing of Wife’s Land – Sections 3(7) and 3(17) – Wife included in “family” of tenure-holder unless judicially separated as on relevant date – Woman whose husband is tenure-holder cannot be treated as independent tenure-holder – Land held by wife liable to be clubbed with land of husband for ceiling computation – Clubbing upheld [Paras 72–77].

Finality of Intermediate Orders – Waiver of Objections – Finding regarding clubbing of wife’s land attained finality in Appeal No. 16/1978 – Appellate orders dated 20.03.1979 and 16.09.1983 not challenged – Scope of remand confined only to irrigation status of specified plots and exercise of choice – Petitioner precluded from reopening settled issues [Paras 78–79].

Choice under Section 12-A – Vague and Conditional Exercise – Despite repeated opportunities, petitioner failed to furnish a clear and unconditional choice of land to be retained – Choice linked to pending exchange proceedings under Section 161 of the U.P. Z.A. & L.R. Act held irrelevant – Rejection of choice upheld [Paras 9, 14–15, 81–83].

Delay and Abuse of Process – Amendment after Two Decades – Writ petition filed in 1993 – Substantial amendment allowed in 2023 introducing new grounds not raised before ceiling authorities – Held: Belated attempt to reopen settled issues impermissible and aimed at prolonging litigation [Paras 16, 40, 83–84].

Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226 – Findings of fact by ceiling authorities based on statutory interpretation and evidence – No manifest error or perversity shown – High Court declined to re-appreciate factual determinations [Paras 80–85].

Decision Writ Petition dismissed – Orders dated 27.06.1986 passed by the Prescribed Authority and 11.06.1993 passed by the Appellate Authority affirmed – No order as to costs [Paras 85–86].

Pension – Retired Contract Employees – Kerala Livestock Development Board – Claim based on retrospective regularisation – Government Order granting pension subject to refund of employer’s EPF contribution – Condition not fulfilled – Pension claim rejected – Petitioners initially engaged as contract Inseminators under Indo Swiss Project and later regularised – Government Order (Ext.P2) granted pension treating them as Government employees subject to refund of employer’s EPF contribution – Said condition admittedly not complied with – Held: Pension cannot be granted in absence of fulfilment of mandatory condition [Paras 31–33, 37].

Finality of Litigation – Binding nature of Division Bench judgment – Failure to comply with conditional directions – Subsequent writ petition barred – Division Bench in W.A. No.418/2015 directed grant of pension only if employer’s EPF contribution was remitted within one month – EPFO failed to remit contribution – SLP dismissed by Supreme Court – Held: Issue stands concluded and cannot be reopened through subsequent writ petition [Paras 34, 38, 42].

Cabinet Decision – Enforceability – Requirement of formal Government Order – Article 166 of Constitution – No vested right without executive order – Petitioners relied on Cabinet decision (Ext.P8) to restore pension on condition of refund – No Government Order issued pursuant to Cabinet decision – Held: Cabinet decision by itself does not create enforceable right unless expressed in name of Governor as required under Article 166 [Paras 41–42].

Rules of Business – Scope – Ministerial or Cabinet decision not amounting to State action – Reliance on Bachhittar Singh case – Business of State must be carried out in accordance with constitutional formality – Cabinet noting or internal decision not sufficient – Held: Until decision is formally communicated as Government Order, it does not become action of the State [Paras 41].

Employees’ Provident Fund – Employer’s contribution – Statutory nature – Refund not permissible through voluntary payment by employees – Scheme contemplates refund only from EPFO and not by employees directly – Petitioners’ willingness to refund contribution personally held irrelevant – Held: Statutory contribution under EPF Act cannot be substituted by voluntary repayment [Paras 19–20].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Petitioners not entitled to government pension – Ext.P2 and Ext.P8 cannot be enforced – Earlier Division Bench judgment binding and conclusive.

Criminal Law – Hurt – Section 323 IPC – Conviction Set Aside – Acquittal – Petitioner convicted for causing hurt by fists and blows – Allegations against accused found to be vague, omnibus and non-specific – No specific overt act or role attributed to the petitioner – Ingredients of Section 323 IPC not proved beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction unsustainable [Paras 18–21].

Common Intention – Proof – Section 34 IPC – Prosecution failed to establish common intention among accused persons – Mere general allegation that “all accused assaulted” without evidence of prior meeting of minds or specific participation insufficient – Absence of proof of common intention disentitles conviction with aid of Section 34 IPC [Para 19].

Evidence Appreciation – Contradictions and Inconsistencies – Material contradictions found in testimonies of injured witness (P.W.1) and his son (P.W.5) regarding manner of incident and place of occurrence – Inconsistencies regarding address of shop and scene of offence strike at root of prosecution case – Benefit of doubt extended to accused [Paras 16–18].

Injured Witness – Credibility – Though testimony of injured witness ordinarily carries weight, same cannot be accepted when riddled with contradictions and improvements – Failure to specify role of present petitioner weakens prosecution case [Paras 12–14, 18].

Medical Evidence – Corroboration – Injury report did not name accused – Doctor admitted injuries could be caused by fall on ground – Medical evidence failed to conclusively corroborate prosecution version of assault [Para 18].

Independent Witnesses – Non-Support – Independent witnesses did not support prosecution case – Prosecution failed to declare them hostile – Weakens reliability of prosecution version [Para 14].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Scope – Where findings of Trial Court and Appellate Court suffer from misappreciation of evidence and result in miscarriage of justice, High Court justified in exercising revisional powers to set aside conviction [Paras 21–23].

Decision: Criminal Revision allowed – Judgments of Trial Court dated 17.05.2016 and Appellate Court dated 15.12.2016 set aside – Present petitioner Prasanta Pakray @ Prasanta Pakraz @ Shibu acquitted of offence under Section 323 IPC – Released from bail bonds – Proceedings against co-accused already abated due to death [Paras 22–24].

Criminal Law – Murder and Robbery – Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence – Accused Nos.1 to 3 convicted under Sections 302, 397 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC – Deceased murdered to avoid repayment of loan of Rs.2 lakh – Prosecution case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence including motive, last seen together, recovery of stolen articles, extra-judicial confession and conduct of accused – Trial Court conviction affirmed [Paras 12, 39–42, 75–76].

Circumstantial Evidence – Chain of Circumstances – Principles reiterated – Prosecution must prove that circumstances are fully established and consistent only with guilt of accused – Reliance placed on Supreme Court decision distinguishing “may be proved” and “must be proved” – Held: Chain of circumstances complete and unbroken, pointing unerringly to guilt of accused [Paras 39–42].

Homicidal Death – Medical and Ocular Evidence – Dead body exhumed from forest area – Multiple stab and crush injuries found on neck, head and skull – Medical evidence corroborating eyewitness and inquest testimony – Held: Death of deceased proved to be homicidal [Paras 43–47].

Motive – Financial Dispute – Evidence showing accused borrowed Rs.2 lakh from deceased and failed to repay – Deceased repeatedly demanded repayment – Accused hatched plan to eliminate deceased to avoid repayment – Motive established through testimony of wife and relatives of deceased [Paras 48–49].

Last Seen Theory – Accused and Deceased Seen Together – Evidence of dhaba staff, relatives and villagers showing deceased last seen in company of accused travelling towards place of incident – Proximity of time and place established – Accused failed to explain separation from deceased – Adverse inference drawn – Last seen circumstance proved beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 50–57].

Recovery of Stolen Articles – Section 27 Evidence Act – Gold chain, rings, Titan watch, mobile phone and clothes of deceased recovered at instance of accused from their houses – Recoveries proved through panch witnesses and Investigating Officer – Discovery of facts within special knowledge of accused – Recovery held valid and reliable [Paras 58–65].

Identification of Property – Wife of deceased identified recovered gold ornaments, watch and mobile phone as belonging to deceased – Ownership and connection of recovered articles with crime established [Para 66].

Extra-Judicial Confession – Evidentiary Value – Accused made voluntary confession before village elder/Sarpanch – Confession corroborated by other circumstantial evidence – Principles governing extra-judicial confession applied – Confession found reliable and admissible [Paras 67–71].

Section 106 Evidence Act – Conduct of Accused – Facts relating to murder and possession of deceased’s belongings within exclusive knowledge of accused – Failure of accused to offer any explanation – Such failure providing additional link in chain of circumstances [Paras 72–74].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and sentence dated 06/02/2018 and 08/02/2018 confirmed – Accused held guilty of offences under Sections 302, 397 and 201 read with Section 34 IPC [Paras 75–76, Order].

Adverse Possession – Suit for Possession – Appeal under Section 96 CPC – Trial Court dismissed suit and declared defendants owners by adverse possession in respect of 170 sq. yards – During pendency of appeal, Court Receiver appointed and Architect’s report revealed defendants’ possession limited to 38 sq. metres (409 sq. ft.) – Parties maintained status quo for over three decades – Appellant consented to modification of decree to said extent – Held: Ends of justice met by modifying decree in conformity with Court Receiver’s report and long-standing status quo [Paras 1, 4-8, 10-12].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Powers under Order XLI Rules 32 and 33 CPC – Merger of decree – Appellate Court empowered to vary or modify trial court decree even when appeal not pressed on merits – Reliance placed on Chandi Prasad v. Jagdish Prasad – Held: Decree of Trial Court merges into appellate decree and can be suitably moulded to reflect admitted factual position and equities between parties [Paras 9, 11-12].

Court Receiver – Measurement of Suit Property – Architect’s Report – Report dated 13 October 1995 recorded possession of defendants over only 38 sq. metres from CTS No. 185 – Status quo order dated 10 November 1995 attained finality and governed parties’ possession for more than 30 years – Held: Said report forms proper basis for limiting declaration of adverse possession [Paras 4-7, 10].

Relief – Partial Allowance of Appeal – Modification of Decree – Suit dismissed but declaration of ownership by adverse possession confined only to 38 sq. metres (409 sq. ft.) as demarcated in Architect’s plan – Civil Application disposed of – No order as to costs [Paras 11-12, Order].

Decision: First Appeal partly allowed – Judgment and Decree dated 04/03/1994 modified – Defendants declared owners by adverse possession only in respect of 38 sq. metres (409 sq. ft.) from out of CTS No. 185 as per Architect’s report dated 13/10/1995 – Civil Application disposed of – No order as to costs.

Commercial Courts Act, 2015 – Section 12A – Pre-Institution Mediation – Mandatory Nature – Suit instituted after 20.08.2022 without compliance – Liable to be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 CPC unless it genuinely contemplates urgent interim relief – Reliance placed on M/s Dhanbad Fuels Pvt. Ltd. and Novenco Building – Compliance mandatory and not directory [Paras 6, 8, 18].

Urgent Interim Relief – Test – Not dependent on ultimate grant of relief – Court to examine plaint and supporting material from standpoint of plaintiff – Relief must not be moonshine or camouflage to bypass mediation – Urgency must be real, immediate and supported by material – Mere pleading not sufficient [Paras 10, 12, 18].

Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC – Attachment Before Judgment – Requirements – Court must be satisfied that defendant is about to dispose of or remove property with intent to obstruct or delay execution – Vague and general allegations insufficient – Particulars and material necessary – Reliance on Onkar Mal Mittal v. State Bank of Patiala [Paras 14, 15].

Attachment Before Judgment – Insufficient Pleadings – Plaintiff alleged defendant was “wandering in village to sell land” – No specific particulars or material indicating intention to defeat decree – Held: Allegations too discrepant and vague to satisfy requirements of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC – Urgent interim relief not genuinely made out [Paras 13, 16, 18].

Section 12A Exception – Not Attracted – Where urgent interim relief claimed is unfounded and unsupported, suit does not fall within exception to mandatory mediation – Plaint liable to rejection under Order VII Rule 11 CPC – Liberty granted to file fresh suit after compliance [Paras 18, 19, 20].

Decision: Both revision petitions allowed – Order dismissing application under Order VII Rule 11 set aside – Plaint rejected for non-compliance of Section 12A of 2015 Act – Plaintiff at liberty to file fresh plaint in accordance with law – Connected applications disposed of [Paras 19–21].

Election Law – Election Petition – Affidavit in Form 25 – Allegations of Corrupt Practices – Substantial Compliance – Curable Defect – Interlocutory application filed seeking striking out of pleadings and dismissal of election petition under Section 86 of the R.P. Act on the ground that no affidavit in Form 25 was filed along with the election petition – High Court earlier dismissed the application but granted time to file Form 25 affidavit – Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration on limited issues relating to defects, curability, limitation and power of the High Court – On remand, High Court examined compliance with Orissa High Court Rules and Form 25 requirements – Held: Affidavit already filed, though not strictly in Form 25, cannot be treated as non-est – Defect pertains to form and not substance – Substantial compliance with proviso to Section 83(1)(c) made out – Election Petition not liable to be dismissed in limine [Paras 1–29, 36(i)–(ii)].

Election Law – Corrupt Practices – Non-disclosure of Criminal Cases, Assets and Liabilities – Nature of Pleadings – Allegations in Paras 14-A to 14-E relating to non-disclosure of criminal cases, assets, immovable properties and liabilities – Though not labelled as “corrupt practices” by the petitioner, Court held such allegations prima facie amount to corrupt practices in light of settled law – Non-disclosure of criminal antecedents and assets constitutes corrupt practice – Necessity of affidavit under Form 25 attracted [Paras 13, 16, 23–24].

Affidavit – Form 25 – Requirement under Section 83(1)(c) – Defect of Form vs Defect of Substance – Affidavit accompanying election petition did not segregate allegations based on personal knowledge and those based on information – However, affidavit generally stated sources including petitioner, polling agents, counting agents, authorised agent and advocates – Held: Absence of strict segregation does not amount to total absence of affidavit – Defect is procedural and curable – Affidavit substantially complies with Form 25 requirements [Paras 24–28].

Limitation – Filing of Supplementary Affidavit – Doctrine of Relation Back – Contention that affidavit filed after expiry of time granted and beyond limitation period is barred – Rejected – Election Petition itself filed within limitation – Filing of supplementary affidavit to cure procedural defect does not amount to extension of limitation – Supplementary affidavit relates back to the date of presentation of election petition – Law of limitation not attracted to curable procedural defects [Paras 31–34, 36(iii)–(iv)].

Powers of High Court – Election Tribunal – Amendment and Rectification of Pleadings – High Court has jurisdiction to permit rectification of procedural defects and filing of supplementary affidavit before commencement of trial – Section 86(1) does not contemplate dismissal for violation of Section 83 – Section 86(5) permits furnishing of further particulars – Hyper-technical approach deprecated – Justice-oriented interpretation preferred [Paras 32–35].

Decision: Interlocutory Application disposed of – Election Petition not dismissed – Defect in affidavit held curable – Supplementary affidavit permitted – Agreed portions of pleadings struck off by consent – Parties granted time to carry out consequential amendments – Election Petition to proceed further.

Arbitration – Section 34 – Scope of Interference – Perversity and Patent Illegality – Court reiterates that it does not sit as an appellate authority over arbitral awards – Reappreciation of evidence impermissible – Interference justified only where findings are based on no evidence, ignore vital evidence, or are so irrational that no fair-minded person would arrive at them – Possible and plausible view of arbitrator must be respected [Paras 30–35].

Public Works Contract – Delay in Execution – Attribution of Delay – Arbitral Tribunal undertook detailed factual inquiry by dividing delay into fifteen sub-heads including bhoomi poojan, approvals, permissions, land availability, drawings, and coordination between authorities – Tribunal’s findings holding Municipal Corporation solely responsible for delay found to be supported by documentary evidence and admissions in cross-examination – No perversity or ignorance of vital evidence established [Paras 36–43].

Admissions in Evidence – Evidentiary Value – Admissions by Municipal Corporation’s witnesses in cross-examination constitute best evidence – Once delay attributable to employer admitted, employer cannot rely merely on internal correspondence alleging contractor delay – Tribunal entitled to rely on such admissions [Paras 42–43].

Penalties in Works Contract – Delay as Foundation – Penalties imposed solely on ground of delay – Once contractor exonerated from delay, penalty orders automatically rendered unsustainable – Tribunal justified in setting aside penalty orders – No independent basis for penalties survives [Para 44].

Termination of Contract – Illegality – Termination effected prior to expiry of contract period solely on allegation of delay – Delay held not attributable to contractor – Termination therefore illegal and unjustified – Tribunal’s finding upheld [Para 45].

Blacklisting – Works Contract – Sub-Contracting – Blacklisting based inter alia on alleged sub-contracting and delay – Clause prohibiting sub-contracting of “whole work” does not bar partial sub-contracting – Large infrastructure contracts permit limited sub-contracting – Delay allegation found incorrect – Blacklisting order rightly set aside [Paras 46–47].

Running Account Bills – Certification of Work – Final RA Bill partly certified by Project Management Consultant and Municipal Corporation – Tribunal correctly awarded only certified amount and rejected excess claim – Withholding certified amount by adjusting penalties held illegal once penalties set aside – No perversity in awarding certified dues [Paras 48–52].

Taxes – Local Body Tax (LBT) – Pre-bid clarification limiting liability of LBT to materials procured within municipal limits – Contractor procured materials outside limits – Tribunal’s view allowing refund of deducted LBT held plausible and within contractual interpretation [Para 53].

Damages – Loss of Profit vs. Loss of Profitability – Distinction reiterated – Loss of profit arises from wrongful termination and does not require proof of actual loss – Loss of profitability due to prolongation requires strict evidence – Tribunal rightly awarded damages for loss of profit on unexecuted work upon finding termination illegal [Paras 54–61].

Damages – Quantum – Conservative Approach – Tribunal awarded 10% of balance work based on tender estimate and not actual contract value – Effective compensation only about 5.5% of unexecuted work – Award held extremely conservative and reasonable – No ground for interference under Section 34 [Paras 62–63].

Decision: Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 444 of 2024 dismissed – Challenge by Municipal Corporation rejected – Commercial Arbitration Petition No. 252 of 2024 dismissed as not pressed – Arbitral Award dated 18 June 2020 upheld in entirety – Directions issued for release/encashment of bank guarantees, stayed for eight weeks post-judgment [Paras 64–67].

Criminal Law - Essential Commodities Act – Excess Stock of Paddy – Conviction Set Aside – Prosecution alleged storage of excess 33.50 quintals of paddy by the appellant in violation of Para 17 of the West Bengal Rice and Paddy (Licensing and Control) Order, 1967 – Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act – On appeal, High Court found serious doubts regarding the actual seizure and weighment of alleged excess stock – Held: Prosecution failed to prove the charge beyond reasonable doubt – Benefit of doubt extended – Conviction and sentence set aside [Paras 11–14].

Seizure of Contraband – Credibility of Seizure Witnesses – Both independent seizure witnesses (P.W. 1 and P.W. 2) categorically stated that they signed blank papers at the instance of the Investigating Officer and did not witness actual seizure or weighment of paddy – Witnesses not examined by Investigating Officer during investigation – Such evidence rendered seizure doubtful and unreliable [Paras 6–7, 11–12].

Evidence – Weighment of Seized Paddy – Failure to Examine Material Witnesses – Prosecution failed to examine any person who actually weighed the paddy – Weighment chart did not disclose who conducted the weighment – No evidence as to source of weighing machine – In a case alleging excess stock, absence of proof of proper weighment held to be fatal to prosecution case [Paras 8, 10–12].

Investigation – Procedural Lapses – Non-recording of General Diary Entry – Investigating Officer failed to record GD entry regarding departure for raid and return – Could not disclose jeep number or driver’s name – When raid itself was under challenge, such lapses created serious doubt about prosecution version – Held: Though not always fatal, in present facts such lapses assumed significance [Paras 8, 12].

Contradictions in Prosecution Evidence – Time and Manner of Seizure – Prosecution witnesses gave inconsistent versions regarding time of preparation of seizure list and presence of witnesses – Evidence showed seizure list was possibly not prepared at the spot – Prosecution failed to reconcile material inconsistencies – Doubt as to genuineness of seizure sustained [Paras 6, 8, 12].

Criminal Jurisprudence – Presumption of Innocence – Standard of Proof – Trial Court itself observed scope of doubt regarding seizure of 75 quintals of paddy but still convicted appellant on ground of improper maintenance of stock register – Held: Once reasonable doubt exists, conviction cannot be sustained – Prosecution must prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt and not on surmises or conjectures [Paras 11–13].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Judgment and order of conviction dated 30.03.1993 passed by the Special Court (E.C.), Suri in Special Case No. 33 of 1992 set aside – Appellant acquitted of offence under Section 7(1)(a)(ii) of the Essential Commodities Act – Appreciation recorded for assistance of Amicus Curiae [Paras 14–15].