Land Acquisition Act 1894 – Section 4 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – High Court's declaration of deemed lapse under Section 24(2) due to non-tendering of compensation found unsustainable – Acquisition proceedings do not lapse if possession has been taken even if compensation has not been tendered – High Court's reliance on earlier decisions overturned by the Constitution Bench in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal [Paras 1-6].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside – Acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question not deemed to have lapsed [Para 6].

Service Law – Appointment – If it is found that there is no lapse/delay on the part of the applicant, he cannot be punished for no fault attributable to him – Respondents directed to appoint the appellants to the post of Health Worker (Female) within six weeks if found meritorious and meeting other eligibility criteria – Appellants entitled to benefits from the date of actual appointments [Paras 2-6].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court judgment set aside – Respondents directed to appoint the appellants to the post of Health Worker (Female) within six weeks if found meritorious and meeting other eligibility criteria [Para 6].

Land Acquisition Act 1894 – Section 4 – Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Section 24(2) – Lapse of acquisition proceedings – Twin conditions of not taking over possession and not tendering/paying the compensation are required to be satisfied – If one of the conditions is not satisfied there shall not be lapse of the acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the Act 2013 [Paras 3-4].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment and order of the High Court set aside – Acquisition proceedings with respect to the land in question are not deemed to have lapsed [Para 4].

Gujarat Control of Terrorism and Organised Crime Act 2015 – Sections 3(1)(i), 3(1)(ii), 3(2), and 3(4) – Continuing unlawful activity – Requires a separate FIR post-promulgation – High Court's interpretation that activities prior to the Act's promulgation cannot be solely considered for prosecution upheld – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-53].

Decision – Appeal dismissed – High Court's bail order upheld – Clarification provided on interpreting 'continuing unlawful activity' under the 2015 Act [Paras 52-53].

Land Acquisition Act 1894 – Section 4 – Acquisition of land – Compensation – Appellant challenging the imposition of liabilities for unpaid duty, penalty, and interest accrued before the acquisition of the Amroha sugar mill – Slump Sale Agreement clauses interpreted to distinguish between liabilities accruing before and after the signing date – High Court's reliance on generic conditions of contingent liabilities set aside – Specific clauses in the Sale Deed governing the parties upheld – Liability for transactions before the signing date held to be the seller's responsibility [Paras 1-20].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Impugned High Court judgment set aside – Liability for transactions before the signing date of the Slump Sale Agreement to be borne by the seller, not the purchaser [Para 20].

Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 – Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Proof of demand and acceptance – In the absence of direct evidence from the complainant, it is permissible to draw an inferential deduction of culpability/guilt of a public servant based on other evidence adduced by the prosecution – Demand and acceptance must be proved either by direct evidence or circumstantial evidence – Legal presumption under Section 20 of the Act can be made only when foundational facts are proved by relevant oral and documentary evidence [Paras A-D].

Decision – Appeals addressed – Legal principles affirmed concerning the proof required for conviction under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Land Acquisition Act 1894 – Section 4 – Acquisition of land – Compensation – Claimants not entitled to the same compensation as awarded for lands acquired after 5 years from the date of acquisition – High Court awarding compensation at Rs.297/- per sq. yard unsustainable – Compensation rate revised to Rs.120/- per sq. yard [Paras 1-6].

Decision – Appeal allowed in part – Compensation revised to Rs.120/- per sq. yard – Statutory benefits and interest to be provided excluding the delayed period in preferring the appeal [Para 6].

Insurance contract – Deficiency in service – Home loan sanctioned on pre-condition of life insurance policy – Bank acting as an agent for insurance company – Premium accepted and retained after normal medical test results – Malafide actions by insurance company after death of insured – Ante-dated letter issued post death intimation – Refund of premium followed by repudiation – Clear case of deficiency of service and non-bonafide conduct by respondent – Insurance claim to be processed and payable sum remitted [Paras 1-27].

Decision – Appeal allowed – Impugned judgment set aside – Insurance claim to be processed and payable sum remitted [Para 27].

Criminal Law – Framing of Charge – Failure to Frame Proper Charge – In the case of Kalicharan and others, the accused were charged under Sections 148, 302, and 307 read with Section 149 of IPC – The specific charge framed alleged that Harpal Singh died due to bullet injuries from shots fired by accused no.2 – However, evidence showed Harpal Singh died from injuries caused by sharp weapons used by accused nos.1, 2, and 4 – This discrepancy led to serious prejudice against the accused as they were not informed of the true nature of the accusations [Paras 10-17].

Criminal Procedure – Examination of Accused – Section 313 CrPC – The accused must be explained the circumstances appearing in the evidence against them – In this case, the accused were only questioned about bullet injuries, not the actual cause of death from sharp weapons – This failure to explain material circumstances deprived the accused of a fair opportunity to defend themselves, resulting in a failure of justice [Paras 21-23].

Conviction and Sentence – Set Aside – Due to the failure to frame proper charges and omission to put relevant circumstances to the accused, the Supreme Court set aside the convictions and sentences – The charge of murder against accused nos.1, 2, and 4 could not be substantiated, and they were acquitted [Paras 24-27].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Convictions and sentences set aside – Accused to be released forthwith unless required for any other case [Para 27-28].