Acquisition Proceedings – Lapsing Under 2013 Act – The appeal examines if the acquisition proceedings initiated under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and concluded, can lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act when challenged by a subsequent purchaser. The Court held that a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the 2013 Act [Paras 1-44].

Section 24(2) of 2013 Act – Conditions for Lapse – The Court emphasized that for acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2), two conditions must be satisfied: possession not taken and compensation not paid. This decision aligned with the principles laid down in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors., 2020 [Paras 29-31].

Judgment in Personam vs. Judgment in Rem – The Court distinguished between judgments affecting specific parties (in personam) and those affecting the rights of the public (in rem). It concluded that previous judgments like Balbir Singh did not confer rights upon other landowners who did not dispute acquisition proceedings themselves [Paras 36-37].

Possession and Compensation – The Court found that possession of the disputed land had been taken, and compensation had been deposited, thus fulfilling the requirements to prevent the lapse of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act. Re-entry by the landowners would be considered trespassing after possession was taken by the state [Paras 30-31, 39-41].

Subsequent Purchasers – Legal Standing – The Court held that subsequent purchasers cannot claim lapsing of acquisition proceedings because their rights are derived from the original landowners, who must have contested the acquisition timely. The legal standing of subsequent purchasers was limited as clarified in Shiv Kumar & Anr. v. Union of India & Ors., 2019 [Paras 42-43].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court’s order. The acquisition proceedings were held valid, and the subsequent purchaser's claim for lapsing was rejected. The appellant was directed to refund the amount deposited by the respondent without interest as the deposit was a voluntary offer [Paras 44].

Acquisition Proceedings – Lapsing Under 2013 Act – Subsequent Purchaser – The appeal examines the entitlement of a subsequent purchaser to claim the lapsing of acquisition proceedings under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act. The Court held that a subsequent purchaser is not entitled to claim lapsing of the proceedings under the 2013 Act [Paras 1-11].

Twin Conditions for Lapse – The Court reiterated that for acquisition proceedings to lapse under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act, two conditions must be satisfied: possession not taken and compensation not paid. These conditions were laid down in Indore Development Authority v. Manoharlal & Ors., 2020 [Paras 5-6].

Compensation Payment – Tender and Deposit – The Court clarified that compensation must be tendered to the persons interested, and merely depositing the compensation in court without first offering it to the landowner does not fulfill the payment requirement under Section 24(2) of the 2013 Act [Paras 9].

Dismissal of High Court Judgment – The High Court's judgment declaring the acquisition proceedings as lapsed was set aside. The Court found that the subsequent purchaser could not claim the lapse of acquisition proceedings, and the compensation was duly tendered [Paras 10-11].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment, and dismissed the writ petition filed by the respondents [Paras 10-11].

Judicial Misconduct – Disciplinary Proceedings – The appellant, a judicial officer, challenged the punishment order issued by the State based on the High Court’s decision following an enquiry report. The Court upheld the High Court’s findings, emphasizing the need for judicial officers to maintain high standards of integrity, honesty, and probity. It was determined that the appellant had shown undue favor to subsequent purchasers of acquired land, which constituted judicial misconduct [Paras 1-16].

Suspicion and Misconduct – Evidence Required – Mere suspicion cannot constitute misconduct; however, in this case, there was sufficient evidence and material showing the appellant had misconducted himself by passing judicial orders to unduly favor subsequent purchasers. The Court emphasized that judicial orders must be based on facts and applicable law, not extraneous considerations [Paras 14-15].

Disciplinary Review – Judicial Standards – The Court reiterated the principles for disciplinary actions against judicial officers, emphasizing that judicial behavior must be of an exacting standard both inside and outside the court. It underscored that decisions taken for extraneous reasons undermine public confidence in the judicial system [Paras 5-10].

Decision: Appeal Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellant's contentions and upholding the High Court’s decision to punish the appellant by curtailing his pensionary benefits due to proven judicial misconduct [Para 16].

Licensee Status – Injunction for Old Age Home – The appeal examines whether the respondents, as licensees in an old age home, can seek an injunction to stay despite causing disturbance to other inmates and the administration. The Court held that licensees are expected to maintain discipline and good behavior. If their actions disrupt the peace of other inmates, the administration has the right to terminate the license and ask them to vacate [Paras 1-27].

Legal Right to Stay – Compliance with Conditions – The Court found that the respondents, as licensees, do not have a legal right to stay in the old age home without complying with the terms and conditions of their license. The possession of the respondents was deemed permissive, not legal, and could be revoked by the administration [Paras 12-24].

Mental Trauma – Balance of Interests – The Court acknowledged the mental trauma faced by parents abandoned by their children but emphasized that this cannot justify disturbing other inmates or the administration. The administration's decision to evict was upheld to maintain a peaceful environment for all inmates [Para 24].

Decision: Appeal Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's order, and dismissed the interim injunction sought by the respondents. The appellants were directed to arrange an alternative old age home for the respondents, and the Uttar Pradesh State Legal Services Authority was tasked with overseeing the welfare of inmates in the old age home [Paras 25-29].

Legitimate Expectation – Doctrine – Abuse of Power – The Court discussed the doctrine of legitimate expectation, emphasizing that if a government induces a substantive expectation, departing from it without compelling public interest constitutes abuse of power. The respondents' expectation of merger into the BES was based on government actions and assurances, and its denial was deemed unfair and an abuse of power [Paras 1-38].

Merger of Cadres – Historical Context – The Court reviewed the historical context of the Bihar Education Service and the subordinate education service, noting various government decisions and judicial pronouncements that impacted the status and merger of +2 lecturers into the BES [Paras 4-9, 20-21].

Encadrement and Discrimination – The encadrement of +2 lecturers with nationalized school teachers through the 2009 Rules was found to be arbitrary and discriminatory. The Court held that +2 lecturers were entitled to the benefits of the BES cadre, and the artificial distinction created by the government was unjustified [Paras 14-29].

Previous Judicial Findings – Binding Nature – The Court highlighted that previous judicial findings in favor of the respondents, establishing their entitlement to the BES cadre, could not be ignored. The government's fluctuating stands and subsequent actions contravened these findings, reinforcing the respondents' legitimate expectations [Paras 19, 24, 37].

Decision: Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the High Court's judgment that declared +2 lecturers as part of the BES cadre. The State of Bihar was directed to comply with this decision within six months, ensuring that all service benefits of the BES cadre were extended to the +2 lecturers [Paras 37-38].

Bail – Cancellation – Criteria – The appeal addresses the cancellation of bail granted to the accused, highlighting misuse of liberty, influence over witnesses, and potential threat to the complainant. The Court emphasized that bail can be cancelled if the accused misuses his liberty by engaging in similar criminal activity, attempts to tamper with evidence, influences witnesses, evades court proceedings, or if any facts emerge post-grant of bail that are unconducive to a fair trial [Paras 24, 26-27].

Misuse of Bail – Influence and Threat – The respondent No. 2, a student leader, misused his liberty post-bail by displaying his influence through social media and posters celebrating his release. This conduct caused a bona fide fear in the complainant regarding the fairness of the trial and potential influence over material witnesses. The Court found this behavior sufficient to cancel the bail [Paras 28-30].

High Court’s Failure – Inadequate Reasoning – The High Court's order granting bail was criticized for lack of cogent reasons and failure to consider the criminal antecedents of the respondent No. 2, thereby leading to its reversal by the Supreme Court. The importance of providing reasons for granting bail, especially in serious offenses, was reiterated [Paras 26, 27].

Decision: Bail Cancelled – The Supreme Court cancelled the bail granted to respondent No. 2, directing him to surrender within a week. The Court clarified that observations made are limited to the bail context and do not influence the trial's merits [Paras 31-32].

Application for Sanction for Construction – Vested Rights – The Court held that merely submitting an application for sanction for construction does not create any vested right in favor of the applicant. The statutory provisions do not confer any automatic entitlement to approval merely by submission of the application [Paras 1-3].

Discontinuation of Scheme – No Vested Right – The discontinuation of a scheme by the Noida Authority does not entitle the applicants to claim any right to allotment under the discontinued scheme. The closure of the scheme was within the authority's rights, and applicants had no basis to challenge the termination unless they established discrimination or arbitrariness [Paras 4-5].

Doctrine of Legitimate Expectation – The doctrine of legitimate expectation was invoked by the respondent, claiming entitlement to the allotment of plots. However, the Court clarified that such expectations must align with statutory provisions and cannot override explicit terms allowing scheme closure [Paras 16-18].

Subsequent Scheme – Consideration of Applications – The Court observed that applications submitted under a discontinued scheme could only be considered under the prevailing scheme at the time of consideration. The respondent's applications were appropriately dealt with under the new scheme, as per the authority's discretion [Paras 20-21].

Contempt Proceedings – Misinterpretation of Directions – The High Court's direction to consider the applications "in accordance with law" was interpreted correctly by Noida to mean under the new scheme. The High Court’s contempt proceedings against Noida for considering the applications under the new scheme were deemed unwarranted and erroneous [Paras 20-21].

Disclosure Obligations – Equitable Relief – The Court held that the respondent’s failure to disclose its subsequent allotment of a plot under the new scheme during the pendency of writ proceedings disentitled it to equitable relief. Complete and truthful disclosure is essential for invoking equitable jurisdiction [Para 22].

Decision: Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgments and orders. Noida's actions were validated, and the respondent’s claims under the old scheme were rejected [Paras 23].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Absence of Written Agreement – The Supreme Court held that in the absence of any written contract containing the arbitration agreement, Section 11(6) of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 shall not be applicable, and therefore, an application under this provision shall not be maintainable. The parties themselves had agreed on a procedure for appointment of the arbitrator and had appointed and nominated an arbitrator by mutual consent. Consequently, the application under Section 11(6) of the Act was not maintainable [Paras 6.1-6.3].

Termination of Arbitrator's Mandate – Section 14(1)(a) – The High Court had terminated the mandate of the sole arbitrator on the grounds of undue and unreasonable delay in proceeding with the arbitration. The Supreme Court clarified that if a controversy remains concerning any of the grounds referred to in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of Section 14, a party must apply to the "court" to decide on the termination of the mandate. The dispute regarding the termination of the arbitrator's mandate should not be decided in an application under Section 11(6) of the Act [Paras 6.7-7.3].

Mandate Termination Procedure – Jurisdiction – The Court noted that when there is an undue delay in the arbitration proceedings by the arbitrator, the aggrieved party should approach the court as defined under Section 2(e) of the Act. The High Court erred in terminating the arbitrator's mandate under Section 11(6) without referring the matter to the appropriate court as specified in Section 14(2) [Paras 6.4.1-6.4.2].

Decision: Appeals Allowed – The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's order. The applications under Section 14(2) filed by the respondents before the concerned court were directed to be revived and adjudicated on their merits. The concerned court was instructed to consider the applications expeditiously within four months. If the court ultimately finds that the mandate of the sole arbitrator is terminated due to undue delay, a fresh arbitrator must be appointed following the same procedure as the initial appointment. If the applications are dismissed, the sole arbitrator must conclude the arbitration proceedings and declare the award within nine months from the decision of the court [Paras 11-13].

Land Acquisition – Market Value – The appeals focus on whether the determination of market value subsequent to the notification can be relevant for land acquired more than two years earlier. The Court held that while appreciation in price can be presumed, market value cannot be assessed by applying suitable deductions based on subsequent notifications. Development activities following earlier notifications influence market value, not the percentage increase [Paras 1-15].

High Court and Reference Court Findings – Consistency – The High Court maintained the compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs per acre awarded by the Additional District Judge, Rupnagar. The High Court's reliance on previous determinations, where no appeals were filed, was found appropriate. The consistency in judicial determinations was emphasized [Paras 14-18].

Compensation Assessment – Relevant Judgments – The Reference Court's award, based on Ex. P/13 pertaining to the same notification, was upheld. The Court rejected comparisons with compensation awards for different villages, noting that geographical and temporal differences affect land value [Paras 6-11, 14].

Development Activities – Impact on Market Value – The Court highlighted that subsequent notifications reflect development activities influencing land value. The development due to previous acquisitions justified the compensation awarded without applying deductions from later notifications [Paras 15-16].

Market Value Calculation – Yearly Increase – The Court provided a calculation showing yearly increases from the base value determined in 1981, supporting the Rs. 4 lakhs per acre compensation as reasonable and just [Paras 16-18].

Decision: Appeals Dismissed – The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, finding no error in the High Court's orders. The compensation of Rs. 4 lakhs per acre was upheld, affirming the Reference Court and High Court's consistent and fair assessment [Paras 18-19].