Land Acquisition – Adverse Possession – Public Purpose – Appellant, an illiterate widow from a rural background, was divested of her property by the State in 1967 without compensation or legal sanction for the construction of a road – High Court dismissed her writ petition citing laches – Supreme Court finds continuing cause of action, orders compensation on same terms as a similar case – Appeals allowed [Paras 1-14].

Right to Property – Constitutional and Human Right – Appellant’s property taken when right to property was a fundamental right under Article 31 – Despite its conversion to a constitutional right under Article 300A, the obligation to pay compensation remains – State’s claim of adverse possession rejected as inconsistent with welfare state principles [Paras 10-11].

Delay and Laches – Continuing Cause of Action – Appellant’s delay in approaching the Court due to unawareness does not bar relief – Judicial discretion to condone delay exercised due to compelling circumstances – State’s inaction deemed unjust [Paras 10.7-11].

Decision – Appeals Allowed – State directed to pay compensation as per Reference Court’s award in a similar case, including statutory benefits, within eight weeks – Costs of Rs. 1,00,000 awarded to appellant – High Court’s orders set aside [Para 13-14].

Landlord-Tenant Law – Sub-letting and Arrears of Rent – Appellant (landlady) filed eviction suit against tenant (respondent) on grounds of sub-letting and arrears of rent – Rent Controller dismissed suit, but Appellate Authority decreed eviction – High Court quashed eviction decree – Supreme Court examines evidence and finds clear case of sub-letting – High Court’s order set aside, eviction decree restored [Paras 1-10].

Sub-letting – Definition and Proof – Sub-letting involves parting with possession and granting exclusive possession to third party without landlord’s consent – Landlord must prove prima facie case of sub-letting – Once established, burden shifts to tenant to rebut – In this case, evidence showed exclusive possession and control by sub-tenant [Paras 8-9].

Eviction Petition – Maintainability – Appellant as power of attorney holder of property owner filed eviction petition – Respondents challenged appellant’s status as landlady – Supreme Court held eviction petition maintainable under Section 2(6) of the Act – Appellant deemed landlord due to execution of rental agreement and receipt of rent [Para 6.1].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Judgment and decree of Rent Control Appellate Authority restored – Respondents ordered to vacate premises within three months on filing usual undertaking and payment of arrears of rent within four weeks [Para 10].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Corruption – Appellant, a former Director of Mines and Geology in Karnataka, sought discharge from charges of conspiracy and corruption – High Court set aside Magistrate's order granting discharge – Supreme Court examines evidence and legal principles under Section 227 of Cr.P.C. – Held that sufficient material existed to frame charges – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-30].

Legal Principles for Discharge – Section 227 of Cr.P.C. – Court outlines principles for discharge applications – Emphasizes that at the stage of framing charges, probative value of material is not to be weighed – Court must proceed on assumption that materials are true – If two views are possible, and one gives rise to grave suspicion, charges should be framed [Paras 14-15].

Evidence and Findings – Allegations against appellant include conspiracy with other accused to issue Mineral Dispatch Permits (MDPs) illegally – Prosecution evidence included statements of officials and documents – High Court found sufficient material to raise grave suspicion – Supreme Court agrees, noting that appellant's defense cannot be considered at discharge stage [Paras 16-30].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court's order setting aside Magistrate's discharge order upheld – Charges to be framed against appellant based on material evidence – Observations made are for the purpose of deciding the discharge application and do not affect the trial's merits [Para 30].

Criminal Law – Murder – Appellants convicted for causing death of Sher Singh by setting him on fire – Trial Court and High Court relied on two dying declarations made by the deceased – Supreme Court examines the reliability and validity of the dying declarations – Conviction upheld [Paras 1-30].

Dying Declarations – Reliability and Evidentiary Value – Deceased made two dying declarations implicating the appellants – First to a doctor at the hospital, second to a police officer – Supreme Court finds both declarations consistent and reliable – No evidence of tutoring or fabrication – Medical evidence supports the mental fitness of the deceased at the time of making the declarations [Paras 8-18].

Motive – Absence of Proven Motive – Prosecution failed to establish a specific motive for the crime – Supreme Court holds that lack of motive does not invalidate the dying declarations or the prosecution case – Conviction based on dying declarations stands even without proof of motive [Paras 12.6, 16.3].

Contradictions and Inconsistencies – Defence raised contradictions in evidence, particularly regarding self-immolation theory and absence of direct evidence – Supreme Court rejects these contentions, finding the prosecution’s evidence consistent and credible – Dying declarations considered truthful and voluntary [Paras 14-16].

Decision – Appeals Dismissed – Conviction and life sentence under Section 302/34 IPC upheld – Appellants’ contentions rejected – No interference with the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court [Paras 17-19].

Motor Vehicles Act – Section 163A – No-fault liability – Claimants filed under Section 163A for compensation due to the death of Chotelal alias Shivram in a vehicular accident – Tribunal awarded compensation, but High Court quashed it on the basis that the claim was against the owner and insurer of the motorcycle the deceased was driving, not the offending vehicle – Supreme Court upholds High Court's decision, finding deceased stepped into shoes of the owner [Paras 1-10].

Third Party Insurance – Deceased Borrower – Borrower of the vehicle steps into the shoes of the owner – As per Section 163A, compensation claims must be made against the owner/insurer of the offending vehicle, not the vehicle driven by the deceased – Insurance liability is limited to third parties, not the owner or borrower of the vehicle [Paras 5.1-5.7].

Contract of Insurance – Terms and Conditions – Insurance policy covers liability for third parties, not the owner/borrower – In personal accident, owner-driver entitled to specified amount under policy – Claimants entitled to Rs. 1 lakh under personal accident cover as per policy terms [Paras 5.8-5.9].

Decision – Appeal Partly Allowed – Claimants entitled to Rs. 1 lakh with interest at 7.5% per annum from claim petition date till realization – No order as to costs [Para 6].

Telecom Law – Spectrum Charges – Union of India challenged TDSAT’s order directing refund of excess amount encashed from bank guarantees provided by RCL for deferred spectrum charges – Supreme Court examines NIA 2013 and NIA 2015 terms – Holds that refund of unadjusted amount was justified – Appeal dismissed [Paras 1-12].

Bank Guarantees – Encashment and Refund – RCL failed to pay deferred spectrum charges – Union encashed bank guarantees for Rs. 908.91 crores against liability of Rs. 774.25 crores – RCL furnished fresh guarantees for Rs. 774.25 crores – Excess encashment of Rs. 134.66 crores sought to be refunded – TDSAT directed refund of Rs. 104.34 crores – Supreme Court upheld the decision [Paras 3-11].

Financial Stress and Relief – Telecom sector facing financial difficulties – Union revisited and modified payment terms for deferred spectrum charges – RCL’s financial stress and restructuring cited – Supreme Court finds Union’s refusal to refund excess amount unreasonable – Orders refund as directed by TDSAT [Paras 2, 10-11].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Supreme Court upholds TDSAT’s order directing Union of India to refund Rs. 104.34 crores to RCL for excess amount encashed from bank guarantees – No costs [Para 12].

Criminal Law – Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 – Conviction under Section 18 – Appellant convicted for possessing 1.75 kg of opium – Trial Court sentenced him to 10 years rigorous imprisonment and fine – High Court affirmed conviction – Appeal to Supreme Court raising issues of incomplete link evidence and non-examination of independent witnesses [Paras 1-7].

Link Evidence – Examination of Officers – Appellant argued non-examination of ASI who handled case property broke chain of custody – Supreme Court held non-examination did not affect case as seals were intact and no tampering occurred – Chain of custody was complete [Paras 10-11].

Independent Witnesses – Reliability of Official Witnesses – Appellant contended absence of independent witnesses affected prosecution case – Supreme Court held that evidence of official witnesses cannot be disregarded solely due to their status – Efforts to secure independent witnesses were made but were unsuccessful [Paras 14-15].

Section 50 NDPS Act – Compliance – Appellant claimed violation of Section 50 as ASP was not examined – Supreme Court found ASP was summoned but could not attend due to valid reasons – No violation of statutory provisions found [Paras 12-13].

Previous Rulings – Application of Precedents – Appellant relied on Mohan Lal v. State of Punjab regarding same officer acting as informant and investigator – Supreme Court referred to Varinder Kumar v. State of Himachal Pradesh to hold that each case must be decided on its individual facts prior to Mohan Lal ruling [Paras 16-17].

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction and sentence upheld – Appellant to surrender within four weeks to serve remaining sentence – Bail bonds cancelled [Para 17-18].

Service Law – Pension Benefits – Appellant, a re-employed Proof Reader, denied pension benefits for the period between voluntary retirement and reappointment – High Court dismissed writ petition challenging denial – Supreme Court examines Rule 4.23 of PCSR regarding condonation of service interruption [Paras 1-16].

Condonation of Interruption – Rule 4.23 PCSR – Interruption due to voluntary retirement not condonable under Rule 4.23 – Rule limits condonation to interruptions caused by factors beyond the employee’s control and not exceeding one year – Appellant’s interruption exceeded six years – Government’s refusal to relax Rule 4.23 upheld [Paras 7-12].

Past Service Benefits – Fresh Appointment – Appellant’s reappointment considered fresh; past service not added for pension – Board’s resolution conditional on government approval, which was denied – Supreme Court affirms lower court’s decision denying pension for service prior to reappointment [Paras 13-15].

`

Decision – Appeal Dismissed – High Court’s dismissal of writ petition upheld – Appellant not entitled to relief as statutory rules do not permit condonation of extended interruption in service [Para 16].

Contract Law – Injunction – Appellant sought injunction to restrain respondents from executing further documents or creating third-party rights on disputed land – Trial court and High Court granted injunction based on prima facie existence of a concluded contract – Supreme Court examines the evidence, including emails and WhatsApp messages, and finds no concluded contract – Injunction set aside [Paras 1-24].

Prima Facie Case – Concluded Contract – Supreme Court analyzes the evidence of communications between parties – Finds negotiations were ongoing and no mutual agreement was reached – No concluded contract existed to justify injunction – Plaintiff's conduct and delay in filing suit considered [Paras 15-21].

Balance of Convenience – Irreparable Injury – Court holds that balance of convenience favored defendants – Plaintiff delayed in filing suit, allowing third-party rights to arise – Defendants made substantial investments and paid taxes based on agreement with third party – Plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable harm [Paras 19-20].

Specific Performance – Judicial Discretion – Grant of specific performance is discretionary – Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case and mutuality of contract – Plaintiff's delay and conduct influenced court’s decision to refuse injunction [Paras 22-23].

Decision – Appeal Allowed – Orders of injunction by lower courts set aside – Matter to be decided on merits in trial – High Court’s directions to expedite suit reiterated [Para 24-25].