Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Writ Petition under Article 226 – Petition challenging unauthorized construction of a road on private land - Article 300-A and human rights considerations - State cannot dispossess a citizen of property without legal sanction and compensation - The State's claim of adverse possession against a private individual is untenable - Held, construction on private land without acquisition violates constitutional rights. [Paras 1-36]

State's Liability and Officer's Responsibility - Executive Engineer's failure to comply with interim court orders – Interim orders required halting construction on private land - Admitted non-compliance indicates a hostile attitude towards legal processes and citizens' rights - Held, mesne profits for unauthorized use of land to be recovered from the officer’s salary - Officer directed to show cause for contempt of court. [Paras 7-36, 40-41]

Decision - Petition Allowed - Respondents directed to immediately cease road construction on petitioner’s land, dismantle any existing construction, and compensate petitioner for unauthorized use - Mesne profits to be deducted from salary of responsible officer - Cost imposed on the officer for non-compliance with interim orders. [Paras 31-41]

Limitation Law – Condonation of Delay – Probate Application – Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the legality of the order passed by the District Judge, Tinsukia allowing condonation of delay for 1443 days in filing a probate application – Petitioner argued that the delay was inordinate and not sufficiently explained – Respondent claimed the limitation period should be counted from the date of discovering the will – Held, the right to apply for probate is a continuous right exercisable at any time as long as the right survives and the object of the trust exists – Application for condonation of delay was unnecessary under the circumstances – Court observed that probate applications are actions in rem and not actions in law. Application allowed. [Paras 1-13]

Right to Apply for Probate – Analysis – The right to seek probate of a will is a continuous right which can be exercised any time after the death of the testator – Applications for grant of probate are not barred by limitation if made within three years from the date of knowledge of the will’s existence. [Para 7-11]

Decision – The impugned order by the District Judge allowing the condonation of delay was unnecessary as the application for probate itself was within the permissible period – Directions issued for further proceedings in the probate case without considering the delay condonation application. [Para 13]

Criminal Law – Conviction based on Circumstantial Evidence – Acquittal – Criminal Appeal against conviction under Section 302, IPC – Sessions Court convicted accused for murder of his wife – Prosecution witnesses turned hostile – Prosecution failed to establish motive or conclusively link the accused to the crime – Lack of direct evidence – Held that evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Judgment of trial court set aside – Accused acquitted. [Paras 1-34]

Hostile Witnesses – Evidentiary Value – Analysis – Prosecution witnesses (P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.5) declared hostile – Testimonies did not substantiate the prosecution’s case – No direct evidence of accused committing the crime – Previous inconsistent statements not adequately confronted – Held that testimonies of hostile witnesses not wholly disregarded but did not provide sufficient corroboration to convict – Benefit of doubt given to accused. [Paras 21-23, 31]

Circumstantial Evidence – Legal Standards – Principles – Case based on circumstantial evidence requires proof beyond reasonable doubt – Entire chain of circumstances must be complete – Gaps in the chain of evidence can lead to acquittal – Application of the principle in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra – Inference of guilt must exclude any other hypothesis – Held that the prosecution failed to meet these standards. [Para 32]

Decision – Acquittal – Appeal allowed – Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence set aside – Accused to be released forthwith if not required in any other case – Remuneration for Amicus Curiae as per rules. [Paras 34-36]

Criminal Law – Conviction for Murder – Circumstantial Evidence – Hostile Witnesses –  Appeal against the conviction under Section 302 IPC based on circumstantial evidence – Trial Court convicted appellant for the murder of his wife – Prosecution witnesses P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.5 declared hostile – Hostile witnesses did not support the prosecution case during trial – Trial Court relied on the remaining testimonies and circumstantial evidence to convict appellant – High Court held that the testimonies of hostile witnesses were not properly confronted with their previous statements – Lack of direct evidence or witness to the act of murder – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Accused entitled to benefit of doubt – Conviction set aside and appellant acquitted.

Hostile Witnesses – Role and Evidentiary Value – Analysis: Hostile witnesses (P.W.2, P.W.3, and P.W.5) did not support the prosecution’s case during the trial. The prosecution failed to confront these witnesses with their previous statements recorded under Section 161 CrPC to prove contradictions. The High Court emphasized that without proper confrontation and proof, previous inconsistent statements cannot be used to contradict the witnesses. [Paras 21-23]

Circumstantial Evidence – Legal Principles – Application: In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of events leading to the accused’s guilt. The evidence must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt and exclude any possibility of innocence. Suspicion, however strong, cannot replace proof beyond reasonable doubt. [Para 32]

Evaluation of Evidence – Lack of Direct Witnesses: None of the prosecution witnesses directly witnessed the murder or the assault. The evidence primarily consisted of post-occurrence witnesses who arrived after the incident. The explanation provided by the appellant during his examination under Section 313 CrPC was deemed plausible. [Paras 28-31]

Decision – Acquittal – Benefit of Doubt: The High Court found that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence to conclusively establish the appellant’s guilt. The chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete, and the prosecution failed to rule out the possibility of innocence. Consequently, the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt, leading to the acquittal. [Paras 33-34]

Will – Proof and Validity – The petitioner sought to have his name mutated in the revenue records based on a Will executed by Phagulal Patel in favor of Dharmendra Sonkar. The Court emphasized that for a Will to be acted upon, it must be duly proved in accordance with the law. The petitioner failed to provide evidence proving the genuineness and validity of the Will. The Court highlighted the necessity of proving the Will through a civil court declaration before mutation can be done​​.

Mutation – Jurisdiction of Revenue Authorities – The Court reiterated that revenue authorities do not have the jurisdiction to decide on the validity of a Will. The mutation of names based on a Will can only be done if the Will is duly proved in a competent civil court. The Court referred to several Supreme Court judgments underscoring that mutation entries do not confer title and are only relevant for fiscal purposes​​.

Hindu Succession Act – Class II Heirs – The Court noted that under the Hindu Succession Act, the petitioner, being a nephew, falls under Class-II heirs and does not automatically inherit the property of his uncle unless explicitly mentioned in a valid Will. The absence of a legal declaration of the Will further negated the petitioner's claim​​.

Decision - The writ petition was dismissed. The Court held that the petitioner must first seek a declaration from a civil court regarding the validity of the Will before any mutation in the revenue records can be considered. The revenue authorities were deemed not competent to mutate names based on an unproved Will​​.

Jurisdiction of Special Court – Bar under Section 60 of Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act – The court upheld the decision of the Special Court which denied jurisdiction to release the seized vehicle under Section 60 of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016. The petitioner was directed to pursue alternative remedies as prescribed under the Act and Rules, such as moving the application before the Collector for release of the vehicle upon payment of the penalty as stipulated under Rule 12A of the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Rules, 2021 [Paras 1-12, 16].

Alternative Remedies – Writ Jurisdiction – The court reiterated that despite the statutory bar on the jurisdiction of the Special Court, the High Court’s writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India remains unaffected. It provided the petitioner the liberty to invoke the writ jurisdiction if the vehicle was wrongfully seized [Paras 13-17].

Confiscation and Release of Vehicles – Statutory Provisions and Procedures – The court explained the statutory provisions governing the confiscation and release of seized vehicles under the Bihar Prohibition and Excise Act, 2016, and the corresponding Rules, including the process for applying for the release of a vehicle upon payment of the prescribed penalty [Paras 7-10].

Decision:

Petition dismissed in limine – The court upheld the order of the Special Judge (Excise) and dismissed the petition. The petitioner was advised to either seek the release of the vehicle by paying the penalty under the relevant provisions or to approach the High Court through writ jurisdiction if he believed the seizure was unlawful [Paras 16-17].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – The applicants sought the appointment of a neutral arbitrator, challenging the named arbitrator's eligibility on the grounds of a professional relationship with the respondent. The court held that an arbitrator's ineligibility under Section 12(5) of the Act, read with the Seventh Schedule, terminates the mandate of the arbitrator, and the appointment of a new arbitrator is warranted​​.

Arbitrator's Independence and Impartiality – Professional Relationship – The Court found that the named arbitrator's professional ties with the respondent created justifiable doubts about his independence and impartiality. The applicants' objections were valid under Section 12(5), which mandates the termination of the arbitrator's mandate in such cases​​.

Procedure for Challenging Arbitrator – The applicants had not previously raised objections before the arbitrator but approached the Court directly. The Court concluded that this approach was justified due to the ineligibility of the arbitrator under the Act, which allows for such direct applications in cases of clear ineligibility​​.

Decision:

The application was allowed. The appointment of the named arbitrator was set aside, and a new impartial, independent, and neutral arbitrator was appointed. The Court emphasized the importance of ensuring arbitrators' independence and impartiality to maintain the integrity of the arbitration process​​.

Partition Suit – Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Order – Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Vacation – Appellant and Respondent No. 2 are Siblings, Dispute Over Family Properties – Consent Decree for Partition Previously Granted – Respondent No. 1 (Daughter of Respondent No. 2) Filed New Suit Suppressing Material Facts – High Court Set Aside Interim Order, Allowed Appeal, Directed Execution of Consent Decree [Paras 1-14, 25-31].

Suppression of Material Facts – Consent Decree Already Implemented – Respondent No. 2 Admitted Sale of Properties – Respondent No. 1’s Pleadings Contained False Assertions – High Court Found Abuse of Legal Process – Directed Notice for Suo Moto Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Respondents for False Pleadings and Affidavits [Paras 27-47].

Recovery of Possession – License Fee – Execution Proceedings to Recover Possession and License Fee Pursuant to Consent Decree – Court Directed Immediate Execution [Paras 21-25].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The impugned judgment dated 9th January 2023 was set aside, and the ex-parte ad-interim order dated 21st December 2018 was vacated. The appellant was permitted to proceed with execution proceedings to recover possession and license fees as per the consent decree. The respondent No. 2 was directed to deposit 2/3rd of the sale consideration with the Registrar General within four weeks to secure the interests of respondent Nos. 1 and 3.
 

Criminal Law – Quashing of FIR – Petition filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to quash FIR alleging offence under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC – Allegations in FIR and complaint disclose commission of cognizable offence – High Court emphasizes principles from State of Haryana v. Bhajan Lal and other decisions on exercise of inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – FIR and complaint contain prima facie essentials for investigation – Petition dismissed with liberty to petitioner to defend case in accordance with law [Paras 1-35].

Quashing of FIR – Legal Principles – High Court outlines principles for quashing FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. – Exceptional and rare cases where FIR can be quashed at the threshold – Inherent power under Section 482 Cr.P.C. to be exercised sparingly and with caution – Continuation of investigation to collect evidence warranted in cases disclosing prima facie offence [Paras 7-35].

Decision: Criminal Miscellaneous Case dismissed – FIR to stand – Petitioner granted liberty to defend case as per law.