Land Acquisition – Reference to Court – Limitation – Section 18 of the Act, 1894 – The Supreme Court held that the limitation for making a reference under Section 18 of the Act, 1894, cannot be extended, and Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply – However, when the original landowners challenged the acquisition proceedings, which concluded with the dismissal of a special leave petition, and subsequently filed a reference within six months from the date of dismissal, the reference should not be dismissed as time-barred [Paras 7-9].

Judicial Procedure – Liberty to Pursue Remedy – The High Court had reserved liberty for the appellants to pursue remedies for enhancement of compensation while dismissing the writ petition – The appellants filed the reference within the stipulated time after the Supreme Court dismissed their special leave petition – The Reference Court should have considered the reference on merits [Para 7].

Remand for Fresh Consideration – The matter was remitted to the Reference Court to decide the reference on merits – The Reference Court directed to dispose of the reference within nine months from the date of receipt of the order [Para 10].

Decision: High Court and Reference Court judgments quashed – Matter remitted to Reference Court for fresh consideration on merits – Appeal allowed with no order as to costs [Paras 10-11].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Proceedings – Section 24(2) of Act, 2013 – Twin Conditions – The Supreme Court held that for land acquisition proceedings to be deemed lapsed under Section 24(2) of the Act, 2013, both conditions of not taking possession and not tendering/payment of compensation must be satisfied – If either condition is not met, the proceedings do not lapse – In this case, possession of the land was taken in 2003, thus the acquisition did not lapse despite the compensation being deposited later [Paras 3, 3.1, 3.2].

Judicial Precedent – Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal – Supreme Court referred to the precedent set in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal (2020) which clarified the interpretation of Section 24(2) – The Court reiterated that the word ‘or’ in Section 24(2) should be read as ‘and’ meaning both conditions must fail for lapse to occur [Para 3.2].

Decision – High Court Judgment Set Aside – The Supreme Court quashed the High Court’s decision that declared the acquisition lapsed solely based on non-payment of compensation – The appeal by Lucknow Development Authority was allowed and the original writ petition was dismissed [Paras 4].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court judgment quashed – Original writ petition dismissed – No costs [Para 4].

Service Law – Selection and Waiting List – Rule 15 of 1978 Rules – No vested right of the unsuccessful candidate to insist upon consideration in the absence of a rule requiring the preparation of a waiting list – The Supreme Court held that Rule 15 of the 1978 Rules, which provides for an extended list of candidates, does not confer any vested right to a waiting list – The 2015 Rules, applicable at the time of recruitment, do not provide for a waiting list – The 2016 amendment to the 1978 Rules was clarificatory and does not imply the continuation of a waiting list [Paras 20-27].

Judicial Interpretation – Conflicting Rules – The later general rules (2015 Rules) prevail over the earlier special rules (1978 Rules) when the two are inconsistent – The 2015 Rules governed the recruitment process under the authority of the 2014 Act, superseding the 1978 Rules in terms of selection procedure and authority [Para 26].

Judicial Review – Principle of Estoppel – Candidates who participated in the selection process under the 2015 Rules cannot later challenge the process after being unsuccessful – The principle of estoppel prevents candidates from contesting the rules of a process they accepted and participated in [Paras 21-22].

Decision: High Court judgments set aside – Order of learned Single Judge restored – Appeals allowed – No costs [Para 34].

Criminal Procedure – Stage of Discharge – Applicability of Section 300 CrPC – The Supreme Court held that the stage of discharge under Section 227 CrPC is prior to the framing of charges under Section 228 CrPC – At this stage, the court can consider the application under Section 300 CrPC – Once the discharge application is rejected, the court proceeds to framing of charges under Section 228 CrPC – The trial court erred by not considering the application under Section 300(1) CrPC at the discharge stage and directed to consider it at the framing of charges stage [Paras 7-8].

Judicial Procedure – Remand for Fresh Consideration – The matter was remitted to the trial court to consider the application under Section 300(1) CrPC along with the application for discharge under Section 227 CrPC – The trial court to decide the discharge application on merits before framing charges under Section 228 CrPC – The process to be completed within six weeks [Paras 10].

Decision: High Court judgment quashed and set aside – Matter remanded to trial court for fresh consideration – Appeal disposed of with directions for expedited proceedings [Para 11].

Motor Accident – Enhancement of Compensation – Permanent Disability – The Supreme Court held that while awarding compensation in cases of permanent disability, courts must consider the socio-economic background of the claimants – The Appellant, coming from an economically weaker section, faced additional discrimination due to his disability – The Court emphasized the need for liberal compensation to restore the claimant to the position he was in before the disability – The Appellant was entitled to compensation considering the impact on his earning capacity, future prospects, and maintenance of prosthetic limbs [Paras 27-29].

Loss of Income – Functional Disability – The Appellant, having a 70% disability with an amputated right lower limb, had his functional disability wrongly assessed at 35% by the High Court – The Supreme Court corrected this to 60% considering the impact on his mobility and earning capacity as a self-employed scrap dealer [Paras 16].

Future Prospects – The Court applied a 40% addition for future prospects, in line with the principles established in Pranay Sethi's case – The High Court's reasoning that the Appellant’s income had increased after the disability was found incorrect [Paras 17-21].

Prosthetic Limb – Maintenance and Replacement – The compensation for prosthetic limbs and their maintenance was deemed inadequate – The Court awarded Rs. 780,000 for prosthetic limbs and an additional Rs. 500,000 for maintenance [Paras 22-23].

Non-Pecuniary Compensation – The Court increased compensation for pain and suffering, loss of amenities, and disability and disfigurement to Rs. 200,000 each [Paras 24-26].

Decision: Appeals allowed – Compensation enhanced to Rs. 3,870,120 with 9% interest per annum from the date of application – High Court judgment modified [Paras 30-32].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings – Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – The Supreme Court held that a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act – The High Court's decision declaring the acquisition proceedings lapsed due to non-payment of compensation was found unsustainable in light of the Constitution Bench decision in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which required both non-possession and non-payment of compensation for lapsing to occur [Paras 3-3.3].

Judicial Precedent – Indore Development Authority Case – The Supreme Court reaffirmed that for lapsing of acquisition under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, both conditions of not taking possession and not paying/tendering compensation must be satisfied – If possession is taken, the proceedings do not lapse even if compensation is not deposited in court [Para 3.3].

Subsequent Purchasers – No Locus to Claim Lapse – The Court ruled that subsequent purchasers do not have the locus to file writ petitions for claiming lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – This view was consistent with previous judgments in Godfrey Philips (I) Ltd. & Ors. and Delhi Administration Thr. Secretary Land and Building Department & Ors. v. Pawan Kumar & Ors. [Para 3.1].

Decision: High Court judgment quashed – Appeal allowed – Original writ petition dismissed – Directions for compensation payment to recorded owner if claimed in accordance with law – No costs [Paras 4].

Succession Law – Right of Survivorship – Applicability to Scheduled Tribes – Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act – The Supreme Court held that under Section 2(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, the Act is not applicable to members of Scheduled Tribes – Consequently, the female member of a Scheduled Tribe is excluded from claiming a right of survivorship under the provisions of the Act – The Court recognized the need for legislative amendment to ensure gender equality in inheritance rights for Scheduled Tribe women [Paras 6-7].

Judicial Interpretation – Role of the Legislature – The Court noted that while equity would support granting succession rights to female members of Scheduled Tribes, it is within the legislature's purview to amend the law – The Court urged the Central Government to consider amending the Hindu Succession Act to provide equal inheritance rights to female members of Scheduled Tribes [Para 6.1-7.2].

Previous Precedents – The Court discussed the minority view in Madhu Kishwar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (1996) which suggested applying the general principles of the Hindu Succession Act to Scheduled Tribes – However, the majority view did not support this interpretation, reinforcing the exclusion under Section 2(2) [Para 6.4].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court judgment upheld – Central Government directed to consider amending the Hindu Succession Act to ensure gender equality for Scheduled Tribe women in inheritance rights [Paras 7-7.2].

Motor Vehicles – Compensation for Death – Determination of Income – In motor accident claims, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probability, not the strict criminal standard – The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in rejecting the deceased's salary certificate and pay slip – The documents were corroborated by the testimony of the deceased's wife and co-workers – The total compensation payable under various heads based on the deceased's income should be recalculated [Paras 19-20, 23].

Loss of Dependency – Calculation – The deceased's monthly income was affirmed at Rs. 11,225 – Future prospects assessed at 30% – After deductions, the loss of dependency was calculated using a multiplier of 14, resulting in Rs. 1,838,655 [Paras 20-21].

Loss of Consortium and Other Heads – Compensation Increased – The Court awarded Rs. 44,000 to each dependent for loss of consortium, totaling Rs. 220,000 – Compensation for funeral expenses and loss of estate was increased to Rs. 20,000 each [Paras 22, 32].

Interest on Compensation – The rate of interest on the total compensation was set at 9% per annum from the date of the claim petition until realization [Para 24].

Decision: High Court judgments quashed – Appeals allowed – Total compensation recalculated and increased – No costs [Paras 34-35].

Land Acquisition – Lapse of Acquisition Proceedings – Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act – The Supreme Court held that the High Court's decision declaring the acquisition proceedings lapsed based on the non-payment of compensation is unsustainable – The decision in Pune Municipal Corporation v. Harakchand Misirimal Solanki, relied upon by the High Court, was overruled by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal, which clarified that non-deposit of compensation does not result in lapse if possession has been taken – The High Court's judgment was contrary to this precedent [Paras 2-3].

Judicial Precedent – Indore Development Authority Case – The Supreme Court reaffirmed that both conditions, possession and payment, must fail for proceedings to lapse – If possession has been taken, the proceedings do not lapse even if compensation was not deposited in court [Para 3].

Decision: High Court judgment quashed – Appeal allowed – Original writ petition dismissed – No costs [Para 3].