Factual Background - Appeals arise from convictions for participating in a fatal gang attack where firearms and baseball bats were used - FIR registered based on a detailed complaint by an eye witness (Ex.PW-4/A) describing the attack on 10th June 2012 at Jalandhar Bye-pass, Ludhiana - The motive traced back to a previous altercation and a compromised FIR involving the accused - Appellants convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ludhiana on 28th October 2022 for murder under Section 302/149 IPC and rioting under Section 148 IPC - Sentenced to life imprisonment for murder and one year for rioting, sentences to run concurrently - Appellants acquitted of charges under Sections 307, 427, 506, 420, 467, 468, 471 IPC [Paras 1-5].

Trial Proceedings - During trial, 20 witnesses examined, extensive material evidence presented including forensic and medical reports affirming cause of death as firearm injury - Appellants' participation and presence at the crime scene confirmed through multiple eye witness accounts [Paras 6-20].

Witness Testimonies and Defense Challenges – Detailed analysis of eyewitness accounts affirming the involvement of appellants in the murder – Defense attempts to negate charges through cross-examination proved ineffective. [Paras 17-22]

Post-mortem Findings and Medical Evidence – Autopsy report confirming death due to firearm injuries with detailed injury description – Medical evidence supports the eyewitness accounts and establishes the fatal nature of the assault. [Paras 26-29]

Final Judgment and Execution of Sentence – Appeals dismissed due to lack of merit, affirmation of trial court’s conviction and sentence – Detailed directive for the immediate execution of sentences and handling of case properties. [Paras 31-33]

Property Law - Partition Suit - Regular Second Appeal against First Appellate Court decision upholding Trial Court's preliminary decree for partition of property measuring 3 kanals 16 marlas - Appellants challenged the decree claiming a prior mutual settlement excluding them from the suit property and contending that the suit was bad for partial partition - Trial Court found co-ownership and entitlement of shares among parties - First Appellate Court dismissed the defendants' appeal, finding no merit in the appeal on similar grounds. [Paras 1-7]

Evidence and Procedural Law - Rejection of unproved mutual settlement - Appellants' claim of mutual settlement based on writing Mark D1, argued to have excluded them from ownership, was not proved in accordance with the law - No evidence produced to substantiate claims of another property being excluded from the partition - Arguments on partial partition not raised in lower courts or in written statements thus rejected by High Court. [Paras 6-7]

Decision  - No substantial question of law - High Court finds no substantial question of law in the appeal as the appellants failed to substantiate their claims legally and factually - Appeal dismissed for lack of merit with all pending applications also disposed of. [Para 8]

Appeal against Dismissal of Suit – Challenge against the judgment dated 24^th February 2014 and review petition dismissal dated 29^th August 2014 concerning recovery of misuser charges on leased property – Appeal allowed – Single Judge dismissal set aside due to inadequate consideration of pleadings and issues framed – Appeal succeeds on grounds that the trial court failed to consider vital evidence and did not adjudicate on framed issues as mandated by Order XIV Rule 2 of CPC – Misuser charges paid under protest and without prejudice – Case remanded for retrial – [Paras 1-2, 19-22].

Lease and Misuser Charges – Dispute over legality of misuser charges levied by L&DO on appellant post purchase of leasehold property from Erstwhile Owners – Appellant contends payments were excessive, arbitrary, and not compliant with relevant regulations – [Paras 4-6, 14-16].

Pleading and Evidence – Initial judgment dismissed due to purported lack of pleadings and evidence regarding payment of charges under coercion – Appellate Court finds sufficient pleadings were indeed presented – Misuser charges questioned on validity and imposition process – Trial court failed to adjudicate on issues despite comprehensive pleadings and framed issues – [Paras 9, 14, 19].

Restoration of Suit – Appellate decision restores original suit and mandates retrial on merits, addressing all issues initially framed – [Para 21].

Decision: Judgment allowing the appeal, setting aside the initial dismissal, and restoring the suit for further proceedings. Misuser charges to be reviewed on substantive legal and factual grounds as framed in issues – [Paras 20-23].

Violation of Fundamental Rights – Right to Education – Provision of Statutory Benefits – Public Interest Litigation – Delhi High Court mandates immediate provision of educational materials in kind rather than cash to ensure compliance with the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and related rules, highlighting administrative failures in GNCTD and MCD – Calls for an enhancement of financial powers of the MCD Commissioner to resolve procurement issues. [Paras 1-7, 9-14, 17, 25-26, 40]

Non-Compliance with Statutory Obligations – Delhi High Court identifies a lack of coordination and administrative impasse in MCD, exacerbated by non-functional Standing Committees, leading to failure in providing educational materials to students as per statutory requirements – Court stresses the need for immediate action to rectify the deficiencies to safeguard the fundamental rights of students under Article 21A. [Paras 10, 12-14, 23-26]

Judicial Directions for Administrative Reforms – In response to the failure of GNCTD and MCD to provide statutory educational benefits, Delhi High Court directs immediate delegation of financial powers to MCD Commissioner and criticizes the administrative inertia – Court emphasizes the urgency of fulfilling constitutional and statutory obligations towards school children. [Paras 16, 23-26, 35-37, 39-40]

Responsibility of Government Authorities – Delhi High Court holds GNCTD and MCD accountable for not ensuring the provision of free textbooks, writing materials, and uniforms, violating the statutory rights of children – Court orders immediate procurement of these items despite administrative and financial constraints, underscoring the urgency due to imminent school vacations. [Paras 5, 9-11, 15, 27-29, 31, 33-37]

Decision – Immediate Action Required – High Court emphasizes immediate need for action, overriding bureaucratic impediments, to ensure provision of statutory educational benefits, underscores the urgency given by upcoming academic breaks and fundamental education rights [Para 40].

Rent Act - Quashing of Eviction Order – Appeal against dismissal of eviction petition – Landlords' plea under Section 14(1)(e) of the Delhi Rent Control Act for recovery of possession of the subject premises – Landlords claim bona fide requirement for reconstruction of premises and settlement in India due to advanced age and insufficient accommodation – Tenant contests, alleging lack of evidence and bona fides – Trial court dismisses eviction petition for failure to prove bona fide requirement – High Court intervenes under proviso to Section 25B(8) of the Act – Holds eviction order unsustainable due to perversity in Rent Controller's reasoning – Landlords' desire to return to India for settling down and arranging matrimonial alliances for their children upheld as bona fide – Lack of specific pleadings and affirmative evidence from tenant's side – Court allows eviction petition, granting landlords possession of subject premises – Execution of possession order deferred for six months.

Execution Proceedings – Appointment of Legal Guardian – Tenant-petitioner sought appointment of a legal guardian for the landlord-respondent in a comatose state and adjournment sine die till such appointment – Application dismissed by the Executing Court – Court held that as per Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC, an enquiry must be conducted to adjudge the mental condition of the landlord – Case remanded to Executing Court for enquiry to be completed within 15 days [Paras 1-11].

Deposit of Arrears of Rent – Tenant’s application to deposit arrears of rent dismissed – Court affirmed the Executing Court’s decision, noting tenant's intent to delay proceedings – Rent arrears and interest upheld as per Rent Controller's decision [Para 6].

Relief – Petition partly allowed – Matter remanded for enquiry under Order XXXII Rule 15 CPC to be completed within 15 days – No unnecessary adjournments to be granted [Para 11].
 

Land Consolidation – Jurisdiction Under Section 42 – Petitioners challenged orders passed under Section 42, arguing improper handling of consolidation proceedings and non-compliance with previous orders – Court found that authorities improperly exercised jurisdiction beyond the scope of Section 42, which is limited to correcting clerical or arithmetical errors, and should not be used for re-partitioning or revising finalized schemes – Previous orders impacting the petitioners were set aside [Paras 1-25].

Consolidation Scheme – Section 22 Updates – Finalized consolidation scheme and records updated under Section 22 should not be altered through Section 42 jurisdiction – Proper remedy for re-partitioning lies under Section 21 before finalization, or under Section 36 for re-notification of consolidation – Petitioners' land rights affected without due process – Orders quashed, and liberty granted to seek civil court remedies [Paras 16-26].

Relief – Petition allowed – Impugned orders quashed – Liberty to seek declaratory relief in civil court – Option for government to issue fresh consolidation notification under Section 36 [Para 26].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings – Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – Petitioner sought declaration that acquisition proceedings had lapsed due to non-payment of compensation and non-possession – Initial dismissal of writ petitions by the High Court, followed by remittance from the Supreme Court for fresh decision on issues excluding the field covered by Indore Development Authority case – Petition dismissed due to failure to raise objections under Section 5A of the 1894 Act and lack of timely compliance with conditional approval for alternative allotment – Delayed petition imbued with delay and laches – Reliance on precedents for bar on late challenges [Paras 1-13].

Relief – Writ petition dismissed – Orders of acquisition and award maintained – Petitioner directed to pay costs [Para 14].

Jurisdiction and Authority of Police to Reinvestigate – Criminal Jurisdiction – Writ of Certiorari to quash FIR – Andhra Pradesh High Court rules on the legality of police reinvestigation in FIR No. 72 of 2016 under Sections 365, 342, 84, 506, 109 read with 34 of IPC, following a previous investigation into similar allegations in FIR No. 378 of 2015 – Held, police lack authority to reinvestigate the matter after a significant lapse of time and without new evidence against the petitioners – High Court quashes FIR No. 72 of 2016, deeming it illegal, arbitrary, and violative of Articles 21 and 22 of the Constitution, citing lack of jurisdiction and improper exercise of police powers in reinvestigation. [Paras 1-12]

Double Jeopardy and Civil Disputes – Analysis – Held, reinvestigation of the same factual scenario previously adjudicated in a criminal case constitutes double jeopardy; issues between parties are civil in nature and do not warrant criminal proceedings – High Court emphasizes improper police action in persisting with criminal charges absent new evidence, resulting in quashing of FIR. [Paras 10-11]

Decision – Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – High Court orders quashing of FIR No. 72 of 2016 and all associated criminal proceedings against the petitioners, highlighting the absence of a valid cause of action for continuing investigation and the violation of constitutional rights of the petitioners. [Para 12]