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 - Counter-Claim - Amendment - Civil appeal against High Court order allowing respondents to amend written statement to include counter-claim for possession at appellate stage - Trial court had dismissed counter-claim for mandatory injunction to demolish structures in disputed property - High Court allowed amendment to include possession claim to avoid multiplicity of proceedings - Supreme Court finds amendment at appellate stage inappropriate, causes prejudice to appellant - Counter-claim should have been filed at trial stage - High Court's order allowing amendment set aside. [Paras 1-37]

Civil Procedure - Permissibility of Amendments - Analysis - Held - Amendments to pleadings are generally permissible to avoid multiplicity of proceedings but must be timely - Discretion to allow amendments should be exercised carefully, especially at advanced stages of litigation - High Court erred in allowing amendment of counter-claim at appellate stage, causing undue prejudice to appellants. [Paras 22-31]

Decision - Amendment of Counter-Claim - Appeal allowed - Supreme Court sets aside High Court's order permitting amendment of counter-claim - Trial court's decision to dismiss counter-claim affirmed - High Court's modification of permanent injunction decree also set aside - Appellants' decree for permanent injunction restored. [Paras 36-37]

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Natural Justice – Appeal against High Court order quashing enquiry proceedings and related orders on the ground of denial of natural justice due to non-supply of documents and CVC report – Supreme Court finds that the respondent did not raise issue of non-supply of documents during enquiry and did not show any prejudice caused – Recommendations of CVC not considered by the authorities in making decisions – No procedural impropriety found – Held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly and the orders of punishment were justified – Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench set aside – Judgment of the learned Single Judge restored. [Paras 1-29]

Non-Supply of Documents – Relevance – Analysis – Held – Non-supply of documents must cause prejudice to vitiate enquiry proceedings – Respondent failed to submit list of documents and their relevance in time – No objection raised during enquiry or in defence brief – No material evidence of prejudice presented. [Paras 21-24]

Recommendations of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) – Consideration – Held – Non-supply of CVC recommendations does not vitiate proceedings if not relied upon by the disciplinary authority – Recommendations were not considered by the authorities in this case – No violation of principles of natural justice. [Paras 21-25]

Decision – Disciplinary Proceedings Valid – Supreme Court holds that the disciplinary proceedings and punishment orders were valid – No breach of procedural rules or natural justice – Division Bench judgment quashing the proceedings set aside – Single Judge's judgment dismissing the writ petition restored. [Paras 29]

Land Acquisition - Application of Amended Provisions - Appeal against the decision of the Bombay High Court rejecting the writ petition challenging acquisition under MRTP Act - Supreme Court examines whether amendments introduced by the Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act, 1984, particularly Section 11A, apply to acquisitions under Chapter VII of the MRTP Act - Held that while MRTP Act is a self-contained code, certain amended provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, including those related to acquisition procedures and compensation, are applicable to MRTP Act acquisitions, except for provisions like Section 11A which prescribe time limits and consequences of lapsing acquisition proceedings - Reference answered accordingly, limiting applicability of amended Land Acquisition Act provisions to compensation and legal remedies​​.

Principle of Legislation by Reference - Analysis - Held - When specific provisions from an existing Act are incorporated into another Act, amendments to the original Act do not automatically apply to the incorporating Act unless expressly provided or necessary for the function of the latter - Supreme Court reiterates that procedural and substantive provisions must be distinguished and applied accordingly - Reference answered by holding that the MRTP Act does not incorporate procedural amendments like Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act​​.

Decision - Limitation on Application of Section 11A - Court holds that Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act, which mandates the completion of acquisition proceedings within a specified period, does not apply to acquisitions under the MRTP Act - Ensures that the planned development under MRTP Act is not hindered by procedural constraints of the Land Acquisition Act - Matter remitted to appropriate Bench for disposal in accordance with the law​​.

Criminal Law - Transfer of Case - Reasonable Apprehension - Petition filed under Section 406 CrPC for transfer of a murder trial from Haridwar, Uttarakhand to Delhi - Petitioner, son of the deceased and eye-witness, alleged threats to witnesses and failure of local authorities to provide adequate protection - Supreme Court, considering the seriousness of the threats and the potential for miscarriage of justice, held that the apprehensions of the petitioner were reasonable - Ordered transfer of the case to Delhi to ensure a fair trial. [Paras 1-18]

Witness Protection - Importance in Criminal Justice System - Emphasized the role of witnesses as critical to the administration of justice - Cited the failure of local authorities to protect witnesses and the resulting risk of witnesses turning hostile - Reinforced the need for proactive measures by the judiciary to safeguard witnesses in sensitive cases to prevent miscarriage of justice. [Para 14-15]

Fair Trial - Judicial Role - Highlighted the necessity for the trial judge to actively use powers under Section 311 CrPC and Section 165 of the Evidence Act to ensure a fair trial - Criticized the passive role of the trial judge in the case - Reiterated the duty of the judiciary to ensure that justice is not only done but is seen to be done, particularly in cases involving influential accused. [Para 15-16]

Decision - Transfer of Case - Considering the threats to the petitioner and other witnesses, and the failure of local authorities to provide adequate protection, the Supreme Court transferred the trial from Haridwar to a competent court in Delhi - Directed both state authorities to ensure witness protection and expedited trial - The petition is allowed. [Paras 17-18]

Criminal Law - Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC - Enhancement of maintenance - Appeal against High Court's order enhancing maintenance from Rs. 1,500 to Rs. 4,000 per month - High Court's jurisdiction to fix maintenance not limited by State amendment specifying upper limits.

Section 125 CrPC - Amendment by Madhya Pradesh Act - Validity - Held - Central amendment to Section 125 CrPC in 2001 removing the ceiling of Rs. 500 renders State amendments setting upper limits invalid. The discretion of the magistrate in determining the amount of maintenance is upheld post the Central amendment.

Criminal Appeal - Validity of State Amendment Post Central Amendment - Analysis - The Central amendment to Section 125 CrPC overrides State amendments that impose a ceiling on maintenance amounts. As a result, the appellant's argument based on the Madhya Pradesh Act's limitations is without merit.

Decision - Appeal Dismissed - The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision to enhance the maintenance amount to Rs. 4,000 per month. The appeal was found to have no merit and was dismissed.

Criminal Law - Murder and Attempted Murder – Appeal against conviction and death sentence – Appellant convicted under Sections 302 and 307 IPC for killing two of his children and injuring the third – Trial Court and High Court confirmed the death sentence – Supreme Court considers whether the case falls under the "rarest of rare" category justifying death penalty – Appellant's young age, inebriated condition during crime, economic and psychological pressures considered – Held that death sentence is not warranted – Sentence commuted to life imprisonment. [Paras 1-5]

Evidence - Eyewitness Testimony – Reliance on eyewitnesses – Prosecution relied on testimonies of PWs 1, 2, and 3, and medical evidence from PW 4 – Defence presented alternate theory through DW 2, wife of appellant – Court finds prosecution witnesses credible and consistent with medical evidence – Defence theory rejected as inconsistent with nature of injuries. [Paras 2-3]

Mitigating Factors - Sentencing in Murder Cases – Consideration of mitigating factors – Appellant's age, state of intoxication, and socio-economic background taken into account – Held that these factors mitigate against death penalty – Sentence reduced to life imprisonment to meet ends of justice. [Paras 4-5]

Decision – Commutation of Death Sentence – Appeals dismissed but death sentence commuted to life imprisonment – Supreme Court holds that the case does not meet criteria for "rarest of rare" warranting death penalty – Life imprisonment deemed sufficient punishment. [Para 5]

Civil Procedure - Counter-Claim - Amendment - Civil appeal against High Court order allowing respondents to amend written statement to include counter-claim for possession at appellate stage - Trial court had dismissed counter-claim for mandatory injunction to demolish structures in disputed property - High Court allowed amendment to include possession claim to avoid multiplicity of proceedings - Supreme Court finds amendment at appellate stage inappropriate, causes prejudice to appellant - Counter-claim should have been filed at trial stage - High Court's order allowing amendment set aside. [Paras 1-37]

Civil Procedure - Permissibility of Amendments - Analysis - Held - Amendments to pleadings are generally permissible to avoid multiplicity of proceedings but must be timely - Discretion to allow amendments should be exercised carefully, especially at advanced stages of litigation - High Court erred in allowing amendment of counter-claim at appellate stage, causing undue prejudice to appellants. [Paras 22-31]

Decision - Amendment of Counter-Claim - Appeal allowed - Supreme Court sets aside High Court's order permitting amendment of counter-claim - Trial court's decision to dismiss counter-claim affirmed - High Court's modification of permanent injunction decree also set aside - Appellants' decree for permanent injunction restored. [Paras 36-37]

Service Law – Disciplinary Proceedings – Natural Justice – Appeal against High Court order quashing enquiry proceedings and related orders on the ground of denial of natural justice due to non-supply of documents and CVC report – Supreme Court finds that the respondent did not raise issue of non-supply of documents during enquiry and did not show any prejudice caused – Recommendations of CVC not considered by the authorities in making decisions – No procedural impropriety found – Held that the disciplinary proceedings were conducted fairly and the orders of punishment were justified – Appeal allowed – Judgment of the Division Bench set aside – Judgment of the learned Single Judge restored. [Paras 1-29]

Non-Supply of Documents – Relevance – Analysis – Held – Non-supply of documents must cause prejudice to vitiate enquiry proceedings – Respondent failed to submit list of documents and their relevance in time – No objection raised during enquiry or in defence brief – No material evidence of prejudice presented. [Paras 21-24]

Recommendations of Central Vigilance Commission (CVC) – Consideration – Held – Non-supply of CVC recommendations does not vitiate proceedings if not relied upon by the disciplinary authority – Recommendations were not considered by the authorities in this case – No violation of principles of natural justice. [Paras 21-25]

Decision – Disciplinary Proceedings Valid – Supreme Court holds that the disciplinary proceedings and punishment orders were valid – No breach of procedural rules or natural justice – Division Bench judgment quashing the proceedings set aside – Single Judge's judgment dismissing the writ petition restored. [Paras 29]