Constitutional Law - Civil Law – Review Petition under Article 31A – Land Reserved for Common Purposes – Vesting of Management and Control – Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Challenge to the judgment allowing the Civil Appeal of the State of Haryana and setting aside the Full Bench judgment of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana – Petitioner contends the judgment contravenes the Constitution Bench judgments in Bhagat Ram, Ranjit Singh, and Ajit Singh – Reassessment of the applicability of Article 31A and the second proviso concerning acquisition by the State for common purposes – Review allowed due to oversight of the binding nature of the Constitution Bench judgment in Bhagat Ram, lack of consideration of consistent High Court rulings, and the doctrine of stare decisis [Paras 1-69].

Scope of Review Jurisdiction – Supreme Court reiterated the limited scope of review jurisdiction – Review permissible only if there is a mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or any other sufficient reason – Review not equivalent to the original hearing and not maintainable for repetition of old arguments or minor mistakes – Supreme Court emphasized the necessity of addressing errors undermining the soundness of the original judgment – Identified material errors in the judgment under review due to non-consideration of binding precedents and failure to engage with key arguments presented by the Full Bench of the High Court [Paras 12-14].

Constitution Bench Judgments – Supreme Court reviewed the Constitution Bench judgments in Bhagat Ram, Ranjit Singh, and Ajit Singh – Reaffirmed that the management and control of lands reserved for common purposes do not vest in the Panchayat until possession changes under Section 24 of the Consolidation Act – Highlighted the need for compliance with procedural steps before vesting – Identified oversight in the judgment under review for failing to consider the binding precedent in Bhagat Ram [Paras 22-58].

High Court Judgments and Doctrine of Stare Decisis – Full Bench of the High Court in Jai Singh II and other High Court judgments consistently held that unutilized land (Bachat land) remains vested with the proprietors – Supreme Court identified errors in the judgment under review for not engaging with this consistent legal position and the principle of stare decisis – Highlighted the necessity of stability in the law and the impact of longstanding judgments on parties’ rights [Paras 59-67].

Decision – Review Petition allowed – Held – The judgment and order dated 7th April 2022 are recalled – Civil Appeal No. 6990 of 2014 is restored to the file – Appeal to be heard peremptorily on 7th August 2024 [Para 69].

Arbitration and Conciliation - Termination of Arbitral Proceedings - Section 32(2)(c) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 - Arbitral Tribunal's Order Terminating Proceedings - Appeal Against High Court’s Decision Setting Aside Termination - Held: The power under Section 32(2)(c) can be exercised only if the continuation of the proceedings has become unnecessary or impossible - The tribunal must record its satisfaction that proceedings have become unnecessary or impossible based on material on record - Failure of the claimant to request the tribunal to fix a date for hearing, per se, is no ground to conclude that proceedings have become unnecessary - Abandonment of the claim must be established either expressly or by convincing circumstances leading to an inevitable inference of abandonment - In the absence of such circumstances, the tribunal’s decision to terminate proceedings was unjustified - Appeal dismissed. [Paras 21, 22]

Arbitration - Duties of Arbitral Tribunal - Tribunal’s Duty to Fix Meetings and Hearings - Even if the parties do not request, it is the duty of the tribunal to fix a meeting for hearing - Tribunal must adjudicate upon the dispute referred to it - If the parties remain absent without reasonable cause, the tribunal can take recourse to relevant provisions such as Section 25. [Para 21(b)]

Decision - Dismissal of Appeal - Appeal dismissed with no order as to costs - Parties to take necessary steps to appoint a substituted arbitrator following the withdrawal of the sole arbitrator from the proceedings. [Para 22]

Municipal Corporation – Regularization of Employees – Appeals against High Court’s decision granting regularization of service from the date of merger – Issue of whether employees of the erstwhile Gram Panchayat, merged with Solapur Municipal Corporation, should be treated as regular employees from the date of merger or from the date of their formal regularization by the Corporation – High Court ruled in favor of employees, treating their service as regular from the merger date based on sanctioned posts and statutory provisions – Supreme Court found new documents, not considered by the High Court, questioning the regularity of appointments – Matter remanded to High Court for fresh consideration with direction to permit additional documentary evidence – Appeals allowed, High Court’s judgment set aside, writ petitions restored for reconsideration. [Paras 1-14]

Employment Status – Statutory Interpretation – Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act, 1949 – Section 493(5)(c) – Whether employees of merged Gram Panchayats automatically become regular employees of the Corporation – High Court relied on sanctioned posts and statutory provisions deeming prior service as regular – Supreme Court highlighted the need for verification of new documents indicating possible irregularities in initial appointments – Matter requires detailed examination of facts by High Court. [Para 5-10]

Decision – Appeals Allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Matters remanded to High Court for fresh consideration – Directions issued for permitting additional evidence – High Court requested to prioritize and expedite disposal of the case. [Para 13-14]

Criminal Law – Section 494 IPC and Section 34 IPC – Quashing of Proceedings – High Court of Kerala’s decision rejecting quashing of proceedings against accused for bigamy upheld by Supreme Court – Challenge in Supreme Court against High Court’s decision maintaining trial court’s decision to frame charges for bigamy against accused – Accused alleged to have common intention in committing bigamy with knowledge of prior marriage – Court examined evidence and found lack of substantial evidence to support charges under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC for accused other than the spouse in second marriage – Orders against appellants quashed and set aside [Paras 1-24].

Ingredients of Offence – Essential ingredients of offence under Section 494 IPC require proof that accused spouse contracted second marriage while first marriage subsisted and both marriages were valid – Non-spouse accused charged under Section 34 IPC with common intention to commit bigamy must have acted with knowledge of the subsisting first marriage – Insufficient evidence to establish knowledge and common intention against non-spouse accused – Charges and proceedings against non-spouse appellants deemed unwarranted [Paras 15-19].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Held – Appeals allowed, quashing High Court’s order and all proceedings against non-spouse appellants – Evidence insufficient to support charges under Section 494 read with Section 34 IPC against non-spouse accused – Trial against spouse in second marriage to continue – Orders framing charges against non-spouse appellants and rejecting their revision petitions quashed – No order as to costs [Paras 22-24].

Criminal Law – Conviction for Gang Rape – Appeals against High Court's decision to convert acquittal into conviction for gang rape under Section 376(2)(g) IPC – Trial Court initially acquitted the accused for lack of corroborating evidence, citing potential consensual sexual intercourse – High Court, on appeal, set aside acquittal, ordered retrial, and subsequently convicted the accused – Prosecution and defense adopted previous evidence post-remand – High Court's finding based on prosecutrix's consistent testimony and lack of consent – Absence of corroborative injuries on prosecutrix not grounds for inferring consent [Paras 1-12].

Criminal Law – Sentencing Leniency – High Court imposed sentence of three years’ rigorous imprisonment, less than the statutory minimum ten years, citing adequate and special reasons – Incident dated 1989, multiple acquittals and retrials, and considerable passage of time (28 years) considered – High Court's discretion under the proviso to Section 376(2) IPC (pre-2013 amendment) exercised, considering accused’s age and family responsibilities [Paras 13-14].

Judgment and Order – Appeals Dismissed – Supreme Court found no merit in the appeal against leniency – Sentence enhancement unjustified after 35 years – Vijay Kumar ordered to serve remaining sentence – Other respondents likely completed sentences – Vijay Kumar granted one month to surrender [Para 15].

Criminal Law – Arrest and Remand Procedures – Constitutionality and Legality of Arrest under UAPA – Supreme Court directed release of the appellant – Grounds of arrest must be communicated in writing at the earliest – Arrest and remand order found invalid due to non-communication of grounds of arrest to the appellant – Ratio of Pankaj Bansal case applied – Articles 20, 21, 22 of the Constitution of India reaffirmed – Right to be informed of grounds of arrest is fundamental [Paras 1-56].

Arrest and Detention – Informing Grounds of Arrest – Communication of grounds of arrest in writing required under UAPA – Sections 43A, 43B, UAPA and Section 19 of PMLA interpreted similarly – Fundamental right to be informed of grounds of arrest under Article 22(1) – Non-compliance renders arrest and remand illegal – Remand application sent to counsel post remand order does not cure initial illegality [Paras 15-20, 22, 31-32, 37-50].

Evidence and Documentation – Validity of Arrest Memo – Distinction between 'Reasons for Arrest' and 'Grounds of Arrest' – Arrest memo must specifically detail grounds of arrest – General reasons not sufficient – Requirement for written grounds to ensure proper legal representation and opportunity to oppose remand [Paras 16, 18, 20, 49].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Held – The arrest and subsequent remand of the appellant were invalid due to failure to communicate grounds of arrest in writing – High Court order set aside – Appellant to be released on bail with conditions set by trial court – Observations not to be treated as comments on merits of the case [Paras 51-56].

Criminal Law - Conviction based on dying declaration - Appellant convicted for murder under Section 302 IPC - Rekha, wife of appellant, sustained fatal burn injuries - Prosecution relied on dying declarations (Ex. 59) and witness testimonies - Trial court convicted appellant, acquitted other accused family members - High Court upheld conviction - Appellant argued inconsistencies in testimonies and unproven second dying declaration (Ex. 65) - Supreme Court found Ex. 59 credible and consistent with medical evidence - Minor inconsistencies in witness testimonies did not affect core evidence - Supreme Court reiterated principles from Khushal Rao v. State of Bombay regarding dying declarations - Held: Dying declaration (Ex. 59) reliable, conviction upheld - Appeal dismissed - Appellant directed to surrender within two weeks [Paras 1-37].

Dying Declaration – Acceptance of dying declaration as sole basis for conviction – Supreme Court found the dying declaration credible, voluntary, and consistent – The declaration was corroborated by medical history and testimonies of prosecution witnesses – Minor inconsistencies in witness statements did not undermine the core evidence [Paras 24-35].

Evidence Evaluation – Supreme Court scrutinized the inconsistencies in witness testimonies and found them non-material – Dying declaration (Ex. 59) was recorded shortly after the incident and deemed reliable – The presence and endorsement of medical officers ensured the credibility of the declaration [Paras 19-25, 35].

Legal Principles – Supreme Court reaffirmed principles regarding the acceptance of dying declarations – Dying declarations can form the sole basis for conviction if found reliable and voluntary – Multiple dying declarations require independent assessment for consistency and reliability [Paras 25-34].

Decision – Dismissal of Appeal – Held – The appeal is dismissed based on the overwhelming evidence against the appellant and the affirmation of findings by the High Court – The judicial scrutiny confirmed the reliability of the dying declarations and medical evidence, establishing the occurrence of the criminal acts as charged – Appellant directed to surrender within two weeks to serve the sentence [Paras 36-37].

Criminal Law - Quashing of FIR and Charge-sheet – Criminal Appeal against High Court order rejecting petition to quash FIR for criminal trespass, property damage, and threats – FIR filed for offenses under Sections 447, 427, 294, 506 read with Section 34 IPC – Allegations involve trespass and demolition of property – Appellant contends the FIR is false, with significant delay in filing and no substantial evidence – Supreme Court finds FIR lacks clear dates of incidents and substantiated claims of damage – Held that continuing proceedings against appellant is an abuse of process of law, quashing the FIR and charge-sheet. [Paras 1-18]

Role of Accused in Alleged Trespass and Damage – Analysis – Held – Finds no substantial evidence of the appellant’s involvement in the alleged criminal acts – Notes absence of complaints from key witness Sushma Kashyap whose property was allegedly damaged – Observes possible animus and delayed FIR filing as indicative of retaliatory motives. [Paras 13-16]

Decision – Quashing of FIR and Charge-Sheet against Appellant – Court quashes the FIR and charge-sheet against the appellant, citing lack of evidence and procedural lapses – Exercises power under Article 142 of the Constitution to prevent abuse of the legal process. [Paras 17-18]

Land Acquisition - Authority to Hear Objections - Civil Appeal against High Court's dismissal of writ petitions - High Court dismissed the petitions as infructuous after passing of final award - Appellants contended that objections under Section 15 of the Act of 2013 should have been heard by the Collector, not the SDO - Supreme Court held that the Collector cannot delegate the hearing of objections to the SDO without proper designation by the appropriate Government - The non-compliance with Section 15 vitiates the acquisition proceedings - High Court's order set aside, and the final award declared illegal 'qua the appellants' lands' - Directions issued to reconsider objections as per law. [Paras 1-32]

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - Interpretation of Section 15(2) - Hearing of Objections - Supreme Court reiterates the mandatory nature of Section 15(2) which requires the Collector to hear objections personally - Delegation of this function to the SDO without proper authorization from the appropriate Government is invalid - Acquisition proceedings conducted in violation of this requirement are illegal. [Paras 12-20, 27]

Role of the Appropriate Government and Collector - Analysis - Provisions under Section 3(e) and 3(g) of the Act of 2013 - Supreme Court clarifies that the Collector acts as the appropriate Government only when specifically notified by the State Government for a particular area within the district - In the absence of such notification, the Collector cannot delegate powers to the SDO - The Collector must forward objections and his recommendations to the State Government for a final decision. [Paras 14, 20, 23, 24]

Decision: Land Acquisition Proceedings - Compliance with Section 15 of the Act of 2013 - Supreme Court quashes the High Court's dismissal of the writ petitions and the final award dated 3rd October 2023 'qua the appellants' lands' - Orders the respondent authorities to reconsider and decide the objections filed by the appellants in accordance with the law - Appeals allowed, no order as to costs. [Paras 29-32]