Quashing of Government Orders – Ownership and Possession of Land – First Appeal against Trial Court Decree – Land in Bhopal under Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1976 – High Court upholds trial court’s decree in favor of respondents – Orders by state authorities regarding land declared null and void post-repeal of Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1999 – Respondents' ownership and possession rights over disputed land confirmed. [Paras 1-22]

Validity of Government Action – Post-Repeal Scenario – Analysis – High Court finds actions of state authorities invalid post-repeal of Urban Land Ceiling Act, 1999 – No lawful basis for state's claim over the land post-repeal – Upholds the trial court's findings on ownership and possession by respondents. [Paras 11, 15, 16]

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – High Court dismisses appeal by state – Affirms trial court's decree favoring respondents – Respondents retain ownership and possession of the disputed land – State's orders post-1999 repeal found ineffective. [Paras 21-22]

Civil Procedure - Regular Second Appeal - Section 100 CPC - Suit for permanent injunction to restrain encroachment - Trial Court dismissed suit for lack of proof of possession by plaintiff - First Appellate Court allowed appeal holding plaintiff in possession - Appellants claimed possession through acts of tying cattle and placing cow dung cakes - Such acts not considered proof of exclusive possession - Plaintiff’s title established, hence possession presumed - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 1-19]

Possession and Title - Legal Principles - Analysis - Tethering of cattle and making cow dung cakes over open land not exclusive possession - Common practice in villages, not indicative of ownership - Legal principle that possession follows title applied - Plaintiff’s title established through unchallenged evidence - Possession presumed to follow title. [Paras 18-19]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal - High Court dismisses appeal - First Appellate Court’s findings upheld - Plaintiff’s title and possession confirmed - Appellants failed to produce convincing evidence of possession - Appeal dismissed and miscellaneous applications disposed of. [Paras 18-19]

Service Law - Eligibility for Promotion - AMIE Certificate - Petitioner reverted from Superintending Engineer to Executive Engineer due to lack of degree in engineering—Petitioner holds AMIE certificate, argued to be equivalent to a degree—Court held that AMIE certificate may be equivalent but is not a degree—Rules require a degree in engineering for promotion to Superintending Engineer—Court cannot add or modify qualifications prescribed by the competent rule-making body—Petition dismissed​​.

Interpretation of Statutory Rules - Degree vs. Equivalent Qualification - Held, court cannot interpret rules to include equivalent qualifications where the rule explicitly requires a degree—AMIE certificate, though recognized as equivalent, is not a degree and does not fulfill the statutory requirement—Court emphasized the need for strict adherence to rule language and legislative intent—Rule-making body intentionally distinguished between degree holders and those with equivalent qualifications for promotion​​.

Decision - Writ petitions dismissed—Reversion to the post of Executive Engineer upheld—AMIE certificate does not meet the specific qualification requirement of a degree in engineering for the promotion to Superintending Engineer—Rules must be applied as written without judicial alteration​​.

Grant of parole - Sections 21, 23, 28, 29, 60, 61, 63 of the NDPS - Challenge to declining order of parole - Whether declining order was ill-informed and not founded on credible material - Reasons given for denying parole based on mere apprehensions - No adverse report by Superintendent of Jail concerning petitioner's conduct - Order suffers from non-application of mind - Petition allowed and petitioner ordered to be released on parole for eight weeks subject to certain conditions - Petitioner to furnish personal and surety bonds and undertake to return to prison at the end of the parole period - Liberty reserved to SHO to arrest petitioner if conditions breached - Criminal appeal pending before the Court - allowed - Order of declining parole set aside.

Constitutional Law - Writ Petition - Suppression of Material Facts - Criminal Antecedents - Petition seeking quashing of verbal orders not to report for duty and preventing replacement by another contractual employee—Petitioner failed to disclose involvement in a criminal case (FIR No. 178 dated 30.03.2017 under Sections 306, 420, and 406 IPC) and custody from 06.04.2017 to 13.09.2017—Court held that suppression of material facts disqualifies petitioner from discretionary relief—Petition dismissed​​.

Duty of Full Disclosure - Judicial Discretion and Conduct of Petitioner - Held, a petitioner seeking discretionary relief must disclose all material facts—By concealing criminal antecedents, the petitioner misled the Court—Court has no sympathy for such conduct—Petition dismissed to uphold the integrity of judicial process​​.

Decision - Petition dismissed due to non-disclosure of criminal case and custody—Petitioner not entitled to discretionary relief from the Court—Conduct deemed an attempt to mislead and hoodwink the Court​​.

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of FIR - Limitation Period - Excise Act - Petition for quashing FIR registered under Punjab Excise Act—FIR registered on 25.08.2016, challan presented on 23.02.2021—Cognizance taken barred by limitation under Section 75(2) of the Punjab Excise Act and Section 468 CrPC—Special sanction time exclusion plea untenable as limitation period had expired—FIR quashed​​.

Excise Law - Cognizance and Limitation - Special Sanction and Delay - Held, prosecution under Punjab Excise Act must be initiated within one year unless special sanction is obtained—Even with exclusion of time for obtaining sanction, cognizance period under Section 468 CrPC expired—Special sanction does not extend period for launching prosecution beyond three years—No satisfaction recorded by Magistrate for delay under Section 473 CrPC—Prosecution deemed barred by limitation​​.

Decision - FIR No. 60 dated 25.08.2016 and consequential proceedings quashed—Cognizance barred by limitation—Plea of exclusion of sanction period rejected—Magistrate did not record necessary satisfaction for delay—Petition allowed to prevent abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice​​.

Default Bail – Section 167(2) Cr.P.C and Section 36-A of the NDPS Act – Petitioner’s application for default bail dismissed by Additional Sessions Judge, Faridabad – Revision petition filed challenging the order. [Para 1]

Factual Background – Petitioner arrested under Section 22(c) of the NDPS Act – Challan presented on 05.05.2022 without accompanying FSL report, submitted later on 16.12.2022 – Petitioner claims an indefeasible right to default bail upon the expiry of 180 days as per Section 167(2) Cr.P.C. [Para 3, 4]

Legal Precedent – Reference to Ajit Singh @ Jeeta v. State of Punjab, CRR No.4659 of 2015 – Emphasis on the necessity of FSL report for a complete challan and its implications for default bail. [Para 6]

Decision – Impugned order dated 15.10.2022 set aside – Petitioner granted default bail subject to furnishing requisite bonds – Indefeasible right to default bail acknowledged, in line with legal precedent. [Para 7-8]

Municipal Law – Computation of Period for Requisition of Meeting – Writ Petition against State Government’s disapproval of meeting convened by dissatisfied councillors – Section 25(3) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 interpreted to mandate meeting within 30 days from the initial requisition – Meeting held beyond this period deemed invalid – Petition dismissed – Held that the statutory period of 30 days must be strictly adhered to avoid misuse and potential for horse-trading – Failure to hold the meeting within the prescribed period invalidates the no-confidence motion passed in such meeting. [Paras 1-14]

No Confidence Motion – Requirements and Validity – Analysis – Held that the dissatisfied Municipal Councillors must convene the meeting within 30 days from the date of making the requisition – Period cannot be extended under any circumstance, including the non-availability of the appointed observer – The statutory phraseology "within a period of 30 days of the making of such requisition" must be strictly construed to ensure timely action and prevent misuse. [Paras 9-13]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Court upholds the State Government’s decision to disapprove the meeting convened on 14.01.2022 – Reaffirms the necessity for strict adherence to statutory timelines – Writ Petition dismissed. [Para 14]

Criminal Procedure - Quashing of Complaint - Limitation Period - Insecticides Act - Petition for quashing complaint for misbranded insecticide—Complaint filed after limitation period of three years—Sample drawn on 13.07.2012, analyst report dated 30.07.2012—Application for sanction submitted on 13.08.2015, sanction granted on 01.11.2017—Complaint filed on 05.01.2018—Held, even excluding time for obtaining sanction, complaint filed beyond limitation period—Proceedings quashed as barred by limitation​​.

Limitation Period - Calculation and Exclusion - Requirements under Insecticides Act - Held, punishment under Section 29 of the Insecticides Act is two years, making the limitation period three years under Section 468 CrPC—Complaint must be filed within this period—Exclusion of time for obtaining sanction permissible, but entire period from the date of the first report to the filing of the complaint must be within limitation—Application for condonation of delay must be under Section 473 CrPC, not Section 5 of the Limitation Act—No explanation provided for delay between analyst report and application for sanction—Complaint quashed for being time-barred​​.

Decision - Complaint No. 92 dated 05.01.2018 and summoning order dated 05.01.2018 quashed—Complaint filed beyond the limitation period, despite excluding time for obtaining sanction—No valid cause shown for delay—Petition allowed to prevent abuse of process of law and miscarriage of justice