Land Acquisition - Claims Commission – Finalization of Claims – Pending Compensation and Benefits – The Claims Commission was established to determine compensation for lands acquired in Odisha villages – The Court previously directed no re-opening of finalized claims while emphasizing compliance with specific methodologies – Held: Commission tasked only with re-determination of differential compensation for four unresolved villages based on set parameters; issues regarding other villages were deemed resolved and final [Paras 13-20].

Jurisdiction and Finality – Powers of Commission – Unauthorized Actions Addressed – The Commission entertained disputes outside its mandate, including revisiting finalized claims and addressing suitability of resettlement sites – Held: Such actions violated the scope of its jurisdiction; High Court directed to adjudicate pending compensation issues [Paras 21-24].

Resettlement and Rehabilitation – Compliance with Court Directions – R&R Benefits for Villages – The applicants sought preparation of lists for project-affected families to enable rehabilitation and resettlement benefits – Held: Applicants directed to seek relief from State authorities as per established court orders; no further Commission term extension granted [Paras 25-27].

Decision:

M.A. No. 2662/2023 disposed of with no extension for the Claims Commission; pending applications dismissed. High Court directed to expeditiously resolve compensation disputes for Village Ratansara. Applications for new claims in M.A. (D) Nos. 28318/2024 and 30630/2024 dismissed, clarifying applicants' right to approach appropriate State authorities [Paras 24-28].

Arbitration Law - Arbitral Proceedings – High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction – Excessive Judicial Interference – High Court directed the Arbitral Tribunal to allow further cross-examination of a witness (RW-1) despite Tribunal’s decision to conclude it – Held: High Court’s interference under Article 227 was unwarranted and unjustified; Tribunal had already provided sufficient opportunity to cross-examine RW-1 over 12 hours and followed procedural fairness [Paras 12-14].

Judicial Restraint in Arbitration – Principle of Minimal Interference – The High Court’s intervention breached the principle of judicial restraint under the Arbitration Act – Excessive interference undermines efficiency and independence of the arbitral process – Allowed only in cases of clear perversity or bad faith, which were absent here [Paras 15-16].

Opportunity for Cross-Examination – Procedural Fairness Upheld – Despite repeated adjournments and extended timelines, the Arbitral Tribunal provided ample time for cross-examination of RW-1 – Further requests for time were excessive and reflected lack of diligence by the respondent/claimant [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeals allowed; High Court orders set aside – Arbitral Tribunal directed to resume proceedings and conclude expeditiously [Paras 17-18].

Arbitration Law – Commencement of Limitation – Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act, 1940 – Limitation Began Upon Awareness – The appellant's application under Section 17 of the Act was dismissed as premature by lower courts, interpreting the limitation to start only from formal notice of filing the award – Held: The limitation began on 21.09.2022 when the respondent was sufficiently aware of the award's filing; the appellant's Section 17 application filed after the limitation period was valid [Paras 2, 19].

Notice Requirement – Informal Communication Sufficient – Section 14(2) of the 1940 Act – Compliance Achieved Without Formality – The term "notice" does not mandate formal issuance; awareness through other means suffices – Informal communication, including court orders or directions, fulfills the purpose of apprising parties of the award's existence [Paras 15-16].

Speedy Resolution Intent – Preventing Procedural Delays – The Arbitration Act, 1940, aims to expedite dispute resolution – Relying solely on formal notices undermines this intent and allows delay tactics – Awareness triggers party obligations [Paras 17-18].

Decision:

The appeal is allowed, and the High Court's order dated 27.03.2024 in Civil Revision Petition No. 138/2022 is set aside – Direction issued to District Judge, Sonitpur, Tezpur, to dispose of Misc. (J) 61 of 2022 within five months from the receipt of this judgment [Paras 20-21].

Appointment of Ombudsman cum Ethics Officer – Constitutionality of Appointment – High Court Allowed Appointment – The Apex Council's decision to appoint an Ombudsman and Ethics Officer was challenged on the grounds of non-conformance with the Hyderabad Cricket Association's Constitution – The High Court set aside the Civil Court's suspension order and dismissed the related suit, which led to the present Special Leave Petitions – Held: Recommendations for appointment were prima facie found appropriate by the Supreme Court as interim measures pending further hearings.

Supervisory and Election Conduct – Single Member Committee Supervision – Elections Held – A Single Member Committee under a retired Supreme Court judge was constituted to oversee fair elections and recommend amendments to the Hyderabad Cricket Association Constitution – The Supreme Court provisionally implemented these recommendations while objections were considered.

Conflict with BCCI Constitution – Integration of Regulations – Recommendations May Conflict – Petitioners argued potential conflicts between Hyderabad Cricket Association recommendations and BCCI Constitution guidelines, suggesting joint consideration with pending Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 – Held: Matters to be tagged and heard with Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 to ensure uniformity in Cricket Association governance.

Decision: Matters directed to be tagged with Civil Appeal No. 4235 of 2014 for consideration by the same bench to resolve potential conflicts in governance regulations across Cricket Associations.

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR – Prima Facie Case – Sections 197 CrPC and 83 of M.P. Griha Nirman Mandal Adhiniyam – Protection of actions in official duty – High Court erred in refusing to quash FIR based on mere allegations without sufficient evidence – Held: No prima facie case established; allegations lack evidence of intent or knowledge of forgery [Paras 11-15].

Ingredients of Cheating – Section 420 IPC – Essential elements include dishonest intention and false representation – No evidence on record to indicate appellant's involvement or intent to defraud – Allegations based on conjecture insufficient to sustain criminal charges [Para 12].

Criminal Conspiracy – Section 120B IPC – Requirements include meeting of minds and agreement to commit an unlawful act – No material on record to suggest appellant's participation in any conspiracy – Charges unsubstantiated [Para 12].

Quashing of Criminal Proceedings – Bhajan Lal Guidelines – FIR fails to disclose cognizable offence or intention to defraud – Case falls under principles for quashing as laid down in Bhajan Lal – Criminal proceedings quashed [Para 14].

Decision – High Court judgment quashed; all proceedings arising from FIR and subsequent actions in Crime No. 241 of 2016 dismissed – Appeal allowed [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Limitation - Delay in Filing Appeal – Right to Appeal under Article 21 – Fundamental Right – High Court erred in dismissing the appeal on grounds of delay without proper examination of reasons provided by the appellant – Appellant cited lack of monetary resources and livelihood challenges as causes for delay – Held: Delay of 1637 days condoned; appeal restored [Paras 4-7].

Right to Appeal – Expansive Scope under Article 21 – An appeal against conviction is a statutory and fundamental right affecting liberty – Condonation of delay warranted in cases where the appellant provides reasons, even if imperfect – High Court’s dismissal based on technical grounds erroneous [Paras 5-6].

Decision – Impugned order set aside – Criminal Appeal No. 1001/2021 restored for disposal on merits – Directions issued to High Court for expeditious adjudication [Para 8].

Tenancy Rights - Land Law – Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961 – Occupancy Rights – Manipulation of Proceedings – High Court’s Judgment in Writ Appeals Set Aside – Supreme Court Finds Non-Disclosure of Crucial Facts and Manipulation by Respondent No.1 – Restores Single Judge’s Judgment [Paras 1-14].

Occupancy Rights – Land Tribunal Proceedings – Rejection in LRF No.835/74-75 Final – Misrepresentation of Facts by Respondent No.1 – Tribunal’s Later Decision in LRF No.1114/74-75 Incorrectly Linked – Supreme Court Highlights Manipulative Changes in Names and Records by Respondents [Paras 8-13].

Procedural Lapses – Delay Condonation – Delay of 1378 Days in Writ Appeal No.206/2007 – Supreme Court Criticizes Non-Disclosure of Consequential Orders Passed After Single Judge’s Decision – Observes Abuse of Process by Respondent No.1 [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Integrity – Litigant’s Conduct – Non-Disclosure of Material Facts and Manipulative Changes in Records – Supreme Court Relies on Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India to Deny Relief to Respondent No.1 Due to Lack of Clean Hands [Paras 11-13].

Decision – Appeals allowed; judgments in Writ Appeals Nos.1708, 1705, 1707, 1709, 206, and 1738 of 2006 set aside – Judgments in the original Writ Petitions restored for further proceedings [Para 14].

Land Law – Andhra Pradesh Assigned Lands (Prohibition of Transfer) Act, 1977 – Resumption of Assigned Lands – Whether Lands Assigned Under Laoni Rules, 1950 Can Be Resumed Under Act No. 9 of 1977 – Common Judgment Dated 02.09.2008 by High Court Set Aside by Supreme Court – High Court Misconceived Appellants’ Position Regarding Non-Collection of Market Value – Judgment Remanded for Fresh Consideration [Paras 1-12].

Assigned Lands – Non-Alienability – Applicability of G.O.M.S. No.1406 Dated 25.07.1958 – Patta Certificates Issued Free of Cost – High Court Failed to Appreciate Revised Assignment Policy Prohibiting Alienation – Supreme Court Relies on Gudepu Sailoo and Yadaiah to Highlight Conditions of Non-Alienability [Paras 6, 8-10].

Validation of Transactions – Section 47 and 50-B of Telangana Tenancy Act – Validation Limited to Lands Assigned on Market Value – Supreme Court Holds High Court’s Presumption of Market Value Collection Unsupported by Evidence – Misinterpretation of Government Orders and Relevant Policies [Paras 6, 8-9].

Judicial Process – Misconception in Findings – High Court Ignored Appellants’ Denial of Market Value Collection – Order Based on Misconception Calls for Interference – Remand Ordered for Reassessment of Facts and Policies [Paras 8-10].

Decision – Appeals allowed – High Court’s judgment set aside – Writ Petitions restored for fresh adjudication [Para 10-12].

Land Acquisition – Compensation Determination – Shifting Date of Notification – Appeal Before Supreme Court – Petitioners’ Lands Acquired for Bengaluru-Mysuru Infrastructure Corridor Project in 2003 – No Compensation Paid Despite Lapse of 22 Years – SLAO Shifted Preliminary Notification Date to 2011 for Calculating Compensation – High Court Quashed SLAO Award for Lack of Jurisdiction – Division Bench Held Writ Appeal Premature – Supreme Court Exercised Power Under Article 142 to Direct Fresh Award Based on 2019 Market Value – Relief Granted to Avoid Violation of Article 300-A and Promote Justice – Appeal Disposed of with Directions to SLAO for Fresh Determination [Paras 1-60].

Land Acquisition Act – Delay in Award – SLAO’s Power to Shift Notification Date – Court's Intervention – Supreme Court Held SLAO Cannot Alter Preliminary Notification Date – Shifting Permissible Only Under Articles 142 or 226 – Exceptional Circumstances Justify Judicial Intervention – Inordinate Delay in Award and Payment of Compensation Violates Right to Property Under Article 300-A – Relief Modeled to Provide Justice Without Burdening Public Interest or Exchequer – Fresh Determination Ordered on 2019 Market Value Basis [Paras 17, 53-57].

Right to Property – Constitutional and Human Right – Article 300-A – Inaction by State Authorities – Supreme Court Noted Deprivation Without Compensation for Over Two Decades – Emphasized Expeditious Compensation Determination – Directed SLAO to Reassess Compensation Based on Current Market Value (2019) and Grant Statutory Benefits – Held: Right to Property Cannot Be Mocked by Procedural Delays or Neglect [Paras 42-47, 55-57].

Delay and Injustice – Compensation Valuation – Supreme Court Considered Escalation in Land Prices and Inflation – Ruled Compensation Based on 2003 Market Value Inadequate Due to Loss of Purchasing Power – Compensation Determination Adjusted to Prevent Travesty of Justice – Avoided Costly Fresh Acquisition Under 2013 LA Act – Rights of All Parties Preserved [Paras 48-54, 57].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – Judgment of High Court’s Division Bench Set Aside – SLAO Directed to Determine Compensation Based on Market Value as on April 22, 2019, Within Two Months – Appellants to Receive Full Statutory Benefits – Rights of Parties to Challenge Award Remain Intact – Respondents No. 6 & 7 Permitted to Seek Remedies for Additional Costs from State/KIADB as per Agreement [Paras 59-60].