Land Acquisition - Determination of Market Value - Appeal against High Court's decision to enhance compensation for acquired land - Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded Rs. 45,000/- per acre - Reference Court increased to Rs. 2,17,372/- per acre based on sale deed (Ex. P-2) of a neighbouring plot - High Court further increased to Rs. 4,42,000/- per acre based on another sale deed (Ex. P-19) - Supreme Court held Ex. P-2 to be more appropriate due to proximity and size - Standard deduction for development costs and appreciation rate applied. [Paras 2-10]

Method of Valuation - Auction Sales as Basis - Court noted auction sales introduce competitive elements affecting fair market value - Applied 20% deduction to offset competitive hike - Adjusted for three-year gap between auction and acquisition notification - Applied cumulative increase of 10% per annum - Deduction for development costs set at 40% considering urban development potential. [Paras 6-9]

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Reduction of Compensation - Supreme Court reduced the compensation from Rs. 4,42,875/- to Rs. 2,95,500/- per acre, with all statutory benefits as previously awarded - Reasoned that fair compensation was determined considering location, development potential, and correct application of deductions and appreciation rates. [Paras 10-11]

Civil Law - Interest on Arrears of Rent – Civil Appeal against High Court order directing payment of 12% interest per annum on arrears of rent from September 9, 1998, to March 24, 2008 – High Court had directed 12% interest per annum on arrears for the entire period including the time when the plaint was returned for rectification of defects – Supreme Court modifies the High Court's order – Interest for the period from January 20, 2000, to July 20, 2005, during which the plaint was not represented, disallowed – Landlady’s inaction and lack of diligence in re-presenting the plaint within a reasonable time noted – Court emphasizes that interest pendente lite should be awarded based on the facts and circumstances of the case, not as a matter of course – Appeal allowed in part, interest award for the disputed period set aside. [Paras 1-12]

Interest on Arrears - Principles – Section 34 CPC empowers courts to award interest from the date of the suit to the decree and from the decree to the payment – Pre-suit interest depends on contract, statutory provisions, or mercantile usage – Court finds that equitable considerations do not justify interest for the delayed period of re-presenting the plaint. [Para 11]

Decision – Modification of High Court’s Decree – Supreme Court sets aside the award of interest for the period January 20, 2000, to July 20, 2005 – High Court’s decree modified accordingly, other aspects of the decree stand – Appeal allowed in part – Parties to bear their own costs. [Para 12]

Criminal Law - Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC - Criminal Appeals against conviction for murder – Incident occurred on July 8, 2006, where Murari was shot dead – Conviction based on the testimony of three eyewitnesses (PW-7, PW-8, and PW-11) - FIR was registered promptly, and forensic evidence corroborated eyewitness testimonies - Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of guilt by the trial court and High Court, dismissing appeals. [Paras 1-25]

Eyewitness Testimony - Reliability - Analysis of evidence of PW-7, PW-8, and PW-11 – Held - PW-11's testimony deemed credible and corroborated by PW-7 and PW-8 despite minor discrepancies - Prosecution successfully established presence and involvement of accused - Supreme Court found no merit in defense arguments challenging the reliability of eyewitnesses. [Paras 16-21]

Hostile Witnesses - Legal Position - Evidence of hostile witnesses remains admissible - Courts can rely on credible parts of hostile witnesses’ testimony if corroborated by other evidence - Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle, relying on the acceptable portions of testimonies of PW-7 and PW-8 to support PW-11's account. [Paras 22-23]

Decision - Appeals Dismissed - Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC affirmed - Appellants’ arguments on discrepancies and alleged delayed FIR registration rejected - Supreme Court upheld life imprisonment sentences imposed by the lower courts. [Paras 23-24]

Administrative Law – Term and Reappointment of Tribunal Members – Writ Petition under Article 32 challenging refusal to consider reappointment after 10-year tenure – Administrative Tribunals Act amendments limit total tenure of CAT Members to 10 years – Petitioner argued eligibility for fresh appointment beyond 10 years term – Held: Legislative intent clear in fixing maximum term to 10 years, no eligibility for reappointment after completion of term – Provisions upheld as constitutional, dismissal of petition. [Paras 1-38]

Term of Office – Interpretation of Statutory Provisions – Sections 8 and 10A of Administrative Tribunals Act – Language unambiguous, Members of CAT limited to 10 years term – Post completion of 10 years, Members ineligible for reappointment – Proviso of Section 10A saving terms of service under unamended Act but not extending beyond 10 years – Legislative intent to provide fixed term upheld. [Paras 24-29]

Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Application in Tribunal Tenure – Previous rulings on tenure in A.K. Behra case upheld – Importance of consistency and certainty in judicial decisions emphasized – Judicial decisions binding unless extraordinary reasons warrant deviation – Doctrine applied in affirming dismissal of petition. [Paras 9-17]

Decision – Dismissal of Writ Petition – Court dismissed the petition, upholding legislative provisions limiting CAT Members' tenure to 10 years – Found no merit in the argument for eligibility of reappointment post 10 years – Reinforced statutory interpretation and doctrine of stare decisis. [Paras 36-38]

Land Acquisition - Determination of Market Value - Appeal against High Court's decision to enhance compensation for acquired land - Land Acquisition Officer initially awarded Rs. 45,000/- per acre - Reference Court increased to Rs. 2,17,372/- per acre based on sale deed (Ex. P-2) of a neighbouring plot - High Court further increased to Rs. 4,42,000/- per acre based on another sale deed (Ex. P-19) - Supreme Court held Ex. P-2 to be more appropriate due to proximity and size - Standard deduction for development costs and appreciation rate applied. [Paras 2-10]

Method of Valuation - Auction Sales as Basis - Court noted auction sales introduce competitive elements affecting fair market value - Applied 20% deduction to offset competitive hike - Adjusted for three-year gap between auction and acquisition notification - Applied cumulative increase of 10% per annum - Deduction for development costs set at 40% considering urban development potential. [Paras 6-9]

Decision - Appeal Allowed - Reduction of Compensation - Supreme Court reduced the compensation from Rs. 4,42,875/- to Rs. 2,95,500/- per acre, with all statutory benefits as previously awarded - Reasoned that fair compensation was determined considering location, development potential, and correct application of deductions and appreciation rates. [Paras 10-11]

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - Section 25 - Termination of Employment – Appeal against the High Court order which set aside the Labour Court’s directive for reinstatement and back wages for the appellant, a daily wage worker terminated following his involvement in a criminal case – Criminal case concluded in acquittal – Labour Court ruled in favor of reinstatement with fifty percent back wages – High Court set aside the Labour Court’s award entirely, despite the writ petition challenging only the back wages – Supreme Court holds that the High Court overstepped the scope of the writ petition’s plea – High Court’s orders quashed and Labour Court’s order of reinstatement restored. [Paras 1-25]

Scope of Writ Petition – Pleadings – Held – The High Court’s judgment went beyond the respondent's writ petition, which had only contested the award of back wages – Parties bound by their pleadings and cannot exceed the prayer clause – Supreme Court emphasizes adherence to the scope of the initial plea. [Para 3]

Decision – Appeal allowed – Restoration of Labour Court’s Award – Reinstatement with back wages directed from January 2010 onwards – Appellant’s costs assessed at Rs. 5,000/-. [Paras 3-4]

Criminal Law - Murder and Attempt to Murder - Conviction and Sentencing - Appeal against the High Court order convicting the appellant under Sections 302 and 307 read with Section 34 IPC - Original acquittal by Sessions Judge, Una, reversed by High Court - Incident arose from a land dispute involving the complainant and accused - Prosecution and defence presented evidence of a violent altercation involving multiple parties, resulting in the death of one and injuries to others - Appellant claimed self-defense, highlighting a free fight and lack of premeditation. Held, the Supreme Court altered the conviction from Section 302 IPC to Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt) due to lack of intent to kill, considering the context of a sudden fight and injuries sustained by both parties. [Paras 1-8]

Free Fight - Self-defense - Nature of Injuries - Reassessment of Conviction - The appellant's actions analyzed within the framework of a free fight triggered by a spontaneous quarrel over land demarcation - Both prosecution and defense confirmed injuries sustained by all parties - The trial court and High Court's treatment of evidence re-evaluated, leading to the conclusion that the appellant exceeded his right to private defense but did not intend to commit murder - Conviction revised to reflect the circumstances and nature of the incident. [Para 7]

Decision - Modification of Conviction - Appellant's Age and Health Considered - Conviction modified from Section 302 IPC (murder) to Section 323 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt) - Appellant, aged 82 with health issues, already served significant jail time - Held, period already undergone in custody sufficient; appellant to be released forthwith unless required in any other case. The appeal is allowed in part. [Para 8]

Criminal Law - Acquittal Reversed - Reappraisal of Evidence – Criminal Appeal against High Court's acquittal – Trial court convicted respondents for murder under Section 302 read with Section 120B IPC based on circumstantial evidence – High Court reversed, citing lack of direct evidence of conspiracy – Supreme Court reappraised evidence, found High Court's acquittal order perverse – Concluded respondents exceeded right of self-defense – Convicted under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC. [Paras 1-20]

Circumstantial Evidence – Incriminating Circumstances – Held – Sufficient circumstantial evidence establishing guilt of respondents – Injuries inflicted on deceased were grievous and on vital parts – Efforts by respondents to seek medical help and inform deceased's family indicated absence of intention to kill – Held liable under Section 304 Part-II IPC. [Para 9-12, 19]

Right of Private Defence – Exception and Exceeding Defence – Analysis – Respondents’ plea of self-defense considered – Established that respondents exceeded right of self-defense – Initial reaction to molestation attempt could justify self-defense, but subsequent actions were excessive – Supreme Court modifies conviction accordingly. [Paras 8, 19]

Decision – Modification of Conviction and Sentence – High Court's order set aside – Trial court’s conviction modified – Respondents convicted under Section 304 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC, sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment – Time served during trial and appeal to be set off. [Para 20]

Land Acquisition - Compensation and Resettlement - Scheme for allotment of plots to oustees - Interpretation of 'normal allotment rate' - Civil Appeal challenging the price for plots allotted to appellants whose land was acquired for urban development - Supreme Court held that the 'normal allotment rate' should be the rate prevailing when the sector was first floated for sale, not at the revised rate at the time of delayed allotment - Directed HUDA to charge the rate at the time of initial sector launch - Appellants entitled to compensation for delayed compliance. [Paras 1-14]

Allotment Rate for Oustees - Analysis - Held - The term 'normal allotment rate' refers to the price when the sector is first offered for sale, as per the policy requiring claims of oustees before public sale - Delays by HUDA in allotting plots to appellants should not result in higher charges for them. [Para 12-13]

Decision - Appeal Allowed in Part - Allotment Rate Adjustment - Court directs HUDA to charge Rs. 1032/- per sq.m. (or Rs. 863/- per sq.yd) as the allotment price for the six plots allotted to the appellants instead of the revised rate of Rs. 1342/- per sq.m. - Appellants awarded costs of Rs. 2500/- each. [Para 14]