Criminal Law – Appeal against acquittal – The High Court acquitted 11 accused persons based on the reasoning that the eyewitnesses had not named the accused specifically or assigned specific roles – Supreme Court finds the High Court’s approach contrary to settled legal principles – Single witness testimony found reliable can be the basis of conviction – High Court's acquittal order reversed – Conviction and sentence by the Trial Court against 6 accused restored [Paras 1-25].

Witness Testimony – Reliability – Eyewitness accounts provided by PW1, PW2, PW24, PW25, and PW27 found consistent and credible – Presence and participation of accused confirmed – Supreme Court stresses that even a single reliable witness can be sufficient for conviction – Testimony of PW6 not considered due to inconsistency with other eyewitness accounts [Paras 10-12, 17, 23].

Section 149 IPC – Common Object – Analysis of whether the accused shared a common object – Supreme Court applies the principle from Masalti v. State of U.P. for determining liability of accused who did not commit overt acts but were part of unlawful assembly – Accused with specific allegations and overt acts convicted – Acquittal of others confirmed due to lack of specific evidence against them [Paras 18-24].

Decision – Appeals partly allowed – Conviction and sentence restored against original accused A1, A6, A7, A8, A10, and A13 – Acquittal of other accused confirmed due to benefit of doubt – Accused to surrender within four weeks or be taken into custody to serve sentence [Paras 24-25].

Service Law – Appointment – Arts and Crafts Teachers – Dispute over equivalence – Whether the diploma in Art and Craft by Kurukshetra University through distance education is recognized as equivalent to the diploma by the Haryana Industrial Training Department – The eligibility criteria specified a "two-year Diploma in Art and Craft examination conducted by the Haryana Industrial Training Department or an equivalent qualification recognized by the Haryana Education Department" – Held, the diploma from Kurukshetra University is not equivalent as it is a distance education course and lacks the practical components required for the position – High Court’s judgment equating the two diplomas is set aside [Paras 13-20].

Educational Qualifications – Equivalence – Determination of equivalence of educational qualifications is a technical matter – Decision of equivalence must be made by the appropriate authorities based on expert recommendations – Courts should not interfere unless decisions are irrational, perverse, or based on extraneous considerations [Paras 21-25].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's decision reversed – The diploma in Art and Craft from Kurukshetra University through distance education is not equivalent to the two-year diploma in Art and Craft from the Haryana Industrial Training Department – Writ petitions dismissed [Paras 26-27].

Recovery of Debts – Limitation – Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act, 1993 – Whether Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is applicable – Supreme Court holds that Section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to appeals against the order of the Recovery Officer under Section 30 of the Act – The prescribed period of 30 days for preferring an appeal cannot be extended – High Court’s order quashing DRAT’s decision is reversed [Paras 3-10].

Limitation – Appeal – Condonation of Delay – Section 5 of the Limitation Act is excluded for appeals under Section 30 of the Recovery of Debts Due to Banks and Financial Institutions Act – Appeals must be filed within the prescribed 30-day period without extension – Previous reliance on the overruled decision in A.R. Venugopal v. Jotheeswaran and Ors. was incorrect [Paras 4, 7-9].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s order set aside – DRAT’s order reinstated – Delay in preferring the appeal under Section 30 is not condoned [Paras 9-10].

Disciplinary Proceedings – Recovery Order – High Court set aside the punishment order due to non-compliance with principles of natural justice – Charge of causing loss of Rs. 246,922.56 proved by Enquiry Officer – Supreme Court holds High Court should have maintained recovery order as the charge was proven – Punishment for recovery maintained – Respondent’s retirement benefits to be adjusted after recovery of the amount [Paras 4-6].

Principles of Natural Justice – Disciplinary Authority’s disagreement with Enquiry Officer’s findings without issuing notice – Procedural lapse found – High Court’s decision to set aside order correct on procedural grounds but recovery order for proven charge should be maintained [Para 4].

Decision – Appeal partly allowed – High Court’s judgment modified to maintain order of recovery for Rs. 246,922.56 – Remaining retirement benefits to be paid after deducting the recovery amount – No order as to costs [Paras 5-6].

Service Law – Pay Scale – Upgradation vs. Promotion – Respondents claimed higher pay scales on completion of service milestones without promotion – Upgradation of posts merely provided financial benefit without changing duties – Supreme Court holds that claim based on office order for next higher pay scale without assuming higher responsibilities is misconceived – Scheme aimed at alleviating stagnation provided specific scales, which had been granted to respondents – High Court's decision set aside [Paras 12-20].

Administrative Orders – Validity – Executive orders permissible in absence of statutory regulations – Office order for upgradation did not create new posts but conferred financial benefit – Section 79 of the Electricity (Supply) Act not applicable to upgradation orders – PSEB’s administrative powers upheld [Paras 14-16].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment and orders set aside – Respondents not entitled to higher pay scales claimed without fulfilling requisite qualifications or responsibilities of higher posts [Paras 20-21].

Service Law – Appointment – Two candidates recommended for a single post – Initial appointee pursuant to High Court's order – Subsequent recommendation for another candidate – High Court erred in directing appointment of second candidate without affecting initial appointee – Two persons cannot be appointed to a single post – High Court’s order set aside [Paras 5-8].

Representation Rejection – Validity – Representation seeking appointment rejected due to existing appointee filling the post – High Court’s directive for reconsideration of representation flawed – Original writ petitioner retired during proceedings – Judgment not implementable [Paras 6-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment and order quashed – No appointment of second candidate to the filled post of Deputy Collector – No costs ordered [Para 8].

Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act – Repeal Act – Possession of surplus land – High Court set aside proceedings on ground of non-payment of compensation – Supreme Court finds High Court erred in not considering possession status – Payment of compensation and possession are distinct – Remands case for detailed consideration of possession status [Paras 4.3-4.7].

Repeal Act – Section 3 and 4 – High Court misinterpreted provisions – Proceedings do not abate if possession taken before Repeal Act – High Court failed to consider if possession was taken by the State – Repeal Act’s applicability hinges on possession status, not compensation [Paras 4.1-4.4].

Procedure – Maintainability of subsequent writ petition – Previous writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution – Restoration application dismissed – Fresh writ petition permissible as per High Court's observation – High Court to consider this in remanded proceedings [Para 5].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment quashed – Case remanded for fresh consideration on possession and maintainability – High Court requested to expedite decision within six months – Costs of Rs. 50,000 imposed on respondents [Paras 5-8].

Land Acquisition – Urgency Clause – Section 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act – Challenge to the invocation of urgency clause and dispensing with the hearing under Section 5A – Supreme Court holds that bare assertions by the State are insufficient – Existence of exceptional circumstances justifying urgency must be proven – High Court’s dismissal of writ petition set aside – Case remanded for reconsideration of urgency and adherence to procedural safeguards [Paras 22-24, 37-38].

Evidence – Burden of Proof – Section 106 of the Evidence Act – Facts specifically within the knowledge of the State must be laid before the court – State must provide relevant material justifying invocation of Section 17(4) [Para 23].

Constitutional Law – Right to Property – Compulsory acquisition requires compliance with statutory safeguards – Section 5A of the Land Acquisition Act guarantees a right to be heard – Dispensation with this right requires strict scrutiny and adherence to statutory requirements [Para 22].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court's judgment set aside – Case remanded to reconsider the validity of invoking Section 17(4) and adherence to Section 5A – Costs imposed on respondents [Para 38].

Land Acquisition – Market Value – Compensation – High Court determined compensation at Rs. 7100 per acre based on a sale deed from 1980 – Appellants sought compensation of Rs. 15,402 per acre as per a Reference Court’s judgment in a similar case for land in the same village – Supreme Court holds that compensation should be consistent with the Reference Court’s earlier determination – Time gap between notifications (May and December 1981) deemed insignificant – Compensation of Rs. 15,402 per acre awarded [Paras 2-8].

Previous Judgments – Consistency in Compensation – Reference Court’s determination of Rs. 15,402 per acre in another case attained finality and was accepted by the State – Supreme Court finds no significant changes between the two notifications – High Court’s lower determination inconsistent with established compensation [Paras 7-8].

Decision – Appeal allowed – High Court’s judgment modified – Compensation of Rs. 15,402 per acre awarded to appellants with all statutory benefits – Subject to payment of deficient court fees, if any – No order as to costs [Para 8].