Civil Appeal - Jurisdiction - High Court's Jurisdiction under Article 226 - Validity of Assignment and Resumption Proceedings - Scope of - Whether High Court's decision to entertain and decide disputed questions of fact was within its jurisdiction under Article 226 - Whether resumption proceedings against allotted land were valid - Examination of - Disputed questions decided based on documents and records - High Court not deciding fact in issue on title, identity, or entitlement - Admitted documents forming basis of findings - High Court's approach deemed appropriate - Jurisdiction under Article 226 not exceeded. [Para 10, 12.2]

Property Dispute - Land Allotment - Resumption Proceedings - Power of re-entry - Law on power of re-entry - Re-entry without reference to law - Whether needs of justice demand interference by Supreme Court against impugned Judgment - Examining needs of justice - High Court's finding on Points 1 and 2 available from record - Respondent-State's method for dispossessing or attempting to dispossess first petitioner unconstitutional and illegal - State's objections against impugned Judgment rejected - Respondent-State's actions contradictory and arbitrary - Answer of High Court upheld. [Para 11, 12, 12.1]

Land Allocation - Government Land - Allotment to Armed Personnel - Allocation of land to armed personnel participated in Indo-China war - Assignment order for land settlement in favor of Surgeon Vice Admiral GP Panda - Validity of assignment examined - Revision against assignment order dismissed earlier - Land allocated to IDCO subsequently - Resumption proceedings initiated against allotted land - State's attempt to dispossess and allocate land to IDCO found unconstitutional and illegal - State's actions contradictory and arbitrary. [Para 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

Appeals - Dismissal - Appeals filed by State and IDCO - Dismissal of appeals - High Court's findings based on documents and records, not disputed questions of fact - Appeals lacked merit - High Court's decision in favor of GP Panda's legal heirs affirmed - Importance of lawful process emphasized. [Para 9, 13, 14]

Appointment – Assistant Teacher – Illegal Appointment – Appellant claimed appointment as Assistant Teacher in Bengabari M.E. School and sought release of salary from 12.03.2001 onwards. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam, declared all appointments, including the appellant’s, as illegal and void ab initio, as they were made against non-existent posts [Para 4].

Jurisdiction – Appointment Beyond Legislative Assembly Constituency – The appellant’s appointment was beyond the Udalguri Legislative Assembly Constituency, making it invalid and in violation of the Rules [Para 4].

Continuation in Service – No Legal Right – Once the appointment of the appellant had been declared illegal and void ab initio, and was canceled, the appellant could not legally continue in service. The appellant had no legal right to continue in service, especially when there was no order or letter allowing her to continue beyond 31.03.2002 [Para 7].

Claim for Salary – Dismissed – No claim for payment of salary could be made for any period, as the appellant’s appointment was declared illegal. The appeal was dismissed, concurring with the reasons recorded by the High Court [Para 8].

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal under NDPS Act – Violation of safeguard under Section 50 – Appellants convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act – Challenge to conviction on the basis of violation of the safeguard provided in Section 50 – Consent letter failed to inform appellants of their right to request a search before a gazetted officer or Magistrate – Precedent in Vijaysinh Jadeja case establishes mandatory nature of informing suspect about this right – Violation of safeguard found. [Para 4-8]

Acquittal – Conviction based on recovery of illicit items – Violation of Section 50 safeguard renders recovery suspect – Conviction solely based on such recovery could be vitiated – Appellants acquitted due to violation of safeguard. [Para 8-9]

Relief – Appeals allowed – Appellants acquitted of charges – Bail bonds to be canceled if appellants were on bail – Appellants in custody to be set at liberty. [Para 9-10]

Civil Appeal – Land Acquisition – Consent Terms – Limitation – Appeals arising out of land acquisition proceedings where the High Court allowed the First Appeals, setting aside the award and remanding the matter to the Reference Court to decide the question of limitation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Appellant-trust aggrieved by the judgments and orders passed in First Appeal Nos. 1447 of 2006 and 1490 of 2006 by the High Court. [Para 1-2]

Consent Terms – Interpretation – Parties arrived at consent terms to determine the market value of the lands as on 17.12.1994. High Court disposed of the Writ Petition giving directions in terms of the consent terms. Respondent-Committee raised the issue of limitation before the Reference Court, taking undue advantage of ambiguity in the consent terms. Doctrine of harmonious construction applied to interpret the document as a whole. [Para 7-8]

Limitation – Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act – Issue of limitation raised by the respondent-Committee found to be not tenable and highly unreasonable. Reference Court's findings that the Reference was filed within the period of limitation as per the High Court's order were well-reasoned. High Court's interference with the findings was erroneous. [Para 6, 9]

Decision – Impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court set aside. Both the appeals allowed. [Para 10]

Arbitration – Road Construction Contract – Award Set Aside by High Court – Appeal by Contractor – Challenge to the common judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, which set aside an award in favor of the appellant concerning a road construction contract [Para 1-7].

Limitation – Claim Crystallization – The court observed that the claim crystallized upon the issuance of the final bill, and the claim before the civil court for the appointment of the arbitrator was within the period of limitation [Para 18-19].

Contractual Period – Delay in Submission of Claim – The court rejected the argument that the claims were not within the contracted period, considering the inordinate delay and extensions of time by mutual consent [Para 19].

Award of Damages – Water Releases in Canal – The court found no error in the award of damages for disruption in work due to water releases in the canal, and the tribunal consciously refused to grant damages for certain periods [Para 20-22].

Arbitrator – Sole Judge of Facts – Emphasis on the arbitrator as the sole judge of facts; interference with the award should be avoided unless an error of law is shown [Para 23-24].

Decision – Award Restored – The court set aside the impugned judgment and the judgment of the trial court, restoring the award. The respondents were directed to ensure full payment in terms of the award to the appellant within eight weeks. The appeals were allowed, and the appellant was entitled to costs throughout [Para 25].

Arbitration – Award – Challenge to Award – Appellant challenged judgment setting aside award concerning road construction contract – Issues related to legal misconduct of arbitrator, time-barred claim, pursuit of claims after original contractor's death, and contractual preclusion – Trial court and High Court held award vitiated by legal misconduct and time-barred claim – Appellant argued against findings [Para 1-14].

Damages – Award of Damages – Arbitrators consciously eschewed grant of compensation for loss of profit – Charges claimed based on evidence – Sum awarded on various heads fully supported by evidence – Award of interest at 12% per annum found neither implausible nor illegal [Para 22].

Arbitration – Role of Courts – Emphasis on arbitrator as sole judge of facts – Interference with award to be avoided unless error of law shown – Scope of jurisdiction under Section 30/33 of the Act limited to discerning “error apparent on the face of the award” – Intense appellate review by trial courts and High Court found impermissible in law [Para 23-24].

Decision – Award Restored – Impugned judgment and judgment of trial court set aside – Award restored – Respondents directed to ensure full payment in terms of award within eight weeks – Appeals allowed, appellant entitled to costs throughout [Para 25].

Land Acquisition – Lands sought to be acquired by the respondent for the Agricultural Produce Market Committee under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act read with Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act – Consent terms arrived at between parties for determining market value and handing over possession – Issue of limitation raised by the respondent [Para 2-3].

Consent Terms – Parties arrived at consent terms to determine the market value of lands as on a specific date – Appellant to hand over possession and be paid the amount determined under the Award under Section 11 of the Act – Application to be made to the Collector seeking reference under Section 18 of the Act – High Court disposed of the Writ Petition giving directions in terms of the consent terms [Para 5-6].

Issue of Limitation – Respondent raised the issue of limitation before the Reference Court – Held, not tenable and highly unreasonable and improper – Consent terms and High Court's directions made the issue of limitation under Section 18 of the Act insignificant – Respondent's plea smacked of ulterior motive [Para 6-7].

Doctrine of Harmonious Construction – Consent terms to be read as a whole – Any ambiguity to be interpreted in a manner consistent with other clauses and the intent of the parties – Reference Court's findings on limitation upheld – High Court's interference set aside [Para 8-9].

Decision – High Court's judgments and orders set aside as erroneous – Appeals allowed [Para 10].

Service Matter - Civil Appeal – Police Recruitment – Suppression of Material Information 

The State of West Bengal appealed against a High Court judgment directing the appointment of the respondent as a constable. The appellant argued that the respondent suppressed information about a pending criminal case. The Supreme Court confirmed the findings of the Tribunal and the High Court that there was no suppression of material information. [Para 1-2, 15]

Verification Roll – Ambiguity in Information Sought 

The Court found the verification roll to be vague as it did not specifically ask about pending criminal cases. The respondent had answered "No" to a question about being "arrested, detained, or convicted," which the Court deemed appropriate given the phrasing of the question. [Para 10-11]

Criminal Case – Acquittal and Nature of Offence 

The respondent was acquitted in a criminal case that did not involve heinous or serious offences or moral turpitude. The Court considered this acquittal in its judgment. [Para 8-9]

Legal Precedents – Application of Avtar Singh Case 

The Court applied the guidelines from "Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India and Others, (2016) 8 SCC 471" for dealing with suppression of information and the effect of conviction/acquittal on employment. [Para 13-14]

Decision – Modification of High Court's Order and Direction for Appointment 

The Supreme Court modified the High Court's order and directed the appellant to consider the respondent's case for appointment as a constable within four weeks. The respondent would only be entitled to notional benefits, not salary and back wages until the date of his appointment. [Para 15-16]

Land Acquisition - Compensation - Determination of Market Value - Deduction for Development - Applicability of principles for determining compensation for acquired land - Proper method for calculating deduction - Consideration of sale exemplars - Standard deduction for development charges - Incremental value based on exemplars - Belting system in valuation - Uniform market value determination. [Para 9, 12-18]

Land Acquisition - Multiple Civil Appeals arising from a common judgment and decree issued by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana - Appeals related to enhanced compensation claims by landowners covered by Sec. 4(1) Notification issued under the Land Acquisition Act, 1893 - Appeals based on the potential of acquired land and its location near industrial complexes and highways - Issue of determining appropriate compensation. [Para 2]

High Court's Approach - High Court determined market value for acquired land at Rs. 1,21,33,320 per acre - High Court relied on sale exemplars and considered potential development of the area - Deduction of 60% on sale consideration rejected as unreasonable - However, High Court's determination lacked proper reasoning and specific deduction percentage. [Para 12]

Principles for Determining Compensation - Land values in a developing area near industrial complexes and highways - Factors like location, potential development, and neighborhood considered - Deduction for development charges as per precedents - Deduction ranges from 20% to 75% based on various factors, including land use, location, infrastructure, and nature of development. [Para 9, 12]

Deduction for Development - Application of principles from earlier cases - Deduction for development charges essential for determining market value - Deduction percentage varies based on factors like land use, location, and infrastructure - Deduction factors vary for different types of layouts - Deduction depends on the nature of the acquired land and its development potential. [Para 12]

Sale Exemplars and Incremental Value - Sale exemplars as evidence for market value - Exemplars to reflect similar size, location, and neighborhood - Incremental value should consider applicable deduction for development charges - Proper comparison of exemplars necessary for accurate valuation. [Para 13]

Standard Deduction and Uniform Valuation - Applying standard deduction of 1/3 for development charges - Consideration of CLU certificate for land use - Developed nature of land under acquisition - Application of belting system rejected in favor of uniform valuation - Proper reasoning and deduction percentage essential for accurate market value determination. [Para 16-17]

Appeals allowed in part - Market value determined at Rs. 1,49,14,975 per acre for acquired lands with standard statutory benefits - High Court's determination lacked proper reasoning for deduction and valuation - Uniform valuation applied based on CLU certificate and developed nature of the land. [Para 18]