Land Revenue – Mutation Entries – Competing Claims – Dispute over entry of name in revenue records concerning 30 guntas in Sy.No.155/1 – Appellant claimed title through Jayaramaiah based on Inams Abolition grant of 5 acres 4 guntas – Respondent No.5 traced title to Appashetty based on separate Inam grant and mutation in 1962 – Held: Appellant failed to establish grant of full 5 acres 4 guntas – Authorities justified in entering Respondent’s name for 30 guntas [Paras 3–6, 10, 18–20]

Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – Limitation on Title Adjudication – Contention raised that revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to alter entries amid pending civil suit on title – Held: While revenue officials cannot adjudicate title disputes, they may enter names based on available documents evidencing title – Mutation does not confer title but reflects source – No infirmity found in orders passed [Paras 16–17]

Maintainability of Appeal under Section 136(2) – Objection on maintainability of appeal before Assistant Commissioner due to alleged absence of order under Section 129(4) – Held: Mutation entry reflects an operative decision by Tahsildar – Section 136 appeal lies – Objection not raised before Single Judge or in appeal memo – Rejected [Paras 21–23]

Procedural Grounds – Waiver and Non-pleading – Grounds related to procedural defects and jurisdiction not raised at earlier stages – Court declined to entertain at appellate level – Legal principle affirmed that grounds not urged before learned Single Judge cannot be raised for first time in appeal [Paras 22, 26]

Decision: Writ appeal dismissed – Orders of revenue authorities and Single Judge upheld – Pending applications disposed of [Paras 27–28]

Goods and Services Tax – Cancellation of Registration – Non-filing of Returns – GST registration of petitioner cancelled under Section 29(2)(c) of the CGST Act due to failure to file returns for six months – Petitioners contended they were unaware of the online procedure and could not respond to the show cause notice – Registration cancelled ex parte without assigning reasons [Paras 2–3]

Revocation of Cancellation – Technical Barrier – Petitioners filed all pending GST returns up to March 2023 along with applicable dues and late fees – Application for revocation of cancellation could not be processed on GST portal due to expiry of 270-day timeline [Paras 4–5]

Rule 22(4) Proviso – Compliance – Petitioners willing to comply with Rule 22(4) proviso of CGST Rules by filing returns and clearing tax dues – Held: Proper officer may drop proceedings and restore GST registration if petitioners fulfil all requirements under Rule 22(4) proviso – Petitioners directed to approach concerned authority within 2 months – GST authority to consider and process restoration expeditiously [Paras 10, 12–13]

Limitation – Computation of Time – For the purpose of proceedings under Section 73(10), limitation to be computed from the date of this order, except for FY 2024–25 which will be governed by Section 44 of the CGST Act [Para 14]

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Petitioners granted liberty to seek restoration of registration on compliance – No cost [Para 15]

Civil Writ - Recruitment Process – Assistant District Attorney (ADA) – Screening Test – Legality of Syllabus – Petitioners challenged the screening test syllabus notified under Advertisement No. 18 of 2025 for ADA posts which excluded legal subjects – Court held that the post of ADA being legally specialized, excluding legal subjects from the screening stage was arbitrary and lacked rational nexus with the object of selection – Such exclusion renders the process legally unsustainable and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution [Paras 40-44, 56-66]

Equal Opportunity – Article 16(1) Violation – Petitioners argued that majority of candidates were being unfairly ousted at the first stage without testing legal acumen – Court held that elimination of more than 85% aspirants based on a test devoid of legal subject matter amounts to denial of equal opportunity in public employment – State cannot justify exclusion based on logistical convenience – Screening process must fairly reflect core qualifications [Paras 45-55]

Statutory Compliance – Article 320(3)(b) and HPSC Regulations – Court found that altering the recruitment methodology including syllabus without prior consultation with the Government and in violation of Clause 41 & 42 of the 1973 Regulations was contrary to constitutional and statutory mandates – The Commission’s autonomy cannot override the requirement for lawful consultation and adherence to recruitment norms [Paras 67-75]

Judicial Review – Scope in Recruitment Matters – While courts generally defer to recruiting agencies in academic matters, interference is warranted when the process is manifestly arbitrary, violates statutory norms, or contravenes constitutional guarantees – Present process failed to meet standards of legality, fairness, and rationality – Judicial intervention justified [Paras 32-39]

Decision: Writ petitions allowed – Screening Test syllabus and Advertisement No. 18 of 2025 quashed – Commission and State directed to revisit the recruitment process for ADA in line with constitutional and statutory requirements – Fresh process to be initiated, ensuring fairness and legal relevance [Paras 76-82]

Senior Citizens Act, 2007 – Appeal under Section 16 – Right of Appeal – Maintainability – Whether appeal under Section 16 is maintainable only by senior citizens or parents or also by any aggrieved person – Larger Bench of High Court constituted due to conflicting views among coordinate benches – Held: Appeal under Section 16 is maintainable only at the instance of a senior citizen or a parent – Appeal by any other aggrieved person (such as children or relatives) not maintainable [Paras A-1 to A-24, C-1, C-2]

Welfare Legislation – Beneficial Interpretation – Senior Citizens Act, 2007 enacted to provide effective provisions for maintenance and welfare of senior citizens and parents – Entire scheme, definitions, and procedural framework designed solely for benefit of senior citizens and parents – Object is to provide speedy, summary remedy to senior citizens without exposing them to prolonged litigation – Hence, restrictive interpretation of appellate rights justified [Paras A-2 to A-6, A-17, A-18]

Statutory Interpretation – Section 16(1) – Plain and Clear Language – Section 16(1) restricts right of appeal to “any senior citizen or a parent” – No ambiguity or scope for expansion to include “any aggrieved person” – Legislature consciously excluded children and relatives – Rule-making power under Section 32 does not authorize expansion of appellate rights – Any such inclusion would amount to judicial legislation [Paras A-10 to A-13, A-19, A-20, A-22]

Interpretive Doctrines – Doctrine of Casus Omissus – Inapplicability – No inadvertent omission by legislature in Section 16 – Omission of children or relatives from appellate provision is deliberate and intentional – Courts cannot supply words not found in statute – Reliance on Supreme Court decisions reaffirming that casus omissus cannot be judicially supplied unless omission is evident and defeats statute’s object [Paras P-12 to P-15, A-21]

Proviso to Section 16 – Scope – First proviso requiring continued payment of maintenance by children during appeal does not imply that children can file appeal – It only ensures continuity of support to senior citizen during pendency of appeal filed by them – Cannot be interpreted to extend appellate rights to children or relatives [Para A-13]

Availability of Alternate Remedy – No Violation of Natural Justice – Though appeal is not maintainable at the instance of children or relatives, they are not remediless – Remedy under Article 226 of Constitution always available to challenge Tribunal’s orders on jurisdictional or legal grounds – Hence, exclusion from appellate remedy does not violate principles of natural justice [Para A-24]

Constitutional Provisions – No Violation of Articles 14 or 21 – Restriction of appeal to senior citizens or parents does not offend equality clause under Article 14 – Classification is reasonable, based on intelligible differentia and rational nexus with object of statute – Protection of elderly is a constitutionally recognized goal under Articles 21, 41, 46 [Paras P-1 to P-5, A-6, A-17, A-18]

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction – Rejected in Present Case – Argument that proviso to Section 16 implies children can also appeal rejected – Harmonious construction cannot override clear legislative intent and express statutory language [Para A-13]

Reference to Larger Bench – Justification – Conflicting decisions by coordinate benches of same High Court – Larger Bench constituted to resolve interpretive inconsistency – Held: Previous view in Nitin Jaat (which allowed appeal by children) overruled – View taken in Anil Choupda and Dilip Marmat upheld [Paras F-3, F-13, F-14, C-1, C-2]

Comparative Statutory Schemes – Not Applicable – Reference to other social welfare legislations like Domestic Violence Act, Consumer Protection Act, RERA, etc., where appeal is allowed to both sides, held irrelevant – Senior Citizens Act is unique and designed to grant limited appellate remedy only to the beneficiary class [Paras S-7, S-8, A-16]

Legislative Amendment – Pending Amendment Not Applicable – Reliance placed on proposed 2019 Amendment Bill which seeks to include “children or relatives” in Section 16 – Held: Until amendment is passed, Court cannot read into statute what is consciously omitted – Pending amendment reinforces current exclusion [Paras P-16, A-15, A-21]

Decision: Reference answered in negative – Appeal under Section 16 of the Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizens Act, 2007 maintainable only at the instance of senior citizen or a parent – Not maintainable at the instance of any other aggrieved person – Writ petition to be listed before Single Bench for adjudication [Paras C-1, C-2]

Civil Law – Partition Suit – Ancestral Property – Appeal by grandchildren of original owner claiming 1/8th share in suit property on ground that it is ancestral – Trial Court dismissed suit finding that property was self-acquired by Krishnama Raju and succession governed by Section 8 of Hindu Succession Act – High Court upheld finding – Held: Property purchased in 1957 and owner died in 1983, making it self-acquired – No evidence of ancestral nucleus – Mere recital in sale agreement that property was ancestral is insufficient – Plaintiffs have no right by birth [Paras 13–15]

Specific Performance – Binding Nature of Decree – Suit property was subject of earlier specific performance decree in O.S. No. 69 of 2007 – Appeal in A.S. No. 12 of 2009 dismissed – Plaintiffs not parties to earlier suit – Held: Agreement of sale executed by wife and two daughters of deceased owner – Decree confirmed by High Court – Present plaintiffs (grandchildren) cannot challenge decree without establishing independent title – Attempt to reopen settled decree impermissible [Paras 9–10, 14, 17]

Succession Law – Applicability of Section 6 vs. Section 8 – Deceased left behind wife and two daughters, no male heir – Plaintiffs claimed right by birth – Held: Section 6 not applicable when no son survives – Property devolved on wife and daughters absolutely under Section 8 – No coparcenary interest arises – Suit rightly dismissed [Paras 13, 17]

Will – No Proof of Execution – Respondents referred to registered Will dated 21.04.1980 in favour of one daughter – However, Will not marked or proved – Held: In absence of proof, succession to be considered as intestate – But plaintiffs’ claim still fails as succession under Section 8 does not support birthright claim of grandchildren [Para 13]

Abuse of Process – Plaintiffs Set Up by Defendants – Trial Court found that plaintiffs were instigated by earlier unsuccessful defendants to stall execution of decree – All lived under same roof – Held: Suit a device to obstruct lawful execution – No merit in appeal [Para 18]

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Trial Court judgment upheld – No costs – CMP closed [Para 19]

Criminal Law – Land Dispute – Quashing of FIR – Petitioners accused of creating false documents and threatening complainant regarding land in Survey No. 956 – Petitioners relied on registered sale deeds from 2015 and asserted possession – Civil suits concerning title and possession already pending between parties – Held: Continuation of criminal proceedings in absence of specific allegations and in presence of parallel civil litigation is abuse of process – FIR quashed [Paras 1, 8–11, 16–18]

Civil and Criminal Overlap – Suppression of Material Facts – Complainant failed to disclose ongoing civil suits in complaint dated 02.10.2020 – Allegations of criminal intimidation made for first time in second complaint without mention in earlier version dated 29.09.2020 – Held: Non-disclosure of material facts and change in allegations undermine genuineness of complaint – FIR deserves to be quashed [Paras 4.4, 10–11]

Jurisdiction – Section 482 CrPC – Scope – Supreme Court precedents emphasized that criminal law should not be used to give colour to purely civil disputes – When complaint lacks ingredients of alleged offences and civil suits are pending, High Court can exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC to prevent abuse of process – Applied here to quash FIR [Paras 13–15, 17]

Burden of Proof – No Specific Allegations – No specific acts attributed to accused Nos. 5 to 7 and 9 – Mere presence of names without role or evidence insufficient – Even complaint failed to name some petitioners – Held: No prima facie case made out – Proceedings quashed [Paras 12, 16–17]

Decision: Criminal Petitions allowed – Proceedings in Crime No. 183 of 2020 of Miryalguda II Town Police Station, Nalgonda District against accused Nos. 3, 5 to 7 and 9 quashed – Observations confined to adjudication under Section 482 CrPC – Pending civil suits to continue unaffected.

Local Bodies – Panchayat Jurisdiction – Obstruction of Pathway – Petitioners issued notice by Gram Panchayat to remove obstruction allegedly placed on public pathway – Petitioners claim the pathway lies within their granted land – Dispute also pending in O.S. No. 299/2017 before Civil Court – Held: Since matter involves disputed questions of title and access, and civil suit is pending, parties must maintain status quo [Paras 1–4, 7]

Civil Procedure – Overlapping Jurisdiction – Parallel Proceedings – Pending civil litigation between parties on the same issue of public pathway and property ownership – Court held that administrative directions by Panchayat must await outcome of civil suit – Interim arrangement to remove obstruction only to facilitate access pending adjudication [Paras 4, 7, 9]

Commissioner’s Report – Factual Assessment – Court-appointed Commissioner confirmed presence of obstruction (laterite bricks) on disputed pathway used by respondent and other residents – Court relied on Commissioner’s factual findings to issue interim relief and protect access of residents [Paras 6–7]

Interim Directions – Maintenance of Access – Petitioners directed to remove obstruction on disputed passage pending civil court decision – Failure to comply will authorize Panchayat to remove obstruction and recover costs – Rights and contentions of parties reserved for adjudication in O.S. No. 299/2017 [Paras 9–10]

Decision: Writ petition disposed of – Petitioners directed to remove obstructions within one week – Panchayat authorized to act if petitioners default – All issues left open to be decided in pending civil suit [Paras 9–10]

Territorial Jurisdiction – Writ Petition against TDSAT Order – Maintainability – Karnataka High Court lacks jurisdiction – Petitioners challenged execution order dated 01.09.2022 passed by TDSAT, New Delhi, under Article 226 – Petitioners contended that since notices for personal appearance were served in Bengaluru, Karnataka High Court had jurisdiction – Held: Mere service of notice does not constitute integral part of cause of action – All material acts including impugned order occurred at New Delhi – Company and its Directors had submitted to TDSAT’s jurisdiction and led evidence – Petition not maintainable before Karnataka High Court – Appropriate remedy lies before Delhi High Court [Paras 9-26].

Execution Proceedings – Director’s Personal Liability – Lifting of Corporate Veil – Improperly Impleading Directors – TDSAT directed issuance of notice to all Directors in execution of decree passed against the company – Petitioners contended they were not parties to original proceedings and could not be personally proceeded against without lifting corporate veil – Held: Determination of such issues lies within execution jurisdiction of TDSAT – Writ under Article 226 cannot bypass this statutory mechanism – Proper remedy is through execution court or appellate jurisdiction [Paras 5-6].

Cause of Action – Meaning and Scope – Small Fraction Not Sufficient – Petitioners relied on Kusum Ingots and Om Prakash Srivastava to claim that even small part of cause of action confers jurisdiction – Court held: While small fraction of cause of action may suffice, facts must have nexus with the prayer sought – Service of notice for appearance alone not an integral fact giving rise to maintainable writ – Forum conveniens principle invoked [Paras 15-21, 24].

Decision: Writ Petitions dismissed as not maintainable before Karnataka High Court – Liberty granted to approach Delhi High Court.

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Allegation of Sexual Harassment by Child Welfare Committee Chairman – Lack of Sexual Intent – Petitioner, a statutory authority under Child Welfare Committee, was alleged to have made sexually coloured remarks during counselling of two minor girls – Statements attributed to the petitioner included reference to the girls’ relationships and questioning their attire – Held: Alleged words, though intemperate and inappropriate in tone, do not amount to sexually coloured remarks or indicate sexual intent – Interaction occurred in official capacity and in the presence of another counsellor – Prosecution under Section 354A(1)(iv) IPC and Sections 11/12 of POCSO Act unsustainable [Paras 6-10]

POCSO Act – Section 11 r/w Section 12 – Requirement of Sexual Intent – To attract offence of sexual harassment under POCSO, act must involve sexual intent – Mere inappropriate or offensive language, without such intent, held insufficient – Petitioner’s conduct, viewed in totality, lacked sexual intent and did not amount to harassment under the Act [Paras 8-10]

Abuse of Process – Frivolous Prosecution – Section 482 CrPC – Petitioner alleged that complaint was motivated by enmity after he reported sexual exploitation of minor girls by their lovers – Court accepted that prosecution appeared retaliatory and not based on genuine grievance – Criminal proceedings quashed to prevent abuse of judicial process [Paras 5, 10]

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case Nos. 2457/2022 and 2464/2022 allowed – Proceedings in SC Nos. 466/2021 and 467/2021 on the files of Additional Sessions Court-I, Thalassery quashed