Facts:

Appellant, Kum C. Yamini, appointed as an ad hoc District Judge for a Fast Track Court in 2003.

Notification for regular appointments to the posts of District & Sessions Judges in the A.P. Higher Judicial Service issued in 2004.

Writ petition challenging the notification and seeking absorption in regular vacancies was dismissed.

Appellants applied and were appointed to regular District Judge posts in 2013, following a 2012 notification.

Issues:

Appellants claimed seniority from the date of their initial appointment as ad hoc District Judges.

Challenge to paragraphs 5 and 6 of G.O.MS. No. 68 dated 02.07.2013, questioning their seniority.

Held:

The court rejected the claim for seniority, emphasizing the distinction between appointments for Fast Track Courts and regular appointments.

Appellants' rejection of the claim for absorption and challenge to the 2004 notification were cited as a basis for denying seniority.

The court directed that appellants and similarly placed individuals be given the benefit of counting their service as Fast Track Judges for pensionary and other retiral benefits.

Facts:

The Gram Panchayat, Namhol requested the appellants (State) for the construction of a road from Namhol to Bahadurpur.

Possession of the land for road construction was taken in 1988.

Respondents, whose land was utilized for the road, filed a writ petition complaining of improper land acquisition.

Land acquisition proceedings initiated after court directions, and notification under Section 4(1) issued in 2005.

Land Acquisition Officer passed an award, categorizing land and fixing market value.

Respondents sought reference under Section 18, leading to the Reference Court fixing compensation at a uniform rate of Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha.

State appealed against the fixation, claiming errors in relying on a specific sale deed (Ex.PW-1/A).

Issues:

Whether the Reference Court and the High Court erred in accepting Ex.PW-1/A as a comparable sale.

Allegation that another comparable sale (Ex.'RA' dated 04.05.2001) was not considered without valid reasons.

Appropriateness of fixing compensation at Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha for the total acquired land of 18-15 bighas.

Held:

The Court set aside the fixation of compensation at Rs.7.00 lakhs per bigha, finding errors in relying on the specific sale deed (Ex.PW-1/A) for a small portion of land. The Court emphasized that in the absence of comparable sales in the same village, the Reference Court should consider sales in adjoining villages or use alternative methods for fixing compensation. The matter was remitted back to the District Court for fresh consideration. The Court also directed the Reference Court to dispose of the references within six months and allowed both parties to present additional evidence. The additional interest awarded at 15% per annum was set aside, leaving it open to the Reference Court to consider the claim for additional interest independently.

Facts:

The appellants, representing the State of Rajasthan, challenged the dismissal of second appeals by the High Court in a case related to mining operations. The respondent, Shiv Dayal, claimed to be the mining lessee and sought a permanent injunction against the State and its authorities.

Issues:

The dismissal of the State's second appeals by the High Court, contending that no substantial question of law was present. The Court identified five crucial questions related to forest laws, revenue laws, MMRD Act, and the status of the suit land.

Held:

The Court sets aside the High Court's order and remands the case for fresh consideration on merits.( Paragraph 12)

Rejects the High Court's reasoning that a concurrent finding by lower courts makes it unassailable in second appeal.( Paragraph 14)

Establishes that if a finding is based on misreading, against provisions of law, or without jurisdiction, it can be challenged in a second appeal.( Paragraph 21)

Enumerates five questions arising for consideration, constituting substantial questions of law.( Paragraph 23)

Allows the appeals, directing the High Court to frame appropriate substantial questions of law and decide the case afresh on merits.( Paragraph 32)

Acknowledges the death of Shiv Dayal during the appeals but asserts that appeals against him have not abated.( Paragraph 36)

Facts:

Corporation engaged in stocking goods, with loading and unloading work carried out by workers.

Dispute arises on whether these workers are entitled to benefits under the Provident Fund Act.

Corporation contests the claim, asserting no employer-employee relationship.

Issues:

Whether the workers are eligible for benefits under the Provident Fund Act.

Whether the Corporation is liable to pay statutory contributions for these workers.

Held:

The High Court's reliance on the Industrial Disputes Act findings was criticized.

Definition of "employee" under the Provident Fund Act differs from that in the Industrial Disputes Act, and their objectives are distinct.

Findings under the Industrial Disputes Act are irrelevant to the Provident Fund Act issue.

The High Court's order is set aside, and the case is remanded for reconsideration on merits, considering the definition of "employee" under Section 2(f) of the Provident Fund Act.

The High Court is urged to decide the writ petition expeditiously.

Facts:

The appellant, the Institution of Mechanical Engineers (India), conducts bi-annual examinations and awards the AMIE certificate.

Government recognition was provisionally granted in 1976, acknowledging the AMIE certificate as equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineering.

A notification recognized the Technician Engineers' Examination as equivalent to a Diploma in Mechanical Engineering from State Polytechnic.

A writ petition challenged the validity of the AMIE certificate for state-related services.

The High Court, in a previous judgment, held that the AMIE certificate could not be treated as equivalent to a degree in engineering.

A review application was filed, and the Registrar of the Supreme Court refused to register the application.

Issues:

Recognition and equivalence of the AMIE certificate to a degree in Mechanical Engineering.

Validity of the AMIE certificate for recruitment/promotion to state services.

Held:

The Registrar's refusal to register the application for clarification and modification was deemed correct.

The appellant, by its own admission, conducts examinations without imparting education and does not fall under the Acts specified.

The appellant's claim of equivalence lacks a statutory basis, as Section 22(1) of the UGC Act designates specific bodies to confer degrees.

Equivalence to AMIE certificates was granted by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) until 31.05.13, as evidenced by official notifications.

An exception was made for candidates enrolled up to 31.05.13, declaring their AMIE certificates equivalent to a Mechanical Engineering degree for Central Government employment.

Decision: The Miscellaneous Application No. 2367 of 2018 is rejected. The AMIE certificates for candidates enrolled up to 31.05.13 are considered equivalent to a degree in Mechanical Engineering for Central Government employment.

Facts:

The assessee, engaged in brokerage business, underwent a search and seizure operation.

The assessment was completed, adding amounts for unexplained cash, jewelry, hundies, and cash receipts.

The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) partially allowed the appeal, deleting certain additions.

The Tribunal, on cross objections, quashed the reassessment proceedings due to the absence of notice under Section 143(2).

Issues:

The impact of the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) on the validity of the reassessment proceedings.

The appellant relied on Section 292BB to argue that the assessee's participation cured any deficiencies in notice issuance.

Held:

The Court upheld the decision of the High Court and the Tribunal that the absence of a notice under Section 143(2) rendered the reassessment proceedings invalid.

Section 292BB was interpreted to cure infirmities in the service of notice but not to save the complete absence of notice.

The legal fiction created by Section 292BB applies only if the notice emanated from the department and the assessee participated in the proceedings.

Since no notice under Section 143(2) was issued, the proceedings were deemed invalid.

The appeals were dismissed, and no costs were imposed.

FACTS:

The case involves candidates who enrolled in courses leading to Degrees in Engineering through Distance Education Mode during the academic sessions 2001-2005. The Judgment and Order directed the candidates to undergo a test to prove the worthiness of their degrees. The candidates were given opportunities to retain benefits upon passing the test.

ISSUES:

Whether the candidates violated the directions of the Judgment and Order.

Whether the candidates were entitled to benefits and advantages from their degrees obtained through Distance Education Mode.

HELD:

The Court held that there was no violation by the alleged Contemnors. The directions were intended to restore the status quo ante for candidates who enjoyed benefits as of the date of the Judgment. The judgment clarified that the restoration was limited to benefits existing on the date of the Judgment and did not confer additional advantages. The Court emphasized that serious objections raised by the Department regarding violation of norms and parameters needed to be addressed through proper channels, such as representation or a properly instituted challenge, rather than through a Contempt Petition. Dismisses the Contempt Petitions, stating that there was no violation by the alleged Contemnors. The Court imposes a cost of Rs. 5000 on each petitioner.

REFERRED CASES:

J.S. Parihar vs. Ganpat Duggar and others, (1996) 6 SCC 291

Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others, (2018) 1 SCC 468

Orissa Lift Irrigation Corporation Limited vs. Rabi Sankar Patro and others, (2018) 2 SCC 298

Facts:

The plaintiffs contended that defendants 1 to 3 executed agreements for the sale of land, while defendants asserted that the agreements were collateral security for a loan. The dispute also involved subsequent supplementary agreements and possession of the land.

Issues:

The nature of the transaction, the readiness and willingness of the plaintiffs to perform their part of the contract, the application of the doctrine of lis pendens, and the appropriate relief to be granted.

Held:

Nature of Transaction: The court found that the agreements evidenced a sale transaction rather than serving as security for a loan. The execution of supplementary agreements after notice reinforced the intention of the parties towards the sale transaction.

Readiness and Willingness of Plaintiffs: The plaintiffs demonstrated readiness and willingness to perform their part of the contract, making payments against the sale consideration. The court rejected the defendants' denial and emphasized that the plaintiffs' conduct was not inequitable.

Doctrine of Lis Pendens: The court applied the doctrine of lis pendens, stating that subsequent sale transactions were subject to the rights determined in the pending suit. However, the court disapproved the characterization of the sale deeds as illegal.

Relief Granted: The court partly allowed the appeal and awarded compensation of Rs. 15,00,000 to the respondent No. 2 in lieu of specific performance. Various factors, including the long possession of subsequent purchasers and the enhanced valuation of the land, influenced this decision.

Limitation: The court addressed the limitation issue, affirming that the plaintiffs filed the suit within the prescribed three-year period, and no delay operated against them.

Observations on the Nature of Transaction: The court criticized the lower courts for casting doubts on the nature of the transaction based on irrelevant considerations. The supplementary agreement after notice was emphasized as reaffirming the intention of a sale transaction.

FACTS:

The case involves the acquisition of 131 kms of land, including 6 kms owned by the appellants, for the construction of a Special Railway Project-Western Dedicated Freight Corridor. The appellants raised objections under Section 20D(2) of the Railways Act, asserting that no order was passed on their objections. They sought the quashing of the Notification issued under Section 20A and the declaration issued under Section 20E.

ISSUES:

Non-compliance with Section 20D(2) – Effect on the acquisition.

Validity of the objections raised by the appellants.

Competent Authority's duty to pass a reasoned order.

Communication of the order to the appellants.

Contradictory stand by the respondents on the nature of the order.

Timing of the order under Section 20D(2) in relation to personal hearing.

Strict construction of expropriatory legislation.

Balancing appellants' rights and the larger public purpose.

Compensation assessment for the acquired land.

HELD:

In the absence of an order under Section 20D, no further steps in the acquisition could be taken. Section 20D provides a substantive right for landowners to object before being divested of their land. The right to file objections under Section 20D is akin to Section 5-A of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court emphasized the need for a reasoned order after considering objections.

The limited right to file objections and have a personal hearing under Section 20D must not be reduced to an empty formality. The Competent Authority is duty-bound to pass a reasoned order reflecting application of mind.

A valid order must be reasoned and communicated to the parties. Internal file notings or reports submitted to the Central Government do not constitute a valid order. No order rejecting objections was passed after the personal hearing, and the Competent Authority did not communicate file notings to the appellants.

Contradictory stands by respondents on the nature of the order. The order under Section 20D(2) cannot precede the personal hearing. Strict construction of expropriatory legislation is necessary, and deviations invalidate subsequent acquisition steps.

The Competent Authority, being quasi-judicial, must act in conformity with mandatory statutory provisions. In the absence of an order under Section 20D(2), subsequent acquisition steps are invalidated.

Despite finding a breach, the Court decided not to set aside the entire acquisition. The relief is molded by compensating the appellants for the 6 km stretch based on the current market value, as per Section 20G of the Act.

The remaining 125 km stretch stands acquired, with pre-construction activity completed. To balance rights and public purpose, compensation for the appellants is directed based on the current market value.

Despite the breach, the Court refrains from setting aside the acquisition for the remaining 125 km stretch, as landowners are satisfied with the compensation awarded.

REFERRED CASES:

Decided on : 13-08-2019

Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Sections 5A and 17 - Acquisition Proceedings - Invocation of urgency provisions under Section 17 of the Act and dispensing with the right to file objection under Section 5A of the Act, is found to be illegal - A situation where because of delay in challenging these acquisitions by the land owners, developments have taken in these villages and in most of the cases, third party rights have been created - A more practical and workable solution by adequately compensating the land owners in the form of compensation as well as allotment of developed Abadi land at a higher rate i.e. 10% of the land acquired of each of the land owners against the eligibility and to the policy to the extent of 5% and 6% of Noida and Greater Noida land respectively. (See : Savitri Devi v. State of U.P., (2015) 7 SCC 21)

Railways Act, 1989 - Sections 20A, 20G and 20G(2) - Acquisition proceedings - Compensation - Absence of an order passed on the objections under Section 20D - Challenge before this Court has been made by the Appellants with respect to a stretch of land admeasuring approximately 6 kms, out of the total stretch of 131 kms - Remaining stretch of land comprising of 125 kms has been acquired, and stands vested in the Government - Respondents have stated on Affidavit that preconstruction activity and earth work has been completed on most parts of the stretch. Furthermore, most of the bridges are either in progress, or have already been completed - No mala fides have been alleged by the Appellants against the Respondents in the acquisition proceedings - Larger public purpose of a railway project would not be served if the Notification under Section 20A is quashed - Public purpose of the acquisition is the construction and operation of a Special Railway Project viz. the Western Dedicated Freight Corridor in District Surat, Gujarat.

Counsel for Appearing Parties

Mr. C.G. Sharma, Advocate, Mr. G.C. Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Nachiketa Joshi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Ms. Kumud Lata Das, Advocate, for the Respondent.

Cases Referred

A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India [(1969) 2 SCC 262 : AIR 1970 SC 150]

Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1963 SC 395

CCE vs. Orient Fabrics (P) Ltd., (2004) 1 SCC 597

Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. vs. Darius Shapur Chennai, (2005) 7 SCC 627

Indore Vikas Pradhikaranv. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 705

J&K Housing Board v. Kunwar Sanjay Krishan Kaul, (2011) 10 SCC 714

Jilubhai Nanbhai Khachar vs. State of Gujarat, 1995 Supp (1) SCC 596

Laxminarayan R. Bhattad vs. State of Maharashtra [(2003) 5 SCC 413]

Laxmi Devi vs. State of Bihar, (2015) 10 SCC 241

Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496

Khub Chand vs. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 SC 1074

Kunwar Pal Singh vs. State of U.P., (2007) 5 SCC 85.

Nandeshwar Prasad v. State of U.P. [AIR 1964 SC 1217]

Nazir Ahmad vs. King Emperor, (1875) LR 1 Ch D 426

Om Prakash vs. State of U.P., (1998) 6 SCC 1

Raghbir Singh Sehrawat vs. State of Haryana, (2012) 1 SCC 792

Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh vs. State of Vindhya Pradesh, AIR 1954 SC 322

Savitri Devi vs. State of U.P. & Ors, (2015) 7 SCC 21

Sethi Auto Service Station vs. DDA, (2009) 1 SCC 180

Shanti Sports Club v. Union of India, (2009) 15 SCC 705

State of Punjab vs. Gurdial Singh, (1980) 2 SCC 471

State of U.P. vs. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358

Union of India vs. Krishan Lal Arneja, (2004) 8 SCC 453

Union of India v. Shivraj, (2014) 6 SCC 564

Usha Stud & Agricultural Farms (P) Ltd. v. State of Haryana, (2013) 4 SCC 210