Declaration of Title – Gift Deed – Prior Partition – Second Appeal – Trial Court dismissed suit holding that donor had no title due to earlier family partition of 1958 – First Appellate Court reversed decree relying on revenue records and gift deed – High Court examining divergent findings – Held: First Appellate Court erred in ignoring categorical admissions regarding earlier partition – Trial Court judgment restored [Paras 1–2, 20–22].

Gift Deed – Competence of Donor – Effect of Earlier Partition – Registered gift deed dated 19.03.1992 executed by Narasimhaiah in favour of plaintiff – Evidence revealed that property in Sy.No.11 had already been partitioned orally in 1958 between Thimmaiah and Kariyanna – Donor retained name in revenue records only as senior family member – Held: Mere continuance of revenue entries does not confer exclusive title – Donor lacked absolute right to gift suit property [Paras 5, 15, 20–21].

Partition – Oral/Palupatti Partition – Admissions – Plaintiff (P.W.1) and witness (P.W.2) admitted existence of family partition of 1958 and separate enjoyment of northern and southern portions divided by bund – Such admissions constitute substantive evidence – Held: Admissions conclusively establish earlier partition acted upon, notwithstanding absence of registered deed or mutation [Paras 15–16, 20–21].

Evidence – Revenue Records versus Admissions – RTCs and mutation entries continuing in donor’s name relied upon by First Appellate Court – However, oral evidence and admissions showed actual division and enjoyment – Held: Admissions override presumptive value of revenue records – First Appellate Court committed perversity in ignoring material evidence [Paras 17, 20–21].

Encroachment and Injunction – Consequence of Failure to Prove Title – Relief of recovery of possession and mandatory injunction granted by First Appellate Court based on invalid gift deed – Held: When title itself is not proved, consequential reliefs cannot be granted [Paras 2, 21].

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – Substantial Question of Law – Whether First Appellate Court justified in upholding gift deed ignoring admissions and earlier partition – High Court held reversal to be contrary to evidence and perverse – Interference warranted [Paras 10, 14, 21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court dated 21.03.2023 in R.A.No.4/2015 set aside – Judgment and decree of the Trial Court dated 28.11.2014 in O.S.No.37/2008 restored.

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 – Compounding of Offence – Section 41 FCRA – Effect of Compounding – The petitioner received foreign contribution without prior permission, which was a technical contravention of the FCRA – The offence was subsequently compounded by the Ministry of Home Affairs upon payment of a compounding fee – Once an offence is compounded under Section 41 of the FCRA, the slate is wiped clean, and the contravention cannot be cited as an adverse ground for rejecting a registration application – To disqualify an applicant on this ground after compounding would be disproportionate and a failure to consider relevant material – The authority failed to clarify that compounding would only shield from prosecution but lead to disqualification under Section 12(4)(a)(vii) – The impugned order is set aside on this ground [Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 19].

Foreign Contribution (Regulation) Act, 2010 – Religious Organization – Section 11(1) FCRA – Interpretation of "definite cultural, economic, educational, religious or social programme" – The respondent rejected the application stating the petitioner-organization "appears to be religious" based on its engagement in imparting Bhagavad Gita and Vedanta – Section 11(1) allows religious organizations to receive foreign contributions if registered – The authority must form a "definite" conclusion based on materials, not a tentative one – Bhagavad Gita and Vedanta are not confined to a specific religion but are part of Bharatiya civilization and moral science, as held in 2007 SCC OnLine All 1301 (Shyamal Renjan Mukherjee v. Nirmal Ranjan Mukherjee) and 2014 SCC OnLine All 15395 (Indian Academy of Naturopathy and Yoga v. State of UP) regarding Yoga – The petitioner is also registered as a charitable organization under Section 12A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which is a relevant material – The impugned order is set aside on this ground [Paras 5, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19].

Writ Jurisdiction – Alternative Remedy – Article 226 Constitution of India – Section 31(2) FCRA – Maintainability of Writ Petition – Despite the availability of an appeal under Section 31(2) of the FCRA to the High Court, a writ petition is maintainable if there is a fundamental breach of natural justice or the impugned order suffers from disproportionality – The Supreme Court in 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 1129 (Rikhab Chand Jain v. UOI) held that while refusal to entertain a writ petition is the rule when the alternative forum is the High Court itself, it can be an exception in cases of fundamental breach of natural justice or disproportionality – The impugned order in this case suffers from both, making the writ petition maintainable [Paras 17, 18].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order set aside – Matter remitted to the second respondent for fresh consideration within three months, taking into account all relevant materials and observations made in this order, after issuing a fresh notice to the petitioner regarding the alleged transfer of FC funds [Paras 19, 20].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Cognizance Order – Appellant not named in FIR alleging fraudulent transfer of agricultural land allotted in 1997 – Cognizance/summoning order passed mechanically without specific role or prima facie material – Held: Cognizance order dated 20.03.2023 suffers from non-application of mind and is liable to be quashed [Paras 20, 22, 23, 24]

Criminal Law – IPC Offences – Cheating, Forgery, Criminal Conspiracy – Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC – No evidence of dishonest intention at inception or use of forged documents by appellant – Allegations vague and omnibus – No mens rea or overt act established – Held: Basic ingredients of offences not satisfied – Criminal prosecution cannot rest on assumptions or conjecture [Paras 12, 18, 24]

SC/ST Act – Section 3(1)(f) – Applicability – FIR silent on caste-based motive – No specific allegation that act was committed because of the victim’s SC status – Land dispute not sufficient to invoke the Act – Held: Invocation of SC/ST Act provisions mechanical and legally unsustainable [Paras 13, 19, 30]

Investigation – Fabricated Evidence – Witnesses shown in charge sheet had died before investigation – IO shown to have recorded statements of deceased persons – Held: Investigation tainted, unfair and unreliable – Material irregularity vitiating entire proceedings [Paras 8, 24]

Delay – FIR lodged in 2022 for land transactions of 1997 – Unexplained delay of over two decades – No civil or revenue proceedings initiated for cancellation of allegedly fraudulent pattas – Held: Inordinate and unexplained delay fatal to prosecution case – Criminal proceedings afterthought and abuse of process [Paras 11, 26, 27, 32]

Civil vs. Criminal Dispute – Predominantly revenue and civil dispute regarding pattas and land transfers – No foundational adjudication or evidence of criminality – Held: Dispute of civil nature cannot be converted into criminal prosecution – Proceedings quashed [Paras 5, 17, 25, 31]

Parity – Co-accused granted similar relief in earlier proceedings – Role of appellant not distinguishable – Held: Appellant entitled to same benefit – Prosecution against appellant discriminatory and arbitrary [Paras 25]

Abuse of Process – Continuing proceedings would result in miscarriage of justice – Held: Criminal proceedings amount to abuse of process and are liable to be quashed [Paras 33–34]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Cognizance/summoning order dated 20.03.2023, charge sheet dated 06.02.2023, and entire proceedings in Sessions Trial No. 364 of 2023 arising out of Case Crime No. 280 of 2022 under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 384, 120-B IPC and Section 3(1)(f) of the SC/ST Act quashed – Criminal proceedings held to be abuse of law.

Service Law – Regularization of Teachers – Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 – Section 57(A)(6) – Quashing of rejection order – The State Government rejected the University's proposal for confirmation of 67 teachers, including the petitioners, on the ground that Section 57(A)(6) of the Bihar State Universities (Amendment) Act, 2015, was not applicable to teachers of affiliated colleges receiving deficit grant-in-aid, but only to those receiving performance-based grants – The Court held that the Preamble to the 2017 amendment of Section 57(A)(6) abolished the "Vitta Rahit Shiksha Niti" and intended scrutiny of all teachers appointed without Bihar College Service Commission recommendation, without distinction based on the type of grant – The State's distinction was found to be misplaced and arbitrary – The impugned rejection order was quashed – The State was directed to release grants for salary and other allowances – The High Court's earlier judgments in Balram Pandey v. The State of Bihar and Ghanshyam Jha & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors., which quashed similar rejection orders and attained finality upon dismissal of LPAs and SLPs, were relied upon – The Court found no reason to take a divergent view – The State was directed to conduct similar exercise for the petitioners – Final Holding: The State's rejection of regularization and salary release based on the type of grant is arbitrary and contrary to the legislative intent of Section 57(A)(6) [Paras 51-58, 60-62].

Constitutional Law – Right to Livelihood – Article 21 – Forced Labour – Article 23 – Withholding of Salary – The State Government arbitrarily withheld salaries of teachers whose services were regularized by the University, without issuing any order for their removal – The Court held that no person can be asked to perform duties without being paid their due salary – Such action is in defiance of the rights under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and amounts to "forced labour" under Article 23 – The actions of the respondents were highly deprecated – The Supreme Court's dictum in Man Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., holding that salary must be paid for duties discharged even if the appointment is irregular, was cited – Final Holding: Withholding of salary for duly discharged duties, especially after regularization, violates Articles 21 and 23 of the Constitution [Paras 59, 97].

Service Law – Appointment of Teachers in Constituent Colleges – Prior Approval of State Government – Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 – Section 35 – The State contended that regularization of temporary teachers in constituent colleges was not possible as relevant statutes were declared ultra vires in Shiv Narain Yadav v. State of Bihar & Ors., and that prior approval of the State Government was required – The Court relied on the Division Bench judgment in Braj Kishore Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., which held that prior approval of the State Government is not required when the post is already sanctioned and the appointment is made after advertisement and interview – The Court noted that the issues were put to rest by coordinate bench judgments which quashed similar rejection orders based on Braj Kishore Singh (supra) – Final Holding: Post-facto approval of the State Government is not required for appointments against sanctioned posts in constituent colleges, and regularization based on due process is valid [Paras 89-90, 93-96].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The impugned orders rejecting the proposals for confirmation of services and release of grants were quashed – The State Government was directed to release funds for payment of salaries and pensionary benefits in terms of UGC pay-scale to the petitioners of all writ petitions within a period of two months – Paras [62, 63, 97, 98].

Civil Procedure – Written Statement – Condonation of Delay – Confusion due to Wrong Advocate Entry – Defendant’s request to file written statement rejected by Trial Court citing delay – Trial Court relied on records incorrectly showing Advocate Sapna Rachure as having appeared for defendant – Held: Entry of advocate’s name was due to clerical error from court office carried over from unrelated proceedings – Defendant had never engaged said advocate and had no knowledge of the proceedings – Rejection of written statement on such basis erroneous and unsustainable [Paras 9-13, 18].

Service of Summons – Disputed Signature – Bailiff Report – Trial Court relied on service report dated 28 October 2009 to presume service on defendant – Defendant contested authenticity of signature on report – Prima facie discrepancy noted by High Court – Held: Presumption of service not justified without verification – Cannot deny opportunity to defend on such contested basis [Para 16].

Access to Justice – Opportunity to Defend – Serious Nature of Defamation Suit – Court emphasized that defamation proceedings have serious reputational consequences – Fair opportunity must be given to defend – Rejection of written statement undermines justice – Permission granted to file written statement within 8 weeks [Para 18].

Judicial Error – Litigant Not to Suffer – Clerical Mistake by Court Registry – The clerical error of court registry in reflecting incorrect advocate cannot be attributed to defendant – Held: Litigants should not suffer due to mistakes of court’s administrative office – No negligence attributable to defendant – Request to impose costs rejected [Paras 13, 19].

Family Disputes – Sibling Litigation – Judicial Observation – Court expressed anguish over rising litigation between siblings over family property – Described such disputes as a misuse of judicial resources and urged for amicable resolution – Recalled spirit of festivals like Raksha Bandhan and Bhaubeej highlighting brother-sister bond [Paras 3-5, 21-22].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Impugned order rejecting written statement set aside – Defendant permitted to file written statement within 8 weeks – Trial Court directed to proceed with suit in regular course without priority – No costs imposed [Paras 18, 23-24].

Administrative Law – Paddy Procurement – Engagement of Women’s Self Help Groups – Policy Decision – Exclusion of WSHGs from KMS 2025–26 – WSHGs engaged continuously since 2019 pursuant to 2019 Guidelines – State undertook performance review in 2024 based on complaints of mismanagement – Decision taken to restrict procurement activities to PACS and selected agencies – Held: Engagement of WSHGs is policy-based and administrative – No vested or indefeasible right to continue indefinitely – Court declines interference under Article 226 [Paras 9–11, 18].

Paddy Procurement Policy – Expression of Interest (EOI) – Non-issuance of fresh EOI – Challenge by new and previously disengaged WSHGs – Held: Issuance of EOI under executive guidelines is not mandatory in all circumstances – Mere willingness to participate does not create enforceable legal right – Mandamus cannot be issued in absence of legal duty [Paras 10, 17].

Natural Justice – Audi Alteram Partem – Disengagement of WSHGs without notice or hearing – Performance-based administrative action – Held: Principles of natural justice not rigid – Application depends on nature of right and consequences – Disengagement not punitive or stigmatic – No blacklisting or civil disability imposed – Individual show-cause notice not mandatory in policy-driven, time-bound procurement decisions [Paras 14–16].

Constitution of India – Article 14 – Classification based on performance – Preference to PACS and continuance of satisfactory WSHGs – Performance-based differentiation has rational nexus with object of ensuring smooth and efficient procurement – No arbitrariness or discrimination established [Paras 13].

Judicial Review – Scope under Article 226 – Policy and administrative decisions – Held: High Court does not sit as appellate authority over policy decisions – Interference permissible only on grounds of arbitrariness, mala fides or statutory violation – None established in present case [Paras 18–19].

Women Empowerment – Observations – While upholding State action, Court observes that Government should consider, at policy level, providing opportunities to new and previously disengaged WSHGs in future procurement years subject to norms and efficiency considerations [Para 19].

Decision: All writ petitions disposed of – No interference with impugned orders dated 16.07.2025 and 22.07.2025 – Policy discretion of State upheld.

POCSO Act – Aggravated Penetrative Sexual Assault – Conviction – Appeal Dismissed – Appellant convicted under Section 6 of POCSO Act for committing repeated rape on a minor girl aged about 13 years, resulting in pregnancy – Trial Court sentenced appellant to rigorous imprisonment for ten years – On appeal, High Court finds no perversity or illegality in appreciation of evidence – Conviction and sentence affirmed [Paras 1, 7, 54–55].

Victim Testimony – Credibility – Sole Testimony Sufficient – Evidence of prosecutrix found cogent, consistent and trustworthy – Minor contradictions and alleged delay in disclosure held natural considering age, threat and trauma of victim – Corroboration available from medical evidence and surrounding circumstances – Held: Conviction can safely rest on credible testimony of victim [Paras 32–34, 53–54].

Age of Victim – Proof – School Records and Medical Opinion – Date of birth established through school admission register extract and testimony of Headmaster – Radiological age estimation supported prosecution case – Defence did not seriously dispute minority during trial – Held: Victim was a “child” within meaning of Section 2(d) of POCSO Act at time of offence [Paras 50–51].

DNA Evidence – Evidentiary Value – DNA report conclusively established appellant as biological father of child born to victim – Objections regarding procedure in collection and preservation of samples rejected – Conviction not based solely on DNA evidence but on cumulative appreciation of ocular, medical and scientific evidence [Paras 49, 52].

Medical Evidence – Pregnancy of Minor – Medical testimony proved victim was pregnant for about 23 weeks at time of examination – Delivery of male child during pendency of proceedings corroborated prosecutrix’s version of repeated sexual assault [Paras 37, 47].

Hostile Panch Witnesses – Effect – Panch witnesses to spot mahazar turned hostile – Held: Mere hostility of panch witnesses does not demolish prosecution case when substantive evidence of victim and other witnesses inspires confidence [Paras 35, 54].

Statutory Presumption – Sections 29 and 30 POCSO Act – Once foundational facts proved, statutory presumption of guilt and culpable mental state operates against accused – Appellant failed to rebut presumption by leading any defence evidence – Benefit of doubt not available [Paras 53–54].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope – High Court, in appeal against conviction, will not reappreciate evidence merely to take a different view unless findings of Trial Court are perverse or contrary to record – No such infirmity found in present case [Paras 52–55].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – Judgment of conviction and sentence dated 29.10.2021 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, FTSC-I (POCSO), Kolar, confirmed – Records directed to be transmitted to Trial Court [Paras 55].

Administrative Law – Jurisdiction – Powers under Special Statutes – Rehabilitation Act – Sale Permission – Jurisdictional Error – Divisional Commissioner revoked a sale permission granted under Section 12 of the Maharashtra Rehabilitation Act, 1999 after the transaction was completed via a registered sale deed – Held: The Rehabilitation Act does not confer appellate or revisional powers to the Divisional Commissioner in respect of such permissions – The officer granting permission under the Act acts under special statutory authority, not as a revenue officer under the Maharashtra Land Revenue Code – Sections 247 and 257 of the Code are inapplicable [Paras 12-15].

Civil Procedure – Limitation – Appeal Without Condonation – Respondents filed a delayed appeal without obtaining condonation – The Divisional Commissioner proceeded to hear the matter on merits without deciding the delay application – Held: Jurisdiction must be established before adjudication – Proceedings vitiated for lack of jurisdiction and procedural irregularity [Para 16].

Property Law – Transfer of Property – Agreement to Sell – Rights – Respondents claimed through an un-enforced 1995 agreement to sell – No suit for specific performance filed – Held: Mere agreement to sell does not confer ownership or right to object to transfer – Respondents lacked locus and were not “aggrieved persons” under Section 12 of the Act [Paras 17-18, 22].

Administrative Law – Functus Officio – No Power of Review – Once permission was acted upon by execution of sale deed and possession transfer, the authority under the Act became functus officio – There is no power to review or recall such permission under the Act – Cancellation after completion is illegal [Para 19].

Fraud – Allegations Based on Non-Disclosure – Alleged non-disclosure of prior agreement did not amount to fraud – No enforceable rights arose from said agreement – Non-disclosure of an irrelevant fact does not constitute fraud under law [Para 22].

Constitutional Law – Alternative Remedy – Not a Bar – Availability of appeal or revision under Land Revenue Code does not bar writ petition where jurisdiction is wrongly assumed – The petitioner cannot be forced to pursue an alternative remedy under an inapplicable statute [Para 21].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Impugned order dated 1 August 2014 set aside – Sale permission dated 13 December 2010 restored – Registered sale deed held valid – No costs [Paras 24-25].

Customs Law – Smuggling – Penalty – Section 112 – Procedural Lapses – Revenue appeals against CESTAT’s order setting aside penalties of up to ₹15 crores imposed for alleged gold smuggling based on statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act – Held: Penalties under Section 112(a) and (b) cannot be simultaneously imposed – CESTAT rightly found contradiction in statements and lack of direct evidence – No gold was seized in prior alleged instances, and seizure in the present case involved unrelated individuals – Appeals dismissed [Paras 5–6, 18].

Evidence – Section 108 Customs Act – Admissibility – Compliance with Section 138B Mandatory – Statements recorded under Section 108 cannot be used as evidence unless conditions of Section 138B are fulfilled – Held: No witness who gave statements was examined; hence statements inadmissible – Reliance on untested statements violates principles of natural justice – Reiterated by reliance on Suresh Kumar & Co. Impex Pvt. Ltd. [2025 KHC Online 6762], Jindal Drugs Pvt. Ltd. [(2016) 340 ELT 67], and Its My Name Pvt. Ltd. [(2021) 375 ELT 545] [Paras 14–18].

Natural Justice – Right to Cross-Examine – Section 122A and 124 – Tribunal's view upheld that opportunity to cross-examine witnesses is part of fair hearing under Sections 122A and 124 – Statements not meeting Section 138B test cannot be relied upon without cross-examination – Tribunal was right in discarding them [Para 22].

No Adverse Inference – Failure to Give Statement – Failure of accused to give statement under Section 108 does not amount to guilt or waiver of defence – Statute does not permit adverse inference solely on that basis – Revenue's contention rejected [Paras 20–21].

Burden of Proof – No Direct Evidence – No Recovery – Except for statements, no direct or corroborative evidence was found linking respondents with seized gold – Tribunal found no link between respondents and alleged smuggling in past incidents – Cash and gold seized from others had been released for lack of nexus [Paras 5–6].

Decision: Appeals dismissed – No question of law arises – Tribunal’s order upheld – Penalties imposed under Sections 112(a) and (b) found unsustainable due to evidentiary defects and procedural violations [Final Para].