Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 - Declaration of a Sikh Gurdwara - Tribunal and High Court's Jurisdiction - Appeal against the order dismissing the petition challenging the declaration of an institution as a Sikh Gurdwara - Held that both the Tribunal and the High Court failed to adhere to the requirements of Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act which mandates that the institution must have been established for use by Sikhs for public worship and used as such before and at the time of the presentation of the petition under Section 7(1) of the Act - Order of the Tribunal and judgment of the High Court set aside. [Paras 22-40]

Establishment and Use of Gurdwara - Analysis - Held - Revenue records indicating Guru Granth Sahib as the owner insufficient to prove that the institution was established for use by Sikhs for public worship - No adequate foundation laid in the written statement or evidence to show establishment for such use - Tribunal's and High Court's reliance on revenue entries and incidental worship by Sikhs erroneous. [Paras 32-38]

Decision - Appeal allowed - Declaration by the Tribunal that the institution is a Sikh Gurdwara set aside - Tribunal and High Court orders quashed - Lack of sufficient evidence to meet statutory requirements of Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act. [Para 40]

Land Acquisition - Relevant Date for Market Value Determination - The main issue was whether the market value of the land should be determined based on the first preliminary notification dated 3.1.1990 or the second preliminary notification dated 19.11.1993. The Court held that the second notification was valid as the State had issued it to rectify the lapse in passing the award within the stipulated period, and thus compensation must be calculated with reference to the second notification. [Paras 7-10]

Compensation Quantum - Judicial Review - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's award of compensation at Rs. 150,000 per acre. This was based on a comparable sale deed from November 1993, and the Court found the compensation reasonable after a 40% deduction to reflect the market value accurately. [Paras 11]

Procedure - Impermissibility of Counter Claims in SLPs - The respondents' attempt to seek higher compensation through counter-claims in their counter-affidavits was dismissed as not maintainable. [Para 12]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeals - The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision on the relevant date for determining market value and the compensation awarded. [Para 13]

Land Law - De-reservation of Gochar Land - Validity of Notification – Civil Appeal against High Court's order invalidating the State Government’s notification to de-reserve village grazing land (gochar) for hospital construction – High Court held that gochar land could not be used for any purpose other than grazing – Supreme Court examines provisions under Santhal Parganas Settlement Regulations and Santhal Parganas Tenancy (Supplementary Provisions) Act – Held that the State Government possesses the authority to de-reserve gochar land with the prior sanction of the Deputy Commissioner and alternative land provision – Notification dated 31.5.2007 upheld, allowing the hospital to operate on the de-reserved land. [Paras 1-20]

Land Rights - Power to De-reserve Gochar – Analysis – Held – Section 38(1) of the Tenancy Act prohibits utilization of gochar land for non-grazing purposes unless reclassified under lawful authority – Regulation 25 of the Settlement Regulations permits re-opening and alteration of record-of-rights with the State Government's sanction – State Government acted within its powers by de-reserving gochar land and setting apart alternative land for grazing – Importance of procedural compliance highlighted, including consultation and obtaining consent from village headman and Jamabandi Raiyats. [Para 12-13]

Decision – Validation of Notification and Construction – Supreme Court allows appeals, sets aside the High Court’s order, and dismisses the public interest litigation – Hospital permitted to function on the previously designated gochar land – Emphasis on maintaining 5% village area as gochar as per legal provisions. [Para 20]

Civil Procedure - Withdrawal of Suit - Maintainability of Application to Withdraw Withdrawal Application – Civil appeal against High Court judgment dismissing the appellant's application to withdraw his earlier application for withdrawal of the suit – High Court held that once an application for withdrawal of the suit is filed, the suit stands dismissed as withdrawn without any order on the withdrawal application – Supreme Court disagreed – Held that Section 151 CPC, which provides inherent powers to the court, should be interpreted broadly to facilitate justice – There is no express prohibition on filing an application to withdraw an earlier withdrawal application – Appeal allowed – Judgment of the High Court set aside – Suit to proceed and be decided on merits expeditiously. [Paras 1-10]

Procedure in Civil Law – Interpretation of Section 151 CPC – Held – Section 151 CPC should be interpreted to mean that every procedure that furthers justice is permissible unless expressly prohibited – Courts are not to act on the principle that every procedure is prohibited unless expressly permitted by the Code, but rather the opposite – Principle reinforced by Justice Mahmood in Narsingh Das v. Mangal Dubey and affirmed by the Full Bench in Raj Narain Saxena v. Bhim Sen and Others. [Para 5-7]

Decision – Application to Withdraw Withdrawal Application Maintainable – Supreme Court held that the application to withdraw the earlier withdrawal application was maintainable – The suit is to proceed and be decided on merits – Appeal allowed. [Para 8-10]

Motor Vehicles Act - Liability of Registered Owner – Civil Appeal regarding determination of liability for compensation under the Motor Vehicles Act – Accident involving a truck resulting in fatalities – Truck sold to Salig Ram but still registered in the name of Jitender Gupta – Accident occurred during the validity of an insurance policy issued in the name of the original owner (Jitender Gupta) by Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. – Held that the recorded owner in RTO records remains liable despite sale – Liability of compensation extends to the insurer of the vehicle in the name of the recorded owner - Appeal allowed directing insurer to pay the determined compensation. [Paras 1-18]

Definition of Owner - Motor Vehicles Act – Held – As per Section 2(30) of the Act, the owner is the person in whose name the vehicle is registered – Ownership in civil law does not affect liability under the Act if the name remains in RTO records – Registered owner remains liable to third parties. [Paras 11-14]

Insurance Policy Coverage – Validity – Held – Insurance policy taken in the name of Jitender Gupta (recorded owner) valid for compensation claims – Policy covers third-party risks regardless of actual possession by Salig Ram (transferee). [Paras 14-15]

Liability to Pay Compensation – Held – Compensation equally realizable from Oriental Insurance Company Ltd. – Directed to pay full compensation to claimants within two months – Similar directive for compensation to heirs of another deceased victim. [Paras 16-17]

Decision – Appeal allowed – No order as to costs. [Para 18]

Criminal Law – NDPS Act – Conviction and Sentence – Criminal appeals against the High Court order upholding the convictions under Sections 8(c) read with 21 and 29 of the NDPS Act – Appellants challenged the voluntariness and reliability of their statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act – Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court and High Court – Evidence established the recovery of narcotic substances and the appellants' involvement – Appeals dismissed. [Paras 1-15]

Possession and Knowledge – Analysis – Held – The recovery of narcotic substances from the truck and the residence of the appellant Iqbal Moosa Patel was established beyond a reasonable doubt – Arguments regarding lack of exclusive possession and awareness of the contraband by appellant Ashuram Durgaram Chaudhary were rejected – Statements recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act were deemed credible and voluntary. [Paras 9-12]

Benefit of Doubt – Standard of Proof – Held – Prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt but not beyond a shadow of doubt – The standard is of a high degree of probability, not absolute certainty – The courts below correctly applied this standard, and no reasonable doubt existed to warrant overturning the convictions. [Paras 13-14]

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court – The evidence on record was sufficient to support the convictions – Appeals by the appellants failed, maintaining the sentences imposed. [Para 15]

Hindu Law - Adoption - Consent of Wife - Section 7 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 mandates that a male Hindu cannot adopt a son except with the consent of his wife, unless she has renounced the world, ceased to be a Hindu, or has been declared of unsound mind. Mere presence of the wife at adoption ceremonies without active participation does not imply consent. Held, the concurrent finding that Dhapubai consented to the adoption was perverse and based on unfounded assumptions. Adoption invalidated due to lack of wife's consent. [Paras 1-34]

Hindu Law - Gift Deeds and Will - Validity - In light of the invalid adoption, challenges to the gift deeds dated 29.11.1944 and 22.10.1966, and the will dated 27.10.1975 executed by Gopalji in favor of Dhapubai, as well as the sale deed dated 19.1.1973 executed by Dhapubai in favor of Sunderbai, were revisited. Findings of the lower courts on these documents set aside. [Paras 1-35]

Civil Procedure - Concurrent Findings of Fact - Interference by Supreme Court - Interference with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts is warranted when findings are perverse or based on no evidence. In the present case, concurrent findings were held to be based on conjectures and assumptions, justifying interference. [Paras 23-34]

Decision - Adoption by Gopalji of Ghisalal without valid consent of Dhapubai set aside. Suit for declaration, partition, and possession by Ghisalal dismissed. Judgments and decrees of trial court, lower appellate court, and High Court set aside. [Paras 34-35]

Sikh Gurdwaras Act, 1925 - Declaration of a Sikh Gurdwara - Tribunal and High Court's Jurisdiction - Appeal against the order dismissing the petition challenging the declaration of an institution as a Sikh Gurdwara - Held that both the Tribunal and the High Court failed to adhere to the requirements of Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act which mandates that the institution must have been established for use by Sikhs for public worship and used as such before and at the time of the presentation of the petition under Section 7(1) of the Act - Order of the Tribunal and judgment of the High Court set aside. [Paras 22-40]

Establishment and Use of Gurdwara - Analysis - Held - Revenue records indicating Guru Granth Sahib as the owner insufficient to prove that the institution was established for use by Sikhs for public worship - No adequate foundation laid in the written statement or evidence to show establishment for such use - Tribunal's and High Court's reliance on revenue entries and incidental worship by Sikhs erroneous. [Paras 32-38]

Decision - Appeal allowed - Declaration by the Tribunal that the institution is a Sikh Gurdwara set aside - Tribunal and High Court orders quashed - Lack of sufficient evidence to meet statutory requirements of Section 16(2)(iii) of the Act. [Para 40]

Land Acquisition - Relevant Date for Market Value Determination - The main issue was whether the market value of the land should be determined based on the first preliminary notification dated 3.1.1990 or the second preliminary notification dated 19.11.1993. The Court held that the second notification was valid as the State had issued it to rectify the lapse in passing the award within the stipulated period, and thus compensation must be calculated with reference to the second notification. [Paras 7-10]

Compensation Quantum - Judicial Review - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's award of compensation at Rs. 150,000 per acre. This was based on a comparable sale deed from November 1993, and the Court found the compensation reasonable after a 40% deduction to reflect the market value accurately. [Paras 11]

Procedure - Impermissibility of Counter Claims in SLPs - The respondents' attempt to seek higher compensation through counter-claims in their counter-affidavits was dismissed as not maintainable. [Para 12]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeals - The appeals were dismissed, affirming the High Court's decision on the relevant date for determining market value and the compensation awarded. [Para 13]