Land Acquisition – Redetermination of Compensation – Maintainability of Application Under Section 28A – Petitioners sought parity in compensation under Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, based on enhanced compensation awarded by the High Court in a first appeal – Application rejected by the Collector on the ground that Section 28A applies only to awards passed by the reference court under Section 18, and not by appellate courts – High Court held: The provisions of Section 28A, being beneficial in nature, must be interpreted to advance their purpose – Application under Section 28A maintainable on the basis of enhanced compensation awarded in appeal by the High Court [Paras 20–22].

Beneficial Legislation – Interpretation of Section 28A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 – Court observed: Section 28A aims to address inequality in compensation by providing relief to landowners who were unable to file references under Section 18 – Interpretation must favor extending the benefit, not curtailing it – Rejection of the petitioners’ application was contrary to the legislative intent of Section 28A [Paras 11–12, 20].

Limitation Under Section 28A – Trigger Date – Petitioners filed their application within three months of the High Court’s judgment enhancing compensation – High Court held: Limitation under Section 28A begins from the date of the award or judgment with which parity is sought – Application filed within the prescribed period was valid [Paras 13, 22].

Contrary Precedents – Clarification – High Court clarified: Judgments limiting Section 28A applications to awards passed by the reference court (e.g., Bhagti v. State of Haryana, (1997) 4 SCC 473) are not applicable in cases where the enhancement was first made in appeal – Judgments in Pradeep Kumari v. Union of India, (1995) 2 SCC 736, and Banwari v. Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation Ltd., (2024), correctly reflect the law and were relied upon [Paras 13–19].

Decision:

Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 29/07/2022 rejecting the application under Section 28A quashed – Respondent-Collector directed to reconsider the application for redetermination of compensation and pass a fresh order in terms of the High Court’s judgment in First Appeal No. 458 of 1982 [Para 22–23].

Property Law – Eviction under Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act – Appeal and Writ Petition – Respondent No. 3 (mother) sought eviction of the appellant (son) under the Act, citing harassment – District Collector ordered eviction – Appellant challenged the eviction order in writ proceedings, citing lack of jurisdiction and violation of natural justice – High Court quashed the eviction order and remanded the matter for fresh consideration with due process [Paras 5.3, 18-19].

Principles of Natural Justice – Failure to Provide Opportunity – District Collector failed to allow the appellant to submit an explanation or supporting documents before passing the eviction order – High Court held this to be a violation of natural justice – Remanded the matter for rehearing and compliance with Rule 21(3) of the Telangana Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Rules, 2011 [Paras 6.3, 14, 18].

Jurisdiction – Eviction Proceedings by Senior Citizen – Appellant argued that the mother (Respondent No. 3) had executed a gift settlement deed in favor of another son, Respondent No. 4, and therefore lacked standing to seek eviction – High Court clarified that jurisdictional issues must be adjudicated by the District Collector without being influenced by previous findings [Paras 10, 18].

Alternative Remedy – Writ Maintainability – Appellant bypassed the statutory remedy of appeal, citing breach of natural justice – High Court held that while alternative remedies are generally preferred, writ jurisdiction can be invoked in cases involving natural justice violations or lack of jurisdiction [Paras 17-18].

Decision: W.P. No. 34257 of 2024 allowed – Eviction order dated 20.11.2024 set aside – Matter remitted to District Collector for fresh consideration – Appellant directed to submit an explanation within two weeks, and Collector to decide within six weeks thereafter – W.A. No. 1202 of 2024 dismissed as infructuous – No costs [Paras 19-21].
 

Limitation - Delay Condonation – COVID-19 Limitation Extensions – GRT Refused Condonation – High Court Upholds – The petitioner sought condonation of 365 days' delay in filing a revision application before the Gujarat Revenue Tribunal, citing lack of legal awareness and the COVID-19 pandemic – Held: The petitioner was legally aware, having filed a civil suit in 2019 challenging the same Deputy Collector’s order – The Supreme Court's COVID-19-related limitation extensions do not apply to cases where the limitation period expired before the pandemic – GRT’s rejection of delay condonation upheld [Paras 6.1-6.8].

Sufficient Cause for Delay – No Liberal Interpretation When Bona Fides in Question – Lack of Vigilance by the Petitioner – The petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay in filing the revision application – Courts emphasized that sufficient cause cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence or lack of diligence is apparent – High Court upheld GRT’s reasoning that the petitioner, despite being aware of his legal remedies, failed to act in time [Paras 6.6-6.8].

COVID-19 Limitation Extensions – Applicability – Held: Supreme Court's limitation extensions for COVID-19-related delays benefit vigilant litigants whose limitation period fell during the pandemic – In this case, the delay predated the pandemic, and the petitioner could not claim benefit under the Supreme Court's orders [Para 6.6].

Procedural Rigour of Limitation – Equitable Grounds Insufficient Without Legal Justification – The petitioner cited equitable grounds for delay condonation but failed to justify the inordinate delay legally – High Court reiterated that rules of limitation are based on sound public policy and must be applied rigorously [Paras 6.7-6.8].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed. The Gujarat Revenue Tribunal's refusal to condone the delay in filing the revision application was upheld. No interference warranted as the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay.

Execution Proceedings - Service of Judgment Debtor – Substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC was ordered without recording satisfaction that the appellant (JD No. 2) was evading service – Decree-holder failed to provide correct addresses available in official documents – Held: Service of JD No. 2 was invalid, rendering subsequent ex parte proceedings unsustainable [Paras 9-13].

Auction Sale - Proclamation and Munadi – Sale conducted without proper proclamation or compliance with mandatory provisions of Order XXI Rule 66 and Rule 67 CPC – Munadi (beat of drum) was not carried out, and no reliable valuation was recorded in the sale proclamation – Held: Provisions under Order XXI Rules 64, 66, and 67 CPC were violated, resulting in material irregularity in the auction process [Paras 31-34].

Extent of Sale - Mandatory Compliance with Order XXI Rule 64 CPC – The executing court failed to determine whether the sale of a portion of the attached property would suffice to satisfy the decree – Entire property sold despite the possibility of partial satisfaction – Held: Sale conducted without assessing the requisite extent of property is unlawful and violates Order XXI Rule 64 CPC [Paras 46-47].

Material Irregularity and Substantial Injury – Auction sale resulted in the undervaluation of the property, causing substantial injury to the appellant – No competitive bidding due to the absence of proper proclamation – Held: Sale is vitiated due to material irregularity and fraud, causing substantial injury to the judgment debtor [Paras 24, 35].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Order confirming auction sale set aside – Executing court directed to proceed afresh in accordance with law after joining JD No. 2 in execution proceedings from the stage of 07/12/2019 onwards [Paras 50-51].

NDPS Act – Quashing - Admissibility of Statements under Section 67 – Reliance on Co-Accused’s Statement Quashed – The petitioner was implicated in the case solely based on the confessional statements of co-accused under Section 67 of the NDPS Act. Held: Such statements, being inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act as per Tofan Singh v. State of Tamil Nadu, cannot form the sole basis for proceeding against the petitioner [Paras 4, 6-12].

Prosecution’s Burden of Proof – Corroborative Evidence Required – In the absence of any recovery from the petitioner’s possession or corroborative evidence connecting him to the alleged offense, proceedings against him amount to an abuse of process of law [Paras 9, 15].

Quashing of Proceedings – Abuse of Process – Section 482 CrPC Invoked – Permitting prosecution against the petitioner solely based on inadmissible statements of co-accused would result in grave injustice and violate due process. Held: Proceedings against the petitioner quashed [Paras 9, 15].

Decision: The Criminal Petition is allowed. The proceedings against the petitioner in C.C. No. 17532/2018, pending before the XXXII Addl. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bengaluru, are quashed.
 

Murder Trial – Conviction Based on Circumstantial Evidence – Validity – Appellant Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha challenged his conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC, alleging discrepancies in evidence and reliance on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution successfully established a strong chain of circumstantial evidence, including last-seen theory, recovery of weapon pursuant to disclosure statement, forensic analysis linking recovered weapon and footprints, and corroboration by medical evidence – Held: The prosecution proved the charges beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction affirmed [Paras 17-50, 63].

Last-Seen Theory – Credibility – Corroboration of Witness Testimonies – Prosecution witnesses (PWs 19 and 20) testified to last seeing the deceased in the company of the convict Sukhwinder Singh and co-accused near the crime scene – Witnesses’ testimonies remained unshaken during cross-examination – Held: The last-seen theory was established and corroborated by the accused’s disclosure statement and forensic evidence [Paras 19-23].

Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Recovery of Weapon of Offence – Recovery of a .12 bore gun and its broken parts, including the butt, was made pursuant to the disclosure statement of Sukhwinder Singh – Forensic analysis confirmed the weapon was used in the crime – Recovery held admissible and credible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Held: The recovery was a crucial corroborative link in the circumstantial evidence chain [Paras 25-31, 41-43].

Forensic and Medical Evidence – Role in Circumstantial Cases – Forensic examination of the weapon and ballistic reports corroborated the prosecution’s case – Medical evidence established the cause of death as injuries caused by the recovered weapon – Minor inconsistencies regarding the height of the deceased in the service record and inquest report were immaterial – Held: Forensic and medical evidence strengthened the prosecution’s case [Paras 44-50, 63].

Acquittal – Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt – State's appeal against the acquittal of co-accused Rajdeep and Sukhwinder Singh (son of Jagdev Singh) – Witnesses failed to conclusively identify them in court, and no test identification parade was conducted – Recovery of clothes from Rajdeep was from an open area, and forensic analysis found no matching shoe molds for both acquitted persons – Held: Acquittal upheld as the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt [Paras 66-68].

Decision

• Appeal by Sukhwinder Singh @ Sukha (CRA-D-318-DB-2005) dismissed – Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC affirmed.
• Appeal by the State (CRA-D-124-DBA-2006) dismissed – Acquittal of co-accused Rajdeep and Sukhwinder Singh (son of Jagdev Singh) upheld.

Family Law – Permanent Alimony – Assessment of Husband's Financial Capacity – The husband challenged the trial court's award of ₹10 lakhs to the wife and ₹5 lakhs to the minor daughter as permanent alimony, while the wife sought enhancement of the amount – Evidence established that the husband had adequate financial means, including agricultural land, a petrol pump, and business income – Held: Husband is liable to pay the awarded alimony – Appeal by the husband dismissed, and no enhancement granted to the wife as no infirmity was found in the trial court's judgment.

Husband's Financial Status – Evidence Supporting Adequate Means – The trial court relied on documentary evidence, including LIC policies, partnership deeds, and land ownership records, to conclude that the husband had sufficient financial resources – Held: The husband's bare denial without contradictory evidence is insufficient – The family court’s finding of adequate means is affirmed.

Wife's Dependency and Custody of Minor Child – The wife, living with her mother and caring for the minor daughter, was found to be unemployed and dependent – Husband’s assertion that the wife ran a coaching center and owned a four-wheeler was unsupported by evidence – Held: Permanent alimony awarded to wife and daughter upheld as reasonable and just.

Procedural Fairness – No Fresh Opportunity to Lead Evidence – Husband’s failure to lead evidence during the trial cannot justify granting another opportunity at the appellate stage – Held: Family court proceedings were fair, and the trial court's decision was based on cogent evidence – No procedural infirmity found.

Decision: Both appeals dismissed – The husband's appeal challenging the family court’s order fails, and the wife’s appeal for enhancement of alimony is also rejected – Permanent alimony of ₹10 lakhs to the wife and ₹5 lakhs to the minor daughter upheld as reasonable.
 

Bail - Money Laundering – Double Jeopardy – Applicant contended that he cannot be prosecuted in India after conviction in the United States—Held: Prosecution in India is permissible if the offences are distinct—Foreign conviction does not create an absolute bar on domestic prosecution—Bail denied [Paras 7, 20].

Money Laundering – Admissibility of Foreign Conviction – US authorities prosecuted the applicant for laundering proceeds from drug trafficking—He surrendered Bitcoin holdings in a plea agreement—Held: Indian courts may recognize foreign convictions but are not bound by them—Effect of foreign conviction must be determined based on case-specific factors—Prosecution in India stands independently [Paras 16-21].

Confessional Statements – Section 50 of PMLA – Applicant alleged coercion in recording his statement under Section 50—Held: Such statements are not substantive evidence unless corroborated—Merely retracting a statement does not invalidate it—Evidentiary value to be determined at trial—Bail denied [Paras 8, 22].

Possession of Proceeds of Crime – Burden of Proof under Section 23 of PMLA – Applicant argued that he is not in possession of unaccounted Bitcoin—Held: PMLA presumes that unexplained foreign transactions related to illicit activities are proceeds of crime—Burden is on the applicant to prove otherwise—Bail denied [Paras 24-25].

Jurisdiction of Indian Courts – Cryptocurrency and Money Laundering – Applicant transferred Bitcoin proceeds from his illegal activities—Held: Cryptocurrency transactions fall under territorial jurisdiction where the owner is domiciled—Indian authorities have jurisdiction if Bitcoin holdings are linked to the applicant—Bail denied [Para 11].

Bail Considerations – Section 45 of PMLA – Severity of Allegations – Applicant accused of laundering proceeds from international drug trade—Held: Bail to be denied if reasonable grounds exist for believing in prima facie guilt—Given the gravity of charges and potential risk of tampering with evidence, bail rejected [Paras 9-10, 26].

Decision: Bail application rejected—Applicant’s prosecution in India deemed valid despite foreign conviction—Indian authorities directed to continue investigation into unaccounted Bitcoin holdings—Case to proceed to trial.
 

Civil Law - Adverse Possession - Establishment of Ownership – Defendants claimed ownership through adverse possession since 1890 – Mutation No. 139 (1895-96) revealed possession transferred to defendants' predecessors based on an agreement to sell, but no registered sale deed was executed – Held: Long-standing possession by defendants (over 130 years) became adverse; earlier judgments in 1995 and 1999 confirmed adverse possession, binding on plaintiffs under res judicata principles [Paras 9-14, 21-32].

Res Judicata and Constructive Res Judicata - Binding Effect of Prior Decisions – Plaintiffs’ predecessors filed suits in 1972 and 1986, admitting defendants as trespassers but failed to act within statutory limits – Findings from the 1995 suit (dismissing plaintiffs’ claims and confirming defendants’ adverse possession) operate as res judicata under Section 11 of the CPC – High Court held the findings applicable to current plaintiffs as co-sharers [Paras 22-31].

Limitation - Bar on Suit for Declaration and Possession – Plaintiffs’ suit, filed in 2005, was beyond the 12-year limitation period prescribed under Article 65 of the Limitation Act – Admission of defendants’ adverse possession in 1972 triggered the limitation clock – Suit dismissed as barred by limitation [Paras 33-34].

Interference with Concurrent Findings - High Court’s Role – Concurrent findings set aside due to misapplication of law and incorrect inferences drawn from evidence – High Court intervened to rectify errors in interpretation of adverse possession and limitation [Paras 36-38].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Judgments of trial and first appellate courts set aside – Plaintiffs’ suit dismissed, and defendants’ ownership by adverse possession affirmed [Para 39].