Writ Law - Service Regularization - Constitution of India - Articles 14, 16 and 21 - Petitioner qualified with M.P.Ed. and Ph.D. - Appointed as Physical Director at Osmania Medical College in 2006 through a selection process - Rendered continuous uninterrupted service for nearly 20 years - Appointment nomenclature repeatedly altered between part-time, contract, and third-party outsourcing to deny regular status - Representation for regularization rejected by Respondent No. 2 via speaking order dated 25.02.2020 - Petitioner relied on G.O.Ms. No. 38 dated 30.04.2023 and recent Supreme Court rulings in Jaggo Anita (2024) and Shripal (2025) - Respondents contended petitioner was a third-party worker with no employer-employee relationship - Held - Labels of "temporary" or "contractual" cannot be weaponized by the State to evade long-term obligations when work is essential and perennial - Selective application of the Uma Devi judgment to reject legitimate claims of long-serving employees is prohibited - Rejection order was passed mechanically without considering departmental records showing vacant sanctioned posts - State as a constitutional employer must lead by example in providing fair employment - Rejection order set aside - Respondents directed to reconsider petitioner’s case for regularization from 16.12.2006 with all consequential benefits after providing a personal hearing - [Paras 1-18].

Writ Law - Precedents and Judicial Discipline - Ratio Decidendi - Respondents cited Division Bench orders and status-quo directions in other matters to deny relief - Court applied the "inversion test" to identify the ratio decidendi - Held - A decision is binding only for what it actually decides based on its principle and not its mere conclusion - Recent Apex Court judgments in Jaggo Anita vs Union of India and Shripal vs Nagar Nigam Ghaziabad establish that perpetual contractual engagements for permanent work are illegal - Administrative drift and technicalities cannot trump the rights of workers who have laboured for years - High Court is bound by Article 141 to follow the latest trajectory of Supreme Court directions on converting rights into outcomes - [Paras 11-17].

Decision: Writ petition allowed - Rejection order dated 25.02.2020 issued by Respondent No. 2 is set aside - Respondents 2 and 3 directed to reconsider the petitioner's case for regularization with effect from 16.12.2006 in accordance with law and latest precedents - Orders to be passed within four weeks.

Writ Law - Forest Encroachment - Assam Forest Regulation 1891 - Section 17 - Petitioners challenged speaking orders dated 07-03-2026 directing eviction from Lutumai - Jamuna Moudanga - Doyang and Nambor South - and Borpani Reserved Forests - Litigation followed Supreme Court directions in Abdul Khalek vs State of Assam (2026) requiring procedural safeguards - State constituted a District-level Committee of Forest and Revenue officials - Committee conducted scientific field surveys using DGPS - GNSS - and RTK correction based on original 19th and early 20th-century notifications and maps - Petitioners claimed rights as residents of villages notified under Assam Panchayat Act 1994 or as Taungya settlers or through revenue payments - Held - Procedural safeguards mandated by the Supreme Court were fully complied with - Finding of facts regarding encroachment based on scientific digitization of boundaries cannot be questioned in writ proceedings - Petitioners failed to show any statutory right or title - Orders of eviction upheld - [Paras 1-159].

Writ Law - Forest Rights - Scheduled Tribes and Other Traditional Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act 2006 - Section 2(o) - Claim of rights by non-tribals - Petitioners admitted they are neither Forest Dwelling Scheduled Tribes nor "other traditional forest dwellers" as defined in the Act - No documents produced to show vesting of rights by any authority under the FRA - Held - Unless petitioners come within the ambit of the 2006 Act - no rights can be recognized over lands under their occupation in Reserved Forests - [Paras 83 - 128-129].

Civil Law - Taungya System - Tenure and Rights - Assam Forest Regulation 1891 - Sections 10 and 26 - Nature of settlement - Petitioners claimed derivative title from original Taungya settlers through unregistered deeds - Held - Taungya was a colonial-era agro-forestry arrangement for temporary cultivation (usually 3-5 years) while tending young forest trees - It created no right of ownership - tenancy - or permanent settlement - Any grant or contract in a Reserved Forest without State sanction is non-est - Claim based on Taungya system does not confer right to reside in Reserved Forest - [Paras 123-127].

Civil Law - Revenue Records vs Forest Status - Assam Land and Revenue Regulation 1886 - Section 4 - Jurisdictional bar - Petitioners claimed rights based on Annual Pattas and payment of Touzi Mouza (penalty for occupation) to revenue authorities - Held - Section 4 expressly excludes Reserved Forests from the application of the Land and Revenue Regulation - Revenue authorities have no power to confer rights over Reserved Forest land - Payment of land revenue to such authorities does not create any interest or title over forest land - [Paras 130-136].

Writ Law - Local Self-Governance - Assam Panchayat Act 1994 - Section 5 - Status of Forest Land - Petitioners argued that notification of their villages as Gaon Panchayats meant the land was not Reserved Forest - Held - Extension of the 1994 Act to forest areas is for local self-governance of recognized forest dwellers and does not change the statutory status of a Reserved Forest - Under Section 2 of the Forest (Conservation) Act 1980 - no forest land can be de-reserved or diverted without prior Central Government approval - Panchayat notifications are irrelevant to the status of Reserved Forests - [Paras 117-121].

Constitutional Law - Environmental Protection - Constitution of India - Article 48A and 51A(g) - Public Trust Doctrine - Conflict between private residence and forest conservation - Held - Protection of environment and forests are public rights that outweigh private rights of encroachers - Forests are "lungs" essential for survival - Public Trust Doctrine mandates the State as trustee to protect natural resources - State has a constitutional obligation to evict encroachers to ensure ecological balance - [Paras 139-156].

Decision: Writ petitions disposed of - Eviction orders upheld - Petitioners granted 30 days to remove belongings and vacate - Authorities directed to disconnect electricity after 30 days - Chief Secretary directed to ensure reforestation and prevent non-forest use of cleared lands - Pre-1980 encroachers with competent authority permission allowed to apply for prioritization under Assam Land Policy 2019 for alternative revenue land allotment.

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction regarding thirty-three plots - Defendant No. 39 filed an application for rejection of the plaint against him and in respect of Item No. 13 of the suit property alleging lack of cause of action and limitation - Trial Court allowed the application and rejected the entire plaint - High Court observed that a plaint cannot be rejected in part against one defendant or for a specific item of property - Averments in the plaint must be read as a whole and accepted as correct at the threshold stage - Plaintiffs alleged that the General Power of Attorney became inoperative upon the death of the principals and subsequent sale deeds were illegal - Interference in possession was alleged in the year 2017 - Held - Trial Court erred in conducting a mini-trial at the stage of Order 7 Rule 11 - Order set aside - Appeal allowed - [Paras 1-98].

Civil Law - Rejection of Plaint - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11 - Partial rejection - Rejection of a plaint can only be in its entirety and not in part - The court does not have the power to cull out a portion of the plaint or dismiss the suit against one of many defendants while keeping it alive against others - Trial Court failed to appreciate that Defendant No. 39's prayer for partial rejection was legally unmaintainable - Held - Plaint has to be rejected as a whole or not at all - [Paras 13-19].

Civil Law - Cause of Action - Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 7 Rule 11(a) - Disclosure of cause of action - Cause of action is a bundle of facts which if traversed the plaintiff must prove to sustain the claim - Plaint should be nipped in the bud only if it is manifestly vexatious or meritless by clever drafting creating an illusion of a cause of action - Where plaintiffs pleaded cancellation of GPA and subsequent illegal sales by the agent after the death of the principal it constitutes a triable issue - Held - Trial Court cannot look into the written statement or defense pleas while deciding an application for rejection of plaint - [Paras 21-36, 47-57].

Civil Law - Limitation - Limitation Act 1963 - Article 58 - Mixed question of law and fact - Rejection on ground of limitation is possible only if the suit appears ex facie barred by the statements in the plaint - Where the plaintiff alleges knowledge of fraud or recent interference as the starting point of limitation it becomes a triable issue requiring evidence - Plea of constructive notice under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act regarding registered documents cannot be summarily used to reject a plaint where physical possession and interference are contested - Held - Limitation aspect cannot be decided summarily when specific dates of cause of action are pleaded - [Paras 39-41, 72-83, 91-95].

Civil Law - Agency - Indian Contract Act 1872 - Sections 201 and 202 - Termination of agency - Agency is terminated by the death of either the principal or the agent - Exception exists only if the agent has a pre-existing interest in the subject matter of the agency - In the present case the agent was appointed only to develop and sell the property without personal interest - Agency stood terminated on the death of the principals - Legality of sale deeds executed by the agent after the death of principals is a matter for trial - Held - Agent holds property only on behalf of the principal and acquires no independent title - [Paras 61-71, 87-88].

Decision: Appeal allowed - Impugned order dated 11.12.2025 passed in I.A.No.9 of 2018 set aside - Trial Court directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible.

Writ Law - Confiscation of vehicle - Indian Forest Act 1927 - Sections 61-A and 61-D - Petitioner challenged judgment of Additional Sessions Judge Baramati affirming confiscation of Tata 909 vehicle used for transporting 60 bags of charcoal without a valid permit - Forest officials intercepted the vehicle and the driver fled - Authorized Officer initiated proceedings under Section 61-A and ordered confiscation - Petitioner contended that he was not provided a hearing and that conviction for a forest offence is a condition precedent for confiscation under Section 55 - High Court found that the Petitioner and the person to whom he allegedly delivered the vehicle were given ample opportunities and appeared through a legal practitioner - Court observed that Section 61-A contains a non-obstante clause and provides an independent mechanism for confiscation - Held - Confiscation under Section 61-A is a deterrent object to prevent deforestation and does not require a prior conviction - Writ Petition dismissed - [Paras 1-42].

Criminal Law - Statutory Interpretation - Indian Forest Act 1927 - Section 61-A - Confiscation vs Conviction - Petitioner argued that under Section 55 conviction is a condition precedent for confiscation - Court noted that the Maharashtra Act 7 of 1985 inserted Sections 61-A to 61-G providing a specific mechanism for confiscation by Authorized Officers - Section 61-A(1) begins with a non-obstante clause overriding Chapter IX and other laws - Authorized Officer is empowered to order confiscation upon satisfaction that a forest offence was committed notwithstanding whether a prosecution is instituted - Held - Submission that conviction is a must before confiscation cannot be countenanced under the stringent statutory regime of Section 61-A - [Paras 34-37].

Criminal Law - Forest Offence - Maharashtra Forest Rules 2014 - Rules 31 and 82 - Illegal transit of forest produce - Charcoal is defined as forest produce under Section 2(4) - Rule 31 mandates a pass for movement of forest produce - Rule 82 prescribes penalties for breach of Rule 31 - Section 2(3) defines forest offence as an offence punishable under the Act or rules - Found that charcoal was being transported clandestinely without a valid pass - Held - Factum of illegal transportation of forest produce was established constituting a forest offence justifying exercise of power under Section 61-A - [Paras 29-33].

Evidence Law - Presumption - Indian Forest Act 1927 - Section 69 - Property of Government - Petitioner challenged the presumption applied by the lower court - Section 69 enacts a presumption that forest produce belongs to the Government until the contrary is proved - High Court observed that when a question arises in proceedings under the Act the produce shall be presumed to be government property - Held - In the absence of a valid transit pass the presumption under Section 69 was rightly invoked and the finding of the lower court remains unvitiated - [Paras 20-21 and 40-41].

Decision: Writ Petition dismissed – Rule discharged – No costs – Application for stay of the order rejected.

Civil Law - Proof of Will - Indian Succession Act 1925 - Section 63 - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Sections 68 and 69 - Suspicious circumstances - Plaintiff-appellant filed suit for declaration as owner and recovery of possession of suit property based on an unregistered Will executed by his father on 10.07.1964 - Plaintiff claimed to have discovered the Will in a sealed cover in an almirah only after his mother's death in 1999 - All three attesting witnesses were deceased - Plaintiff examined P.W.2 (son of one attestor) to prove the handwriting of his father - Trial Court dismissed the suit citing lack of proof and presence of suspicions - High Court observed that the Will excluded one daughter without assigned reasons and was produced 20 years after the testator's death - P.W.2 failed to provide documentary proof of his identity or his father's parentage and variance was found between the attestor's name in the Will and P.W.2's deposition - No application was filed under Section 45 Evidence Act for expert opinion on signatures - Held - The onus is on the propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions by cogent and satisfactory evidence to satisfy the judicial conscience - Cumulative effect of unusual features justifies close scrutiny - Initial burden not discharged - Appeal dismissed - [Paras 1-92].

Evidence Law - Secondary Evidence - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 69 - Attesting witnesses deceased - Procedure for proof - When no attesting witness can be found the propounder must prove the attestation of at least one witness is in his handwriting and the signature of the testator is in his handwriting - Reliability of such evidence remains subject to judicial satisfaction - P.W.2 identified his father's signature but variance in parentage and lack of corroborating school or identity records weakened the testimony - Held - Strict proof under Section 68 is relaxed only if requirements under Section 69 are clearly met and suspicions are removed - [Paras 50-72].

Evidence Law - Presumption as to old documents - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 90 - Presumption for 30-year-old documents - Appellant sought benefit of presumption for the 1964 Will - Court noted the document must be thirty years old on the date of its production in Court - Trial Court found that the associated Trust Deed was only 29 years old when produced in 2002 - Presumption under Section 90 is discretionary and does not automatically apply to Wills if the Court's conscience is not satisfied - Held - Presumption not attracted in the absence of material showing the Will existed 30 years prior to production - [Paras 76-78].

Civil Law - Woman's Property - Hindu Succession Act 1956 - Section 14 - Enlargement of interest - Appellant challenged Trial Court's finding that the mother's life interest enlarged to absolute ownership under Section 14(1) - Claimed restricted rights under Section 14(2) by virtue of the Will - High Court held that since the execution of the Will was not proved the nature of interest as restricted under a testamentary instrument could not be established - Held - Burden lies on the claimant to prove the Will before seeking benefit of restricted interest - [Paras 87-88].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment and decree dated 04.08.2006 in O.S. No. 331 of 2002 affirmed – Any pending miscellaneous petitions closed.

Writ Law - Land Acquisition - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Section 10A and Section 11(1) - Challenge to Gazette Notification No. 249 dated 18.11.2020 issued under Section 10A and Notification dated 22.05.2021 under Section 11(1) - State sought to acquire lands in Sircilla for Kotha Cheruvu Bund Development - Government invoked Section 10A to exempt the project from the application of Chapters II and III of the Act thereby dispensing with Social Impact Assessment and food security safeguards - Petitioners alleged the project was merely for beautification and did not qualify as an irrigation or infrastructure project under Section 10A - Earlier acquisition proceedings for same lands and purpose initiated in 2018 had lapsed under Section 19(7) - Respondents contended the acquisition was for flood control and water security - High Court found that the respondents failed to place any Detailed Project Report or hydrological study to justify the classification of the project under the exempted categories - The Court noted the absence of material demonstrating the existence of public interest specifically warranting the exclusion of statutory safeguards - Held - Notification under Section 10A was legally unsustainable as jurisdictional facts were not established - Consequently the Section 11(1) notification issued without following the ordinary statutory framework must fall - Writ Petitions allowed - [Paras 1-61].

Writ Law - Statutory Interpretation - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Section 10A - Power of State Government to exempt certain projects - Distinction between Public Purpose and Public Interest - Section 10A is in the nature of an exception to the rights-based framework of the 2013 Act - The phrase in public interest in Section 10A is an additional condition precedent governing the exercise of exemption power - Mere existence of a public purpose under Section 2(1) does not automatically justify the exclusion of Chapters II and III - The State must establish why the project warrants the dispensing of Social Impact Assessment and other safeguards - Held - Administrative satisfaction affecting valuable property rights under Article 300-A cannot rest upon broad assertions unsupported by contemporaneous material - [Paras 27-40].

Writ Law - Lapse of Proceedings - Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 - Section 19(7) - Fresh acquisition after lapse - Earlier notifications for substantially identical project and lands lapsed due to failure to issue a declaration within the stipulated period - Fresh proceedings initiated with cosmetic variation in project nomenclature - High Court observed that while the State is not permanently divested of power to acquire land after a lapse the second invocation of extraordinary exemption powers requires fresh and independent application of mind to statutory requirements - Held - In the absence of changed circumstances or new feasibility studies the initiation of fresh proceedings to overcome previous interim orders or statutory lapses invites closer judicial scrutiny and cannot be sustained without valid justification - [Paras 42-49].

Decision: Writ Petitions allowed – Gazette Notification No. 249 dated 18.11.2020 and Notification dated 22.05.2021 set aside – Liberty granted to the State to initiate fresh acquisition proceedings strictly in accordance with the Act including compliance with Chapters II and III.

Criminal Law - Quashing of Proceedings - Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act 2005 and Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 498A - Petitioners being the mother-in-law and father-in-law of Respondent No. 2 sought quashing of criminal proceedings under the DV Act and the IPC - Marriage solemnized in June 2021 and husband resided in the United States of America - Husband obtained a decree of divorce from the Superior Court of New Jersey on 15.02.2023 - Complainant filed an FIR on 28.02.2023 and a DV complaint in March 2023 based on an alleged incident dated 15.12.2022 - High Court observed that the complainant had barely resided with the petitioners for a period of two to three months - Court found that the accusations were omnibus general and utterly nonspecific - It was held that the complaints were a counterblast to the successful divorce action initiated by the petitioners son - High Court relied on Supreme Court precedents regarding the rising trend of using matrimonial litigation as an arm-twisting tool for financial settlements - Held - Continuation of the impugned proceedings would be an abuse of the process of law - Petitions allowed and proceedings quashed - [Paras 1-12].

Criminal Law - Matrimonial Disputes - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 498A - Vexatious Litigation - Abuse of Process - High Court emphasized the duty of courts to subject matrimonial complaints to thorough scrutiny to separate genuine cases of oppression from those filed out of personal animosity - It was observed that there is a growing tendency to implicate all members of the husband’s family in matrimonial discords without specific allegations of active involvement - Mere reference to the names of family members in a criminal case without concrete evidence should be nipped in the bud to prevent unnecessary harassment - Held - Invoking criminal process in domestic disputes without specific allegations and credible material has disastrous consequences for the institution of family - [Paras 9-11].

Decision: Petitions allowed – Proceedings in Criminal Misc. Application No. 309 of 2023 and FIR C.R. No. 11191030230011 of 2023 (C.C. No. 23712 of 2023) are quashed and set aside.

Criminal Law - Terrorist Conspiracy and Murder - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Sections 120-B 153-A 302 and 307 - Explosive Substances Act 1908 - Sections 3 and 5 - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 - Sections 16 18 19 20 and 23 - Appeal against acquittal of A4 A5 A15 A16 A17 A18 and A19 - Suicide bomb blast occurred at City Task Force Office Begumpet on 12.10.2005 resulting in death of a home guard and the suicide bomber - Prosecution case relied on circumstantial evidence including alleged meeting of minds at various lodges and recovery of incriminating materials like ammonium nitrate electronics and Jihadi literature - Trial Court acquitted the respondents finding prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances or prove that recovered items were used in the blast - Trial Court highlighted that crucial witnesses turned hostile and identification was doubtful - State appealed the acquittal arguing that confessions and subsequent recoveries were reliable and corroborated by expert opinions - High Court re-examined the record noting that the integrity of seizures was compromised due to lack of proper sealing and delay in sending items to forensic experts - High Court observed that most panch witnesses were habitual police assistants and no independent evidence existed to prove meeting of minds - Held - Trial Court judgment was a plausible view based on facts and did not suffer from perversity - acquittal affirmed - [Paras 1-80].

Criminal Law - Appeal against Acquittal - Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 - Section 378 - Scope of interference - Presumption of innocence is reinforced by trial court acquittal - Appellate court must be cautious and only interfere if the judgment is perverse or based on an error of law - If two reasonable conclusions are possible the one favoring the accused must be adopted - Held - High Court cannot reverse acquittal merely because a different view is possible - [Paras 18-19, 37, 75(1)].

Criminal Law - Criminal Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code 1860 - Section 120-B - Meeting of minds - Prosecution failed to provide evidence of accused being last seen together or specific meetings to hatch the terrorist plan - Most witnesses turned hostile and failed to identify the accused or the materials - Held - conspiracy requires physical manifestation of agreement which was absent in this case - [Paras 56, 59, 61, 73.1, 74].

Evidence Law - Recovery and Seizure - Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 27 - Discrepancies in seizure - Police failed to seal seized items on the spot - Inordinate delay in sending items to FSL without explanation - Recovery witnesses found to be habitual panchas for the Special Investigation Team - Seized items like ammonium nitrate and electronics not properly confronted to witnesses during trial - Held - integrity of the chain of custody was compromised making recoveries doubtful and unreliable - [Paras 35, 60, 64-67, 77].

Criminal Law - Terrorist Activities - Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act 1967 - Sections 18 and 20 - Mere possession of literature - CDs and literature containing Jihadi content found with accused - Court observed that Jihad implies striving and is not synonymous with terrorism without overt acts - Held - possession of literature alone without evidence of advocating or abetting terrorist acts is a weak circumstance insufficient for conviction - [Paras 65, 68].

Decision: Criminal Appeal dismissed – Judgment of acquittal dated 10.08.2017 passed by the Additional Metropolitan Sessions Judge for trial of Communal Offence Cases at Hyderabad is affirmed.

Civil Law - Waqf Property - Waqf Act 1995 - Sections 4, 5 and 36(4) - Statutory Survey and Notification - Appellant claimed to be hereditary Mutawalli of a 240-year-old Dargah situated on Government Poromboke land leased to Bharat Scouts and Guides - Waqf Board appointed Respondent 5 as Mutawalli and directed registration of the Dargah based on a Trust Deed without conducting a statutory survey as mandated by law - Waqf Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s challenge to the Board’s resolution - High Court observed that a survey under Section 4 and notification under Section 5 are sine qua non for declaring a property as Waqf - Held - mere religious use or existence of a tomb is insufficient to confer Waqf status without permanent dedication by a person professing Islam and compliance with mandatory procedural requirements - Board cannot assume automatic control without proving the property is legally Waqf - Tribunal order and Board resolution set aside - appeal allowed - [Paras 1-25].

Civil Law - Mutawalliship - Waqf Act 1995 - Section 64 - Appointment and Removal - Waqf Board appointed Respondent 5 as Mutawalli based on a private Trust Deed and representation letters without following the procedure for removal of the existing Mutawalli or verifying the character of the property - Appellant contended he served as hereditary Mutawalli for 40 years - Held - appointment of a Mutawalli presupposes the existence of a validly declared Waqf - resolution passed by the Board without establishing jurisdictional facts is unsustainable - [Paras 3-14 and 24].

Evidence Law - Waqf by User - Waqf Act 1995 - Section 3 - Proof of Dedication - Respondents contended that the Dargah was a Waqf by user and originally a burial ground - Court found the land was classified as Government Poromboke in revenue records and no legal document of dedication existed - Held - Waqf must be established through intention ownership and act of dedication - in the absence of evidence of long public user or statutory notification the property cannot be presumed to be Waqf - [Paras 15-23].

Decision: Civil Miscellaneous Appeal allowed – Resolution dated 23.08.2023 and consequential order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the Waqf Board are set aside – Connected miscellaneous petition closed – No costs.