Civil Law - Land Acquisition – Review – Maintainability of Review – Earlier SLPs filed by appellants dismissed for non-prosecution – Held: Dismissal of SLPs for default does not bar maintainability of review petition – Doctrine of merger does not apply to non-speaking dismissal orders – Review petitions held to be maintainable under Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC [Paras 18-19].

Limitation – Delay of Over 12 Years – Condonation – Review petitions filed with delay ranging from 4557 to 4586 days – Delay attributed to personal hardships and death of appellant Harke Ram – Held: Delay condoned in view of principles laid down in Katiji, Dhiraj Singh, Huchanagouda and Suresh Kumar cases – Denial of enhanced compensation would violate equity and parity – Interest on enhanced compensation denied for period of delay as equitable balance [Paras 20-24].

Compensation – Principle of Parity – Enhanced compensation already granted by Supreme Court in Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana to similarly situated landowners for same acquisition – Appellants’ lands part of same notification and award – Held: Appellants entitled to same enhancement of ₹20,00,000/- per acre as per Rajender Singh judgment – No justification to deny benefit merely due to procedural delay when entitlement otherwise established [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Review petitions allowed – Delay in filing condoned subject to denial of interest for delayed period – Applicants entitled to enhanced compensation of ₹20,00,000/- per acre in line with Supreme Court judgment in Rajender Singh v. State of Haryana – Statutory benefits under Land Acquisition Act granted, excluding interest for delayed period – Appeals disposed of accordingly.

Criminal Law – Anticipatory Bail – Hate Speech and Communal Provocation – Petition under Section 482 BNSS seeking anticipatory bail in FIR alleging hate-motivated and inflammatory statements against the Purvanchal community through viral online interview – Petitioner alleged to have made caste-targeted, communal and defamatory remarks against migrants from UP/Bihar and their women – FIR supported by digital evidence (pen drive), complainant's affidavit, memorandum of community members and witness statements – Held: Allegations raise serious concerns of inciting communal disharmony; custodial interrogation necessary for effective investigation – Bail rejected [Paras 1–6, 10]

Speech Act Theory – Judicial Application – Court invoked Speech Act Theory (Austin & Searle) to interpret hate speech not only by literal meaning but by intention (illocutionary force) and effect (perlocutionary impact) – Remarks attributed to petitioner prima facie constituted communicative acts capable of provoking public disorder and societal insecurity – Plea that petitioner was named only in supplementary statement not sufficient to discard material on record [Para 6]

Bail Jurisprudence – Individual Rights vs. Societal Interest – High Court held that anticipatory bail in such cases undermines public confidence and can embolden others – Right to pre-arrest bail cannot be invoked when there is prima facie material supporting grave charges and ongoing investigation requires custodial interrogation – Reference made to State v. Anil Sharma, (1997) 7 SCC 187 [Para 9]

**Custodial Interrogation – Necessity – Electronic evidence, viral circulation, potential accomplices and community outrage justify rejection of bail plea – Investigating agency must be given full opportunity to trace origin, intent and effect of speech and associated criminal acts without hindrance from bail order [Paras 8–10]

Decision: Petition dismissed – No merit in anticipatory bail plea – Custodial interrogation held necessary – Observations not to affect merits of investigation.

Civil Law - Succession – Validity of Will – Genuineness and Attestation – Plaintiff relied on Ex.A-1 Will dated 10.03.2000 executed by his mother bequeathing suit property – Trial Court decreed suit – First Appellate Court reversed decree citing suspicious circumstances and non-examination of second attesting witness – Held: Appellate Court failed to properly appreciate independent evidence of P.W.2, who proved execution and attestation of Ex.A-1 as per Section 63 of Indian Succession Act – Suspicion regarding thumb impression alongside signature without basis – One attesting witness sufficient under Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act when requirements of Section 63 are met [Paras 15-20, 26, 29, 43].

Will – Later Will Prevails – Plaintiff’s mother had earlier executed Ex.B-2 Will in 1995 – Plaintiff proved Ex.A-1 dated 10.03.2000 as her final testament – Held: Ex.A-1 being the later Will overrides Ex.B-2 – Sale by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.2 post testatrix’s death was void as Defendant No.1 had no title – Defendant No.2’s claim based on invalid transfer rejected [Paras 35-39, 43].

Title and Possession – Defendant No.2’s Claim – Defendant No.2 relied on Ex.B-1 sale deed and possession certificate Ex.B-5 – Held: No specific evidence to establish possession of disputed Ac.1.05 cents of land – Revenue entries insufficient – Plaintiff established title through duly proved Ex.A-1 Will – Defendant No.1 had no legal right to convey [Paras 38, 40-41].

Appellate Jurisdiction – Scope under Section 100 CPC – High Court held First Appellate Court’s interference was unwarranted – Findings contrary to established legal position and based on erroneous interpretation of law – Reappreciation of evidence showed that suspicious circumstances were neither material nor substantiated – Decree of trial court restored [Paras 14, 44].

Decision: Second appeal allowed – Judgment and decree dated 29.07.2013 in A.S. No.121 of 2012 set aside – Judgment and decree dated 07.08.2012 in O.S. No.205 of 2001 restored – Plaintiff declared absolute owner of the suit schedule property including Ac.1.05 cents in Item No.1 – Sale by Defendant No.1 to Defendant No.2 declared invalid – No order as to costs in second appeal.

Property Law – Agricultural Tenancy – New Tenure Land – Transfer without permission – Respondents (original plaintiffs) filed suit for possession of agricultural land after State dropped land acquisition proceedings – Appellant (original defendant society) took possession under MOU and claimed to have paid entire consideration – Courts below held land was new tenure land under Section 43 of Tenancy Act – No permission obtained from competent authority – Held: Transfer void – Possession directed to be restored – Defendant had no enforceable right in absence of suit for specific performance – Agreement unenforceable due to legal bar [Paras 3.1, 5–6, 13]

Evidence Law – Unregistered Agreement to Sell – Defendant relied on unregistered MOU and payment receipts to claim possessory rights – Did not file suit for specific performance – Held: Unregistered agreement cannot be basis for independent right or permanent injunction – Relief indirectly cannot be granted when substantive relief of specific performance not claimed – [Paras 7–9]

Adverse Possession – No Plea Raised – Defendant neither pleaded nor proved adverse possession – Courts below correctly held no title accrued to defendant – Mere possession without title or legal transfer insufficient [Para 6]

Second Appeal – Scope under Section 100 CPC – No substantial question of law – Concurrent findings by Trial Court and Appellate Court – Reappreciation of evidence not permissible – Appeal dismissed in absence of error in law or perversity in findings [Paras 11–13]

Decision: Second Appeal dismissed at admission stage – No substantial question of law involved – Concurrent findings upheld – Connected Civil Application disposed of accordingly – Possession rightly ordered to be returned to plaintiff – Defendant not entitled to protection under Section 53A or injunction on basis of void transaction.

NDPS Act – Bail – Disclosure Statement of Co-Accused – Weak Evidentiary Value – Petitioner implicated only based on co-accused’s disclosure; no recovery from petitioner; Court holds disclosure statement without corroboration cannot be sole basis for implication; evidentiary value to be tested at trial – Raises serious doubts regarding fairness of investigation [Paras 3, 6].

Custody & Delay – Long Incarceration Dilutes Rigour of Section 37 NDPS Act – Petitioner in custody since 12.06.2023; challan filed 07.12.2023; 28 witnesses cited but none examined – Delay not attributable to petitioner – Prolonged incarceration of 2 years 3 months 15 days violates Article 21; thus rigours of Section 37 NDPS Act stand diluted [Paras 6, 6.3–6.4].

Section 37 NDPS Act – Twin Conditions – Principles Summarised – Court reiterates jurisprudence:

• Twin conditions are cumulative, not alternative;

• Bail Court may look at defence material;

• “Not likely to commit offence while on bail” requires demonstrable probability, not theoretical presumption;

• Antecedents alone cannot justify rejection when case on merits is made out [Paras 6.2–6.6].**

Right to Speedy Trial – Article 21 – Reiterated – Cites line of Supreme Court precedents (Hussainara Khatoon; Antulay; Mohd. Muslim @ Hussain; Chitta Biswas; Nitish Adhikary) – Overcrowded dockets and systemic delay cannot justify prolonged incarceration; pre-trial detention cannot turn into punitive imprisonment [Paras 6.5–6.6].

Antecedents – Not Sole Ground to Deny Bail – Petitioner involved in two other cases per custody certificate – Court holds antecedents relevant but not determinative when prosecution case in present FIR itself is weak and delay substantial [Para 6.6].

Decision: Petition allowed – Petitioner ordered to be released on regular bail subject to strict conditions including: no misuse of liberty, no tampering with evidence, appearance at trial dates, deposit of passport, maintaining same mobile number, monthly affidavit regarding non-involvement in offence – State given liberty to seek cancellation upon breach [Paras 7–9].

Criminal Law – Appeal Against Acquittal – Unlawful Assembly – Assault – Cross-FIR – Evidence of complainant and injured witnesses found to be partisan, contradictory, and inconsistent with their police statements which admitted mutual fight and injuries on opposite side – Suppression of fatal injuries on accused’s father (deceased Ganpatsinh) in cross-case held fatal – Trial court’s view held a “possible view” warranting no interference [Paras 6–12, 15].

Witness Credibility – Interested/Injured Witnesses – PW-3, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7 admitted during cross-examination that police statements recorded a mutual fight and blows inflicted by prosecution side – Court notes material improvements, suppression of crucial facts, inconsistency regarding weapon use (bhala vs. chappu), and contradictions with Investigating Officer (PW-9) – Held: Testimony unreliable and unsafe for conviction in absence of independent corroboration [Paras 7–10].

Medical Evidence – Nature of Injuries – Medical certificates (Exhs. 32–37, 41, 43) show only simple abrasions and lacerated wounds – No injury consistent with alleged knife blow to chest – Absence of grievous injuries inconsistent with prosecution’s claim of severe attack with lethal weapons – Held: Medical evidence does not support ocular version [Paras 8–10].

Forensic Evidence – Weapon Recovery – FSL Report (Exh. 66) inconclusive – No tamancha recovered to support allegation under Section 506(2) IPC – Panchnama witnesses formal; no link between recovered weapons and injuries – Held: Recovery does not corroborate prosecution case [Paras 8–10].

Independent Witnesses – Non-examination – Incident occurred in village with 60–70 houses; FIR itself mentions interveners (Somabhai Fulabhai, Mangal @ Yogibhai, etc.) – None examined – Held: Failure to examine independent witnesses severely undermines prosecution case, especially in cross-case scenario [Paras 7–10].

Cross-Cases – Mutual Fight – Complainant and injured witnesses were themselves accused in cross-FIR (C.R. I-170/1993) for death of accused’s father – Suppression of mutual injuries and one-sided narration held deliberate and fatal to prosecution – Strong motive to falsely implicate accused established – Benefit of doubt justified [Paras 7–12].

Appellate Interference – Principles – Applying Chandrappa principles and Supreme Court rulings in Rajesh Prasad (2022) 3 SCC 471 and H.D. Sundara (2023) 9 SCC 581 – Court reiterates double presumption of innocence and limits on interference in acquittal appeals – Trial court’s view is a plausible, legally sustainable view – No ground to reverse acquittal [Paras 13–14].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Acquittal of all accused upheld – Records and proceedings to be remitted [Paras 15].

Family Law – Divorce – Cruelty – Allegations of cruelty by wife not established – Appellant-husband alleged wife refused to cook, misbehaved, and pressured him to live separately from parents – Trial Court found no credible evidence of cruelty – Held: No perversity in Family Court’s judgment – Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1–9, 22, 54–56]

Family Law – Cruelty – Legal Standard – Reiterated: Cruelty includes physical and mental suffering causing reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful to live with the spouse – Mere marital discord or incompatibility does not amount to cruelty – Allegations must be grave and substantiated. [Paras 26–34]

Family Law – Divorce – Desertion – Desertion implies intentional abandonment without reasonable cause and without consent – Requires factum of separation and animus deserendi – Respondent-wife was ousted from matrimonial home – No voluntary desertion – No ground made out. [Paras 35–46, 50–52]

Family Law – Appreciation of Evidence – No perversity – Evidence of both parties considered by Family Court – Allegations of cruelty and desertion found unproved – Court also considered wife’s willingness to resume matrimonial life – Held: No interference warranted in appeal – Appellate Court not to re-appreciate evidence without perversity or legal error. [Paras 18–23, 47–53]

Family Law – Pending Proceedings – Fact that respondent-wife had filed criminal complaint under Section 498A IPC and maintenance case under Section 125 CrPC – Does not per se constitute cruelty – Needs to be established that such proceedings were false and malicious. [Paras 16, 49]

Decision: Appeal dismissed. Impugned judgment of Family Court upheld. No element of perversity found. Pending applications also disposed of. [Paras 55–57]

Consumer Law – Maintainability of Writ – Challenge to National Commission Orders – High Court holds that although writ under Article 226 is maintainable against National Commission orders, such jurisdiction is to be exercised sparingly and ordinarily declined when Article 227 remedy exists – Petitioner’s challenge rejected as findings of Consumer Fora were concurrent, factual, and non-perverse – Held: Writ petition not maintainable on facts; no exceptional circumstance shown [Paras 18–21, 24–27]

Alternate Remedy – Article 226 vs. Article 227 – When supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is available, invocation of Article 226 ordinarily impermissible unless there is violation of natural justice, patent lack of jurisdiction, or infringement of fundamental rights – Supreme Court precedents in Whirlpool, Harbanslal Sahnia, Radha Krishan Industries, Ibrat Faizan and Rikhab Chand Jain applied – Petitioner failed to bring case within exceptions [Paras 12–16, 18–21]

Consumer Protection Act – Concurrent Findings – Real Estate Project – Consolidation Proceedings – Petitioner alleged force majeure under Section 56 of the Contract Act – Consumer Fora found that project land was under consolidation and possession never with petitioner – Petitioner's pleas rejected repeatedly – High Court refuses re-appreciation of facts in writ jurisdiction – Findings held reasonable and not perverse [Paras 22–24, 26]

Jurisdiction – Supervisory Role of High Court – National Commission treated as ‘Tribunal’ under Articles 136 & 227 – High Court reiterates its limited power of interference and declines to act as appellate authority over factual determinations of Consumer Fora [Paras 15–16, 18–21]

Decision – Writ Petition dismissed – No interference warranted with orders of District, State or National Consumer Commissions – Parties to bear their own costs [Para 27].

Electricity Law – Pilferage of Energy – Civil Liability – Criminal Acquittal – Clause 39.15 – Acquittal on benefit of doubt does not extinguish civil liability for pilferage – Recovery under APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Act and Section 52-A Revenue Recovery Act upheld – Limitation counts from final appellate criminal judgment – Writ petition dismissed with costs.

Electricity – Pilferage of Energy – Departmental Assessment – Criminal vs. Civil Consequence – Held: Theft of energy embodies two distinct components—(i) criminal liability punishable under law, and (ii) civil liability to pay for unrecorded consumption – Even if prosecution fails to secure conviction, civil liability survives unless charge is proven false – Acquittal based on benefit of doubt does not bar recovery proceedings.

Terms & Conditions of Supply – Clause 39.15 – Effect – Acquittal on any ground other than “charge is false” does not bar recovery – Sessions Court and High Court acquitted petitioner only on benefit of doubt; hence civil liability intact – Recovery proceedings maintainable.

Evidence – Criminal Case Findings – Session Court found prosecution failed to prove existence or use of remote controller; seals intact; possibility of tampering not established – Held: Such findings only raise doubt, not a declaration of false charge – Therefore, civil liability unaffected.

APSEB (Recovery of Dues) Act, 1984 – Applicability – Assessment order of Superintending Engineer (31.07.1992) confirmed by Chief Engineer (23.10.2001) attained finality – Dues fall within definition under Sections 2 & 3 – Recovery as arrears of land revenue under Section 6 valid – Form-A (06.12.2001) and Form-B notices (18.04.2002) validly issued  .

Revenue Recovery Act, 1864 – Section 52-A – Validity – Authorises recovery of public dues by treating them as arrears of land revenue – No inconsistency with Electricity Act, 2003 – Recovery for electricity dues permissible – Supported by Supreme Court jurisprudence affirming competence of States to confer such powers on revenue authorities.

Electricity Act, 2003 – Primacy Clauses (Sections 173, 174, 185) – No inconsistency between the 2003 Act and APSEB Recovery Act – Hence, old dues recoverable without recourse to Special Court under Section 153 – Civil recovery mechanism preserved.

Limitation – Article 113, Limitation Act – Cause of action accrues only after final appellate criminal judgment – Here, High Court’s decision in Criminal Appeal No. 721/2008 dated 14.11.2011 marked such accrual – Recovery notice dated 18.09.2014 within 3-year limitation – Recovery not time-barred.

Decision:  Writ petition dismissed with costs of Rs.5,000/- – All connected applications closed [Final Para] .