Land Law – Common Land – Applicability of J&K Common Lands (Regulation) Act, 1956 – Section 1(4) of the Act expressly excludes applicability of the Act to areas declared as Municipalities – Land in question situated within Municipal Council, Udhampur – Respondents themselves admitted non-applicability of the Act – Held: Invocation of Common Lands Act, 1956 for passing impugned order was wholly without jurisdiction [Paras 11–12].

Writ Jurisdiction – Administrative Action – Lack of Statutory Authority – Impugned order directing seizure of building material and lodging of FIR passed by relying upon inapplicable statute – Action taken without affording opportunity of hearing – Held: Order unsustainable being arbitrary and dehors statutory powers [Paras 3, 11, 13].

Supreme Court Directions – Scope – Jagpal Singh Case – Directions in Jagpal Singh v. State of Punjab, (2011) 11 SCC 396 applicable only to Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat/Shamlat/Poramboke land – Land falling within municipal limits and recorded as proprietary land does not fall within said category – Held: Supreme Court directions wrongly applied [Paras 11–13].

Revenue Records – Gair Mumkin Talai – Proprietary Rights – Though land recorded as Gair Mumkin Talai, revenue record showed ownership of private individuals including respondent No.6 – Mere description as Gair Mumkin Talai does not automatically convert land into common or Panchayat land – Restrictions on alienation do not negate ownership [Paras 2, 13].

Seizure of Property – Third Party Rights – Petitioner did not claim ownership over land – Building material stored with consent of recorded owner – Even assuming violation, action could lie only against landowner and not against petitioner – Held: Seizure and FIR direction against petitioner unjustified [Paras 13–14].

Municipal / Water Resources Law – Plea Raised Without Action – Contention that land vests in Government or Municipal Council under Municipal Act or Water Resources Act unsupported by revenue entries or prior proceedings – Held: Such plea cannot sustain impugned action; liberty reserved to authorities to proceed under appropriate law if permissible [Para 15].

Relief – Release of Seized Property – Prayer for release of seized material rendered infructuous as material already released pursuant to earlier court directions – Writ petition confined to legality of impugned order [Para 10].

Decision: Impugned order dated 04.03.2017 quashed – Action taken under Common Lands Act held illegal – Writ petition allowed to the extent indicated.

Criminal Law – Bail – NDPS Act – Arms Act – Wildlife Offences – Grant of Bail in Multi-offence FIR – Prolonged Custody – Petitioners Rinku Thapar and Divyam arrested in connection with FIR alleging recovery of drug money, arms, wildlife articles, and narcotics – Petitioners in custody for over one year and two months – Charges framed, but trial yet to commence – 42 witnesses cited, no prior criminal record – Held: Bail granted considering prolonged incarceration, completion of investigation, and parity with co-accused [Paras 2, 6, 7, 11]

NDPS Act – Section 21(c) – Recovery Below Commercial Quantity – Effect on Bail Consideration – From petitioner Divyam, only 381 grams of charas recovered – Less than commercial quantity of 1 kg – Bail plea considered favourably due to lesser offence severity under NDPS Act [Para 10]

Arms and Wildlife Protection Act – Recovery From Co-accused – No Independent Recovery From Petitioner – Bail Not Barred – From petitioner Rinku Thapar, arms, wildlife articles, and cash recovered – However, no recovery of narcotics – Bail granted in absence of bar under Section 37 of NDPS Act and considering lack of past criminal record [Paras 6(viii), 10]

Criminal Procedure – Delay in Trial – Bail Justified – 42 prosecution witnesses yet to be examined – Trial expected to be prolonged – Petitioners not involved in other cases – No purpose served by continued incarceration – Bail granted [Paras 7, 11]

Bail – Parity with Co-Accused – Co-Accused Already Granted Bail – Seven co-accused granted regular bail earlier by High Court – Petitioners’ case found on parity – Bail granted on equal footing [Para 6(vii)]

Decision: Regular bail granted to petitioners Rinku Thapar and Divyam – Ordered to be released on bail upon furnishing bail/surety bonds to satisfaction of Trial Court – Trial Court to proceed independently and expeditiously.

Civil Law – Order 7 Rule 11 CPC – Scope – Rejection of Plaint – At the stage of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, only averments contained in the plaint are to be considered – Defence of the defendant or disputed questions of fact cannot be examined – Issues requiring evidence cannot be decided summarily [Paras 6–7].

Rent Control – Ejectment Petition – Alleged Prior Vacation of Premises – Tenant pleaded that premises were vacated prior to filing of ejectment petition – Landlord denied said assertion – Held: Whether tenant had vacated premises is a pure question of fact requiring evidence – Cannot be a ground for rejection of rent petition under Order VII Rule 11 CPC [Paras 2, 6].

Commercial Courts Act – Section 6 – Applicability – Eviction Proceedings – Dispute arising out of landlord-tenant relationship, even relating to commercial premises, does not fall within definition of “commercial dispute” under Section 2(1)(c) of Commercial Courts Act – Eviction proceedings under Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act not barred or transferred to Commercial Courts [Paras 3, 8].

Jurisdiction – Rent Controller – Exclusive Jurisdiction – Haryana Urban (Control of Rent and Eviction) Act, 1973 is a special statute creating exclusive forum – Rent Controller has jurisdiction to entertain eviction petition irrespective of residential or commercial use of premises [Para 8].

Supervisory Jurisdiction – Article 227 – Limited Interference – High Court will not interfere with interlocutory orders unless patent illegality or perversity shown – Application under Order VII Rule 11 found to be filed only to delay proceedings – No ground made out for interference [Paras 6, 9].

Decision: Civil Revision Petition Dismissed – Order dated 19.11.2025 dismissing application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC upheld – Rent proceedings to continue in accordance with law – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 9–10].

Motor Vehicles Act – Injury Compensation – Enhancement – Permanent Partial Disability – Reassessment of Income – Application of Multiplier Method – Claimant aged 23 years, final year engineering student, sustained fracture of left scapula with brachial plexus injury resulting in 25% permanent partial disability – Tribunal awarded compensation based on minimum wages – High Court held that mechanical adoption of minimum wages is impermissible where claimant is academically qualified with clear future earning potential – Monthly income reassessed at ₹20,000 – Future prospects @ 40% added – Multiplier of 18 rightly applied considering age – Loss of future earning recalculated on basis of functional disability – Award enhanced substantially [Paras 9–16, 27].

Disability – Functional Impact – Loss of Earning Capacity – Disability percentage certified by doctor cannot automatically be equated with loss of earning capacity – Court must assess functional disability having regard to nature of injuries, profession, age and prospects – Claimant’s upper limb movement compromised permanently – Tribunal erred in undervaluing impact of disability on future earning – Functional loss assessed at 15% for computation of future income loss [Paras 6, 18, 27].

Non-Pecuniary Damages – Pain and Suffering – Loss of Amenities – Human Dignity – Permanent disability not only causes physical impairment but also lifelong pain, mental agony and loss of dignity – Claimant hospitalized and suffered permanent weakness of limb not likely to improve – Tribunal awarded meagre amount – Following Supreme Court jurisprudence, pain and suffering enhanced to ₹3,00,000 – Separate compensation awarded for loss of amenities of life [Paras 16–20, 26–27].

Attendant Charges – Requirement of Assistance – Reasonable Lump Sum – Claimant suffered grievous injuries requiring assistance in daily activities – Tribunal failed to grant adequate attendant charges – Though disability not 100%, claimant entitled to reasonable attendant expenses – Attendant charges awarded as lump sum ₹30,000 keeping in view age, disability and nature of injuries [Paras 21–22].

Loss of Marriage Prospects – Young Claimant – Non-Pecuniary Loss – Claimant was 23 years old at time of accident – Tribunal failed to consider impact of permanent disability on matrimonial prospects – Loss of marriage prospects recognized as distinct head of compensation in injury cases – Award of ₹2,00,000 granted under this head as just and reasonable [Paras 23–25, 27].

Transportation, Special Diet and Future Medical Expenses – Inadequate Award by Tribunal – Tribunal awarded meagre or no amounts under these heads – High Court enhanced compensation towards transportation, special diet and future medical expenses considering prolonged treatment and continuing disability [Paras 26–27].

Interest – Rate – Exclusion of Delay Period – Enhanced compensation directed to carry interest @ 9% per annum from date of filing of claim petition till realization – Period of delay of 388 days in filing appeal excluded from interest computation as undertaken by appellant – Insurance Company directed to deposit amount within two months [Paras 28–29].

Recovery Rights – Insurer’s Liberty – Insurance Company granted right to recover enhanced compensation from owner and driver of offending vehicle in accordance with Tribunal award [Para 29].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Award dated 30.04.2024 modified – Total compensation enhanced to ₹16,67,200 – Enhanced amount payable ₹11,16,200 with interest @ 9% per annum (excluding delay period) – Directions issued for deposit, disbursement and recovery.

Civil Law - Compromise Decree – Corporate authority – Alleged transfer of control under Share Purchase Agreement – Fraud on Court pleaded after decade-long delay – Prior execution findings negating fraud and collusion – Compromise lawful and binding – Recall rightly refused – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–50].

Company Law – Corporate Control – Share Purchase Agreement – Mere execution of SPA does not effect transfer of management or control – Statutory compliances under Companies Act and actual assumption of management essential – Absence of Form 32 filings, failure to convene meetings or take charge negates plea of transfer of control – “Alter ego” doctrine applied – Persons in de facto and de jure control bind the company [Paras 17–26].

Civil Procedure – Compromise Decree – Order XXIII Rule 3 CPC – Authority to compromise – Where statutory records and conduct show continuance of existing management, compromise entered by such management valid and binding – Subsequent claim of lack of authority by alleged transferee not accepted in absence of statutory recognition [Paras 25–29].

Fraud on Court – High threshold – Allegations of fraud must be clear, specific and supported by cogent evidence – Subsequent police report or speculative assertions regarding consideration insufficient to vitiate judicially recorded compromise – Earlier execution court findings rejecting plea of fraud and collusion carry significant weight [Paras 30–35, 43–44].

Execution Proceedings – Obstructionist claims – Failure to prove possession, mortgage or charge – Absence of books of account, balance sheets or statutory compliance under Companies Act and Transfer of Property Act – Obstructionist deriving claim from judgment debtor must “go with” judgment debtor – Compromise decree not undermined on such basis [Paras 35–42].

Delay and Acquiescence – Recall of compromise decree – Knowledge of decree and participation in execution proceedings through related entity – Recall application filed more than a decade later – Long acquiescence and repeated failed challenges undermine bona fides – Recall barred by limitation and conduct [Paras 45–49].

Appellate Interference – Scope – Where Single Judge has considered statutory records, prior adjudications and applied settled principles on fraud and corporate authority, no perversity or illegality warranting interference found [Paras 44–50].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Order dated 17.03.2025 upheld – Compromise decree dated 28.03.2003 held lawful and binding – All pending applications dismissed [Paras 49–50].

Service Law – Selection Grade – Non-Communication of Adverse ACRs – Grant Upheld – Pharmacist denied selection grade benefit from 13.04.1977 while juniors were granted the same – Denial based on average ACRs for 1970–1973 which were never communicated to employee – Trial Court and First Appellate Court held such ACRs could not be relied upon – Held: In light of Supreme Court rulings, all ACRs, including “average” or “good”, must be communicated – Non-communication renders denial of benefit arbitrary and illegal [Paras 7–17].

Administrative Law – Washed-Off Theory – Efficiency Bar Crossed – Employee had crossed efficiency bar on 01.11.1976 – Courts below rightly held that earlier average ACRs were liable to be ignored – Such entries deemed to be “washed off” and could not be the basis for denying selection grade [Paras 11, 18].

Limitation – Mixed Question of Law and Fact – Waiver – Issue of limitation framed but not pressed by the State before Trial Court or Appellate Court – No grounds raised in Regular Second Appeal on this issue – Held: Fresh plea barred – Even on merits, limitation not made out as cause of action arose only with letter dated 21.07.1987 granting partial benefit – Suit filed on 09.03.1990 within prescribed 3-year period [Paras 20–24].

Judicial Review – Concurrent Findings – Interference Unwarranted – Concurrent judgments of Trial Court and First Appellate Court based on cogent reasoning and legal principles – No perversity shown – Appeal dismissed [Paras 6, 19, 25].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Trial Court and First Appellate Court judgments upheld – Respondent entitled to selection grade w.e.f. 13.04.1977 – Plea of limitation rejected both on procedural waiver and substantive grounds.

Civil Law – Amendment of Pleadings – Order 6 Rule 17 CPC – Suit filed in 1995 based on major settlement RoR – Amendment sought in 2025 to introduce consolidation plot number for plaintiffs’ land alone – High Court held that such amendment at argument stage without including defendants’ corresponding plot from consolidation records would cause prejudice – Held: Amendment not essential for adjudication and likely to complicate proceedings – Impugned order allowing amendment set aside [Paras 2–9]

Pleadings – Principles Governing Amendment – Reference to Chakreshwari Construction case – Court reiterated that amendments must not fundamentally alter the nature of the case or prejudice the opposite party – Amendment must be necessary, bona fide, and non-prejudicial – Proposed amendment failed on these counts – Suit can be adjudicated on basis of original settlement records alone [Paras 6–9]

Delay and Procedural Fairness – Suit delayed due to remand after decree – No explanation for belated amendment – Consolidation RoR came into effect during pendency but was not relied on earlier – Selective reference to new land records without matching updates for both parties held unfair – Amendment termed unnecessary and likely to trigger further procedural complexity [Paras 5–9]

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Petition allowed – Order dated 09.10.2025 passed by Gram Nyayalaya allowing amendment set aside – Amendment application rejected

Tenancy Law - Landlord-Tenant Relationship – Ownership Requirement under Section 14(1)(e) – Proof of Better Title Sufficient – Landlady sought eviction on ground of bona fide requirement – ARC dismissed petition on ground that ownership and landlord-tenant relationship were not proved – Held: Landlady produced registered sale deed and rent receipts proving better title than tenant – ARC exceeded jurisdiction by venturing into detailed title examination contrary to settled law – Eviction petition cannot be defeated merely because landlady is not absolute owner – Revision allowed and eviction ordered [Paras 1–6, 10–11].

Eviction – Bona Fide Requirement – Discretion of Landlady – ARC failed to consider landlady’s residential need – Landlady sought more space for herself and her growing family – Held: It is landlady who is best judge of her requirement – Tenant failed to rebut claim with any credible evidence – Bald denials not sufficient – No evidence of alternative suitable accommodation – ARC erred in not considering material on record [Paras 12–13].

Revisional Jurisdiction – Limited Interference – When Justified – Though revisional court cannot substitute its view as appellate court, it can interfere where trial court acts beyond jurisdiction or misapplies settled law – Held: ARC’s finding based on ownership was contrary to binding precedents – Interference warranted to correct miscarriage of justice [Paras 14–15].

Decision: Petition allowed – Judgment of ARC dated 31.01.2019 set aside – Eviction order passed – Tenant granted six months to vacate premises in terms of Section 14(7) DRC Act [Para 16].

Arbitration – Appeal under Section 37 – Maintainability – Ad-interim injunction – Appellants challenged an ad-interim order passed under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 directing parties to maintain status quo ante – Office raised objection on maintainability under Section 37(1)(b) as petition was still pending – Held: Order amounts to granting an interim measure under Section 9 – Covered under Section 37(1)(b) – Appeal maintainable [Paras 5, 6, 11, 17–18, 25, 31–32].

Commercial Courts Act – Section 13(1) – Scope of Appeal – Commercial Court's interim order under Section 9 of Arbitration Act can be appealed if it falls under Section 37(1)(b) or Order 43 CPC – Held: Section 13 does not create independent right of appeal but facilitates appeal where it lies under Section 37 or Order 43 – Ad-interim injunction appealable if extraordinary circumstance shown [Paras 15, 28–30].

Interim Injunction – Appeal against Ad-Interim Order – Principles – Court referred to Innovative Pharma Surgicals and A. Venkatasubbaiah Naidu cases – Held: Appeal against ad-interim injunction maintainable in extraordinary circumstances such as delay or inaction in hearing vacation application – Interim order having serious consequences cannot be treated as non-appealable merely due to its interim nature [Paras 21–24].

Divergence from Other High Courts – Meghalaya High Court view in NTPC v. Meghalaya Power Distribution Ltd. that ad-interim orders are non-appealable under Section 37(1)(b) was not accepted – Andhra Pradesh High Court held ad-interim injunctions falling within the scope of Section 9 are appealable under Section 37 [Paras 26–28].

Civil Procedure – Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Ad-interim injunction granted under Order 39 is appealable – Same principle applies to ad-interim orders under Section 9 of Arbitration Act – Harmonious construction with Section 104 CPC and Section 37 Arbitration Act warranted [Paras 20, 24].

Decision: Office objection overruled – Appeal held maintainable under Section 37(1)(b) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and Order 43 Rule 1(r) CPC – Matter directed to be numbered – Appeal to be posted for further hearing on 30/12/2025.