Civil Law – Jurisdiction and Powers of Mamlatdar – Reopening of Proceedings – High Court Orders – Civil Appeal challenging High Court’s decision to remit the matter back to Mamlatdar, Bardez, to determine his jurisdiction to reopen proceedings concerning an easementary access dispute.

Jurisdiction and Reopening of Proceedings:

The appeal contested the High Court’s direction to the Mamlatdar to reconsider his jurisdiction to reopen proceedings concerning traditional easementary access obstructed by the Appellant. The Supreme Court found that the High Court had overstepped its earlier directive, which did not authorize a reopening of the matter but rather a reassessment of access conditions. [Paras 6-12]

Finality of Prior Orders:

It was held that the dispute between the parties had reached finality with the High Court's earlier order disposing of Writ Petition No. 422/2008, where an alternate access was acknowledged, and the Respondent undertook to withdraw the application from the Mamlatdar's Court. The High Court’s subsequent order expanding this directive was therefore inappropriate. [Paras 9-11]

Liberty to Approach Competent Court:

The Supreme Court provided liberty to the Respondent to approach a competent jurisdiction if the completion certificate by the Village Panchayat, Calangute, was not issued as previously directed or if the Respondent was dissatisfied with the same. The appeal was allowed, and the High Court's impugned order was set aside. [Paras 12-13]

Decision:

Appeal allowed, High Court's order set aside. Respondent given liberty to approach competent court regarding the completion certificate. [Para 13]

Criminal Law – Murder – Appeal against High Court’s reversal of acquittal – Incident involving a boundary dispute leading to fatal assault – Appellant convicted under Section 302 IPC – High Court justified in interfering with trial court’s acquittal – Evidence of eyewitnesses found credible and corroborated by medical evidence – Conviction and life sentence upheld. [Paras 1-27]

Assessment of Evidence – Eyewitness Testimony – Consistency and Trustworthiness – Eyewitnesses present during the altercation and assault – Statements corroborated by medical evidence and other witnesses – Discrepancies in timing deemed immaterial – High Court’s reliance on credible eyewitness testimony upheld. [Paras 13-21]

Role of Appellate Court – Reversal of Acquittal – Principles – Appellate court may reverse acquittal if trial court’s view is unreasonable or perverse – High Court found trial court erred in assessing credibility of eyewitnesses – High Court’s judgment upheld. [Paras 9-10]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment affirmed. [Para 27]

Constitutional Law - Article 32 - Habeas Corpus Petition - Life Imprisonment - Premature Release - Habeas corpus petition under Article 32 by life convict seeking premature release after serving over 20 years, including remission. The petitioner contended that his life sentence should be considered equivalent to 20 years imprisonment under the West Bengal Jail Code and West Bengal Correctional Services Act, 1992. The Court held that life imprisonment is for the convict's natural life unless remitted by the appropriate authority. The petition was dismissed with liberty for the petitioner to seek remission from the state. [Paras 1-16]

Criminal Law - Life Imprisonment - Duration and Remission - Analysis of the legal framework governing life imprisonment and remission under IPC, CrPC, and relevant state laws. The Court reaffirmed that life imprisonment means imprisonment for the convict's entire natural life unless commuted or remitted. Referenced past decisions and legislative provisions clarifying that life imprisonment cannot be automatically reduced to a term of 20 years. [Paras 10-14]

Remission and Premature Release - Legal Framework - The Court examined the rules for remission and premature release under the West Bengal Jail Code and the West Bengal Correctional Services Act. It was held that these provisions are procedural and do not automatically entitle a convict to release after 20 years. The matter of remission lies exclusively with the appropriate government, which can consider various factors before granting remission. [Paras 12-14]

Decision: The writ petition was dismissed. The Court vacated the interim bail granted to the petitioner and allowed the state to take the petitioner into custody. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to file a fresh application for remission, which the state was directed to consider in accordance with the law and guidelines. [Paras 14-16]

Civil Procedure – Maintainability of Suit – Notice under Section 80 CPC and Section 401 M.P. Municipal Corporation Act – Suit for declaration and injunction against Municipal Corporation held not maintainable in absence of mandatory statutory notice – Trial Court rightly dismissed suit on this ground – High Court erred in overlooking statutory bar [Paras 7, 10(b), 30-31]

Property Law – Title and Possession – Burden of Proof – Plaintiffs claiming joint title and possession failed to plead or prove ancestral ownership – Inconsistencies in caste, lack of genealogical linkage, and contradictory Khasara entries undermined their claim – No documentary title produced – Entries in revenue records not sufficient to establish ownership [Paras 13-20]

Revenue Records – Evidentiary Value – Khasara entries – Entries shown to be inconsistent, altered, and unsupported by official authorization – High Court erred in relying on such entries to decree title – Mutation and Khasara entries cannot confer title – Only relevant for revenue purposes [Paras 22-30]

Appellate Jurisdiction – Reversal of Trial Court Findings – High Court’s interference with well-reasoned findings of fact and law by Trial Court found unjustified – Supreme Court reiterates limited scope of appellate court in reversing trial court’s factual findings without strong basis [Paras 12, 27-30]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of High Court set aside – Judgment of Trial Court dismissing suit restored – No costs.

Arbitration - Appointment of Arbitrator - Civil Appeals against High Court's order rejecting request under Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 for appointment of arbitrator - Dispute over completion of work and payment issues - Clauses 24 and 25 of Standard Bidding Document providing procedure for dispute resolution by Dispute Review Expert followed by arbitration - High Court dismissed request citing absence of arbitration agreement - Supreme Court observes binding arbitration clauses and appointment procedure stipulated in the contract - Parties later mutually agree on arbitrator - Impugned order set aside - Matter referred to agreed arbitrator for resolution - Appeals partly allowed. [Paras 1-16]

Existence of Arbitration Agreement - Interpretation - Analysis - Held - Detailed contract terms, including those in the Standard Bidding Document, indicated the presence of arbitration clauses - High Court's finding of no arbitration agreement incorrect - Clauses providing for dispute review and subsequent arbitration deemed binding - Mutual agreement of parties on arbitrator reinforces existence of valid arbitration mechanism. [Paras 6-14]

Decision - Appointment of Arbitrator - Supreme Court sets aside High Court's order, referring matter to mutually agreed arbitrator Hon'ble Mr. Justice K. John Mathew (retired) - Parties to negotiate and settle arbitration terms and conditions - Expectation for expeditious conclusion of arbitration proceedings. [Para 15-16]

Land Acquisition - Determination of Compensation – Appeal against the High Court’s application of the principle of Belting Area to assess market value of land – High Court partially set aside Reference Court’s enhanced compensation – Supreme Court holds that the principle of Belting Area applied without sufficient evidence – High Court’s reliance on mere presumption deemed incorrect – Reference Court’s award upheld, additional compensation granted. [Paras 1-12]

Additional Compensation – Section 23(1A) of the Land Acquisition Act – Supreme Court affirms claimants entitled to 12% additional compensation per annum from date of notification under Section 4(1) until date of award or possession – High Court’s omission to grant additional compensation found erroneous – Directions issued to pay additional compensation. [Paras 13-14, 18]

Interest on Excess Compensation – Section 28 of the Land Acquisition Act – Claimants entitled to 15% interest per annum on excess compensation paid after one year from the date of possession – High Court’s failure to award interest corrected by Supreme Court – Directions issued to pay interest. [Paras 15-17, 18]

Review Petition – Condonation of Delay – High Court’s dismissal of review petition due to non-prosecution and delay – Supreme Court holds delay sufficiently explained and review petition should have been allowed – Directions issued accordingly. [Paras 8-9, 19]

Decision – Enhanced compensation and interest awarded – High Court’s partial setting aside of Reference Court’s judgment reversed – Supreme Court directs Respondents to pay enhanced compensation and interest within three months – Appeals allowed. [Paras 20-23]

Criminal Law - Admissibility and Credibility of Dying Declaration - Conviction based solely on dying declaration - Appellants convicted under Section 302/34 IPC based on the deceased's dying declaration recorded by the Magistrate - Supreme Court scrutinizes the reliability and voluntary nature of the dying declaration - Held, dying declaration not free from doubt and appears influenced by tutoring - Dying declaration should inspire confidence and be devoid of any tutoring or influence to form the sole basis for conviction. [Paras 17-25]

Evidence Law - Dying Declaration - Legal Principles - Guidelines for admissibility and scrutiny of dying declarations reaffirmed - Dying declaration can be sole basis for conviction if it is truthful, voluntary, and inspires full confidence - Dying declaration must be scrutinized in light of surrounding circumstances and not be a product of prompting or imagination. [Paras 18-20]

Burden of Proof - Criminal Trial - Prosecution's duty to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt - If two views are possible, one favoring innocence and the other guilt, the view favoring the accused should be adopted - Conviction based on the same dying declaration used to acquit appellants under Sections 304B and 498A IPC found contradictory - Appellants acquitted due to lack of credible evidence. [Para 25]

Decision - Acquittal of Appellants - Supreme Court sets aside the conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 IPC - Orders release of appellants if not required in any other case - High Court’s judgment reversed due to untrustworthy dying declaration and lack of corroborative evidence supporting prosecution's case. [Paras 25-26]

Criminal Law - Conviction for Dowry Death - Appeal against conviction under Section 304B IPC - Evidence of dowry demand and harassment - Inconsistent testimonies and lack of specific evidence of cruelty 'soon before death' - Benefit of doubt given - Conviction set aside. [Paras 1-22]

Dowry Death - Essential Ingredients - Analysis - Held that the prosecution must prove that the deceased was subjected to cruelty or harassment for or in connection with any demand for dowry soon before her death. Absence of specific evidence and reliable witness statements weakens the prosecution's case. [Paras 16-21]

Decision - Acquittal - Court finds the prosecution failed to prove harassment 'soon before death' and that general allegations are insufficient to convict under Section 304B IPC. The conviction and sentence of the appellant set aside, and he is acquitted. [Para 22]

Criminal Law – Circumstantial Evidence – Abduction and Murder – Appeal against conviction – Prosecution established that the appellant and co-accused abducted the deceased due to enmity over quarrying rights – Deceased last seen with the accused – Body identified through DNA – Incriminating articles recovered from the accused – Appeal dismissed, convictions and life sentences upheld. [Paras 1-25]

Abduction and Last Seen Evidence – Held – The deceased was last seen alive with the appellant and co-accused, and their failure to explain the subsequent events led to a presumption of guilt – Consistent testimony of witnesses supported the prosecution's case – DNA evidence confirmed the identity of the deceased. [Paras 9-10, 13-14]

Discovery of Incriminating Articles – Confession leading to discovery – Section 27 of the Evidence Act – Appellant’s confession led to recovery of material evidence linking him to the crime – Recovered items included the deceased's voter ID card and personal belongings. [Paras 19-22]

Decision – Convictions and sentences of life imprisonment confirmed – Appeal dismissed – The appellant and co-accused found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt based on the established chain of circumstantial evidence. [Paras 24-25]