Eviction – Public Premises – Nationalisation Act – Respondent challenged eviction on grounds that property was private and not a "mine" – Supreme Court held that under Section 3(1) of the Nationalisation Act, properties falling under the definition of "mine" transferred to the Central Government – Definition under Section 2(h) includes lands and buildings used for management or residence of staff – Objections relying on a Court Commissioner’s report rejected as it lacked relevance to statutory definitions – Eviction order confirmed [Paras 1-19].

Definition of Mine – Wide Interpretation – Supreme Court emphasized broad scope of "mine" under Section 2(h) of the Nationalisation Act, including properties used for offices and staff residences regardless of their proximity to mining activities – Ownership immaterial, focus is on the nature of use [Paras 12-15].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – District Court's eviction order restored – No order as to costs [Paras 19-20].

Power of Attorney – Authorization to Sell – Supreme Court held that a power of attorney must explicitly confer the power to sell property for the agent to have such authority – The document in question only contained provisions for leasing and executing necessary documents if a security had to be offered for borrowal – No express power to sell the property was included, rendering the sales executed by the appellant's sister invalid – High Court's interpretation attributing constructive notice to the appellant under Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act was incorrect [Paras 1-20].

Constructive Notice – Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act – High Court incorrectly attributed constructive notice to the appellant, failing to appreciate that possession of an agent is also possession of the principal – Unauthorized sale by an agent does not equate to the principal parting with possession [Paras 13-14].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Judgment and preliminary decree of the trial court restored – No order as to costs [Para 20].

Public Interest Litigation – Gandhi Ashram Redevelopment – Appellant challenged a Government Resolution for redevelopment of the Gandhi Ashram Memorial – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in disposing of the writ petition without calling for a reply from the State of Gujarat – The High Court should have allowed the pleadings to be completed and afforded the State an opportunity to file a comprehensive affidavit [Paras 1-6].

Judicial Process – Summary Disposal – The High Court's summary disposal without completing pleadings deprived the parties of a fair hearing – Supreme Court emphasized the importance of a comprehensive judicial review in matters of public interest involving significant historical and cultural heritage [Para 5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Writ petition restored to the file of the High Court – High Court to allow pleadings to be completed and hear the parties afresh – All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open – High Court requested to expeditiously dispose of the proceedings [Paras 6-8].

Dying Declaration – Reliance on Evidence – Supreme Court held that the non-recovery of the weapon used in the crime does not invalidate reliance on a dying declaration – Conviction based on dying declaration upheld where it was recorded by a credible authority and established the respondent's participation in the unlawful assembly [Paras 6-7, 9].

Defective Framing of Charges – Section 464 CrPC – The court ruled that mere defects in the form or language of the charge do not render a conviction unsustainable if the accused is not prejudiced – Accused can be convicted under Section 302 IPC read with Section 149 IPC despite not being specifically charged under Section 149 if the ingredients of the offence are implicit in the charges framed [Paras 7.1-8].

Unlawful Assembly and Rioting – Sections 148 and 149 IPC – Supreme Court clarified that an accused can be convicted under Section 148 IPC even if fewer than five persons are tried, as long as the involvement of six to seven persons is established – Conviction under Section 148 upheld based on the unlawful assembly's use of force or violence [Paras 12-12.1].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – High Court's acquittal of the respondent under Section 302 IPC quashed and set aside – Respondent convicted for the offence under Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC and for the offence under Section 148 IPC – Sentenced to ten years RI for Section 304 Part I read with Section 149 IPC and three years RI for Section 148 IPC, with sentences to run concurrently – Respondent directed to surrender within four weeks to serve remaining sentence [Para 13].

Constitutional Law – Special Reservation – Tamil Nadu Special Reservation Act, 2021 providing 10.5% internal reservation for Vanniakula Kshatriyas within the MBCs and DNCs declared unconstitutional – No substantial basis for classifying Vanniakula Kshatriyas into a separate group from the remaining 115 communities within the MBCs and DNCs – Violation of Articles 14, 15, and 16 – [Paras 1-77].

Legislative Competence – Constitutional Amendments – The 105th Amendment Act is prospective – The 102nd Amendment Act held the field at the time of enactment of the 2021 Act – State's power to provide reservation and sub-classification within MBCs and DNCs affirmed, but such classification must be reasonable and not based solely on population – [Paras 17-48].

Consultation Requirement – Article 338-B(9) – State Government required to consult the National Commission for Backward Classes on major policy matters affecting SEBCs – Failure to consult does not void legislative competence but highlights procedural deficiency – [Paras 75-76].

Decision – Appeals allowed – Tamil Nadu Special Reservation Act, 2021 declared unconstitutional – No bar on legislative competence but classification found unreasonable – [Para 77].

Remanding of Case: An order of remand should not be passed merely to send the proceedings back to the lower court or Tribunal. The Appellate Court must decide the appeal on its merits, especially when both sides have presented oral and documentary evidence. Remanding is only justified if the lower court failed to consider crucial evidence or made significant legal errors [Paras 1-88]​​​​.

Occupancy Rights under Karnataka Land Reforms Act: Sections 45 and 137 and Rule 19 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Rules place the duty on the Tahsildar to verify the revenue records and other documents to record the name of the land owner accurately. The Karnataka Land Reforms Act is aimed at granting occupancy rights to cultivating tenants, and courts should interpret its provisions to further this objective. The Act aims to confer ownership on tenants, with Section 45 specifically providing for registration of occupancy rights in favour of tenants [Paras 1-88]​​.

Delay and Laches: The court emphasized that significant delays in challenging legal orders without adequate justification can result in the dismissal of the case due to laches. In this case, the writ petition was filed after 13 years of the Appellate Authority’s order, with reasons like financial problems and ill health not being considered sufficient to condone the delay [Paras 1-88]​​.

Fraud and Misrepresentation: Allegations of fraud must be supported by substantial evidence. In this case, the contention that the order of the Land Tribunal was obtained by fraud was not substantiated with sufficient evidence, and hence, could not be upheld [Paras 1-88]​​ .

Decision: Appeals allowed. The order of the Division Bench of the High Court of Karnataka in Writ Appeal No. 1950 of 2007 dated 30.12.2014 was set aside, and the order of the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 27230/2002 dated 25.07.2007 was restored. The order in Writ Appeal No. 1563 of 2007 dated 30.12.2014 was also set aside, and the learned Single Judge’s order in W.P. No. 23034/2002 dated 25.07.2002 was restored. The Land Tribunal was directed to hold an inquiry on the notice dated 24.05.2002 and pass appropriate orders in accordance with the law expeditiously​​​​

Revision of Pay Scale – Pension Entitlement: The appellants, retired Assistant Professors and a College Librarian, were entitled to revised pension benefits as per the Manipur Services (Revised Pay) Rules 2010. The Office Memorandum dated December 24, 2011, which purported to clarify a subsisting anomaly, was deemed to encroach upon the acquired or vested rights of the retirees. Such clarificatory orders cannot override orders having statutory strength [Paras 1-18]​​.

Office Memorandum and Vested Rights: The Court held that the Office Memorandum of December 24, 2011, could not alter the benefits under the Order of August 12, 2011. The appellants were entitled to revised pension benefits from April 1, 2010, as recognized by Clause 7 of the Order of August 12, 2011. The State Government’s contention that the benefit of revised pension should be from November 1, 2010, was rejected [Paras 1-18]​​.

Constitutional Provisions – Article 309: The revisions and orders made under Article 309 of the Constitution hold statutory strength. The Office Memorandum of May 5, 2010, and subsequent orders under Article 309 were binding and provided vested rights that could not be overridden by administrative orders [Paras 1-18]​​.

Decision: The appeal was allowed. The judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court was set aside, and the Single Judge’s order, which granted the benefit of revised pension from April 1, 2010, was restored​​.

Suspension and Departmental Proceedings – Authority of Commissioner: The Supreme Court held that the Commissioner of the KDM Corporation had the power to suspend or initiate departmental proceedings against an AMC, an officer superior in rank to the Assistant Commissioner. This authority is derived from a harmonious construction of subsection (9) of Section 2, Sections 39A, and 56 of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporations (MMC) Act. The requirement is to report the suspension to the Corporation with reasons, and if not confirmed within six months, the suspension ends [Paras 1-18] .

High Court’s Error – Legislative Intent: The High Court erred in setting aside the suspension and departmental proceedings initiated against the AMC. The legislative intent indicated that the Commissioner and Corporation had the authority to act against officers, including AMCs, to avoid absurd and anomalous situations where misconduct goes unaddressed due to jurisdictional issues [Paras 1-18] .

Principles of Statutory Interpretation – Harmonious Construction: The Court emphasized that statutory provisions must be interpreted to avoid conflicts and redundancies, ensuring all provisions work cohesively. The broader interpretation preserving the legislation’s workability and efficacy was preferred over a narrower one leading to futility [Paras 1-18] .

Decision: The appeals were allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The writ petition by the respondent was dismissed, and the departmental proceedings were directed to be completed within four months. The respondent would remain suspended until the proceedings' conclusion .

Genuineness of Execution of Will: Under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, the genuineness of a Will's execution must be established without considering whether the distribution by the testator was fair and equitable among all children. The Court should not apply Article 14 to dispositions under a Will​​.

Suspicious Circumstances – High Court's Findings: The High Court identified several suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Wills, including discrepancies in the evidence about the timing and registration of the father’s Will, the exclusion of the daughter from the bequests, and minor contradictions in witness testimonies. However, the Supreme Court found these reasons insufficient to invalidate the Wills​​.

Court’s Approach – Previous Judgments: The Supreme Court referenced its previous decisions in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Kavita Kanwar v. Mrs. Pamela Mehta and Ors. to emphasize that the mental capacity of the testator and the absence of sound and disposing state of mind are critical factors in evaluating suspicious circumstances, not merely the exclusion of some heirs or the presence of minor discrepancies​​.

Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the probate granted by the Principal District Court. It ruled that the High Court had overlooked crucial aspects and unjustifiably created suspicion where none existed. The Wills executed by the parents were held valid, and the probate was confirmed​​.