Civil Law - Village Common Lands - Encroachment and Eviction - Appeal against the High Court's judgment directing eviction of unauthorized occupants from village common lands (ponds) and restoring these lands to the Gram Panchayat. Supreme Court examined the historical and legal context of village common lands and upheld the eviction orders. [Paras 1-24]

Historical Context and Legal Framework - Protection of Common Lands - Held - Village common lands, such as ponds, have been historically used for the benefit of village communities. These lands are vested in the State and managed by Gram Sabhas/Gram Panchayats. Encroachments on such lands, often with the collusion of local authorities, undermine their communal purpose. [Paras 3-7]

Judicial Observations - Regularization of Illegal Occupations - Held - The practice of regularizing illegal occupations of village common lands is condemned. Unauthorized constructions on such lands, even if longstanding, should not be regularized except in exceptional cases, such as leases to landless laborers or Scheduled Castes/Tribes. [Paras 13-15, 22]

State Government Directions - Eviction Schemes - Held - All State Governments/Union Territories are directed to prepare schemes for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat lands and restore these lands for communal use. Chief Secretaries must ensure prompt compliance and submit reports to the Supreme Court. [Paras 22-24]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgments and directing the eviction of the appellants. The Court emphasized the need for strict action against illegal encroachments on village common lands. [Paras 21-24]

Constitutional Law - Article 27 - Tax Utilization for Religious Purposes - Petitioner's fundamental rights under Article 27, claiming that taxes are used to fund Haj pilgrimage, violating the prohibition on using tax proceeds for promoting any particular religion. Supreme Court clarified the interpretation of Article 27, stating it is only violated if a substantial part of tax proceeds is used for a specific religion. [Paras 2-18]

Article 27 Interpretation - Substantial Utilization - Held - Article 27 would be violated if a substantial part of tax proceeds is used for promoting or maintaining a particular religion. Small expenditures for religious facilities or concessions do not violate Article 27. No substantial part of tax proceeds was shown to be utilized for Haj. [Paras 10-14]

Secularism and Equal Respect - Held - Expenditure for religious purposes by the state, if minimal, does not violate Articles 14 and 15. The state also incurs expenditure for other religious communities, ensuring no discrimination. [Paras 19-20]

Legislative Competence - Entry 20 List I - Held - Parliament has the legislative competence to enact the Haj Committee Act under Entry 20 of List I of the Seventh Schedule to the Constitution, which covers "Pilgrimages to places outside India." [Para 22]

Decision - Petition Dismissed - Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the constitutionality of the Haj Committee Act 2002. Emphasized India's secularism and the need for tolerance and respect for all communities to maintain unity. [Paras 23-26]

Motor Vehicles Act - Compensation Claim - High Court Reversal - Appeal against the High Court's reversal of the Motor Accident Claims Tribunal's award of compensation. Supreme Court evaluated the evidence presented, including witness testimonies and medical reports, and restored the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing a holistic and victim-sensitive approach in motor accident claims. [Paras 1-15]

Evidentiary Standards - Preponderance of Probability - Held - In motor accident claims, strict proof akin to criminal cases is not required. The claimants need to establish their case on the touchstone of preponderance of probability. [Paras 10-12]

Victim Sensitivity - Judicial Approach - Held - Courts must adopt a sensitized approach towards the plight of victims in motor accident claims. Disbelief of genuine evidence and delay in filing claims should not undermine the claims in absence of material evidence suggesting deceit. [Paras 10-12]

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashing the High Court's judgment and restoring the Tribunal's award. Directed immediate deposit of the compensation amount and its prompt disbursement to the appellant. [Paras 13-15]

Criminal Law - Circumstantial Evidence - Acquittal Appeal - Appeal against the Delhi High Court's acquittal of the respondent, reversing the trial court's conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for murdering his wife. Supreme Court evaluated the circumstantial evidence and the legal principles applicable, finding no merit in the appeal. [Paras 1-56]

Motive and Evidence - Evaluation - Held - Absence of clear motive and inconsistencies in witness testimonies weaken the prosecution's case. The circumstantial evidence did not conclusively point to the respondent's guilt, and the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. [Paras 23-25, 39-41]

Witness Credibility and Evidence Integrity - Held - Discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, including the handling of body parts and recovery of blood samples, raise doubts about the reliability of the evidence presented. [Paras 29-31, 47-50]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's acquittal of the respondent. The prosecution's failure to establish a conclusive link between the respondent and the crime warranted the respondent's acquittal. [Paras 51-56]

Civil Law - Village Common Lands - Encroachment and Eviction - Appeal against the High Court's judgment directing eviction of unauthorized occupants from village common lands (ponds) and restoring these lands to the Gram Panchayat. Supreme Court examined the historical and legal context of village common lands and upheld the eviction orders. [Paras 1-24]

Historical Context and Legal Framework - Protection of Common Lands - Held - Village common lands, such as ponds, have been historically used for the benefit of village communities. These lands are vested in the State and managed by Gram Sabhas/Gram Panchayats. Encroachments on such lands, often with the collusion of local authorities, undermine their communal purpose. [Paras 3-7]

Judicial Observations - Regularization of Illegal Occupations - Held - The practice of regularizing illegal occupations of village common lands is condemned. Unauthorized constructions on such lands, even if longstanding, should not be regularized except in exceptional cases, such as leases to landless laborers or Scheduled Castes/Tribes. [Paras 13-15, 22]

State Government Directions - Eviction Schemes - Held - All State Governments/Union Territories are directed to prepare schemes for the eviction of unauthorized occupants from Gram Sabha/Gram Panchayat lands and restore these lands for communal use. Chief Secretaries must ensure prompt compliance and submit reports to the Supreme Court. [Paras 22-24]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's judgments and directing the eviction of the appellants. The Court emphasized the need for strict action against illegal encroachments on village common lands. [Paras 21-24]

Criminal Law - Rape - Conviction Appeal - Appellant convicted under Section 376 IPC for raping a minor girl in a school verandah. Trial court sentenced him to seven years rigorous imprisonment, upheld by the High Court. Supreme Court considered the delay in filing the FIR and the medical evidence, emphasizing the reliability of the prosecutrix's testimony and supporting circumstantial evidence. Appeal dismissed, conviction upheld. [Paras 1-5]

Delay in FIR - Significance in Rape Cases - Held - Delay in lodging FIR in rape cases is not uncommon due to the social stigma attached. In this case, the delay was justified as the prosecutrix's father first approached the school Head Master before lodging the FIR. [Paras 2-4]

Medical Evidence - Corroboration - Held - Absence of conclusive medical evidence of rape does not discredit the prosecutrix's testimony if it is otherwise reliable. The doctor's finding of a minor injury and absence of the hymen supported the prosecution's case. [Paras 4-5]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the appellant's conviction and directing his immediate custody to serve the remaining sentence. [Para 5]

Civil Law - Employment Dispute - Preference in Appointments - Appeals against the High Court's order directing MCL to reappoint candidates from an earlier merit list, affecting the appellants' longstanding employment and subsequent promotions. Supreme Court emphasized the discretionary nature of the High Court's jurisdiction under Article 226 and the need to consider the appellants' service history and promotions. [Paras 3-11]

Delay and Laches - Employment Challenge - Held - The appellants were not initially impleaded in the writ petitions challenging their appointments, which were filed after a significant delay. Given the appellants' subsequent promotions and long service, the writ petitioners were not entitled to discretionary relief. [Paras 8-10]

Decision - Appeals Allowed - Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgment, emphasizing the need to consider the equitable interests of the appellants who had been in service for over a decade and had received multiple promotions. [Paras 8-12]

Criminal Law - Identification Evidence - Conviction Appeal - Appellants convicted under Sections 120B, 302 IPC for murder based on eyewitness identification. Supreme Court evaluated the credibility of identification evidence presented for the first time in court long after the incident. Convictions were questioned due to the lack of corroborative evidence and failure to follow procedural safeguards for proper identification. [Paras 1-6]

Identification in Court - Reliability - Held - Identification made for the first time in court without prior identification procedures (like a test identification parade) is generally unreliable, especially when the physical description given is too generic. Sub-Inspector Pyara Singh, who arrested the appellants, was not produced as a witness, weakening the prosecution's case. [Paras 6-7]

Evidence Evaluation - Witness Credibility - Held - The statements of key prosecution witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) contained significant improvements and lacked corroboration. The behavior of the witnesses post-incident was inconsistent with normal human behavior, further undermining their credibility. [Paras 7-8]

Decision - Appeals Allowed - Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the convictions and sentences of the appellants. The judgments of the trial court and the High Court were overturned. [Paras 7-8]

Civil Law - Public Street Encroachment - Limitation and Representative Suit - Appeal against the concurrent findings of lower courts affirming that the appellant had encroached on a public street. Supreme Court examined the issues of limitation, compliance with Order 1 Rule 8 CPC, and the existence of a public street. Appeal dismissed, confirming the mandatory injunction for removal of the encroachment. [Paras 2-30]

Limitation - Continuing Cause of Action - Held - Encroachment on a public street constitutes a continuing wrong, providing a continuing cause of action. The suit filed by the respondent was not barred by limitation as each day of encroachment created a new cause of action. [Paras 15-19]

Representative Suit - Compliance with Order 1 Rule 8 CPC - Held - The suit filed by an aggrieved individual need not comply with Order 1 Rule 8 CPC if the individual asserts their own right or protection of community property. The respondent, being directly affected, had the standing to file the suit. [Paras 20-23]

Existence of Public Street - Evidence - Held - The existence of the public street was corroborated by multiple witnesses and official reports. The appellant's encroachment on the street was established through consistent and credible evidence. [Paras 24-28]

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' findings and directing the appellant to remove the encroachment within 60 days, failing which the respondent could seek execution of the decree. Costs of Rs. 10,000 were imposed on the appellant. [Paras 29-30]