Land Acquisition – Delay in Filing – Disputed Facts – SLP Dismissed – DDA’s challenge against mutation/title dispute arising from acquisition proceedings rejected – Supreme Court declined to entertain Special Leave Petition under Article 136 – Held: All issues raised are disputed facts already rejected by the High Court – Interference not warranted [Paras 2–5].

Article 142 – Compensation Under 2013 Act – Relief Granted – Though SLP was dismissed, Court granted relief under Article 142 in line with DDA v. Tejpal, (2024) 7 SCC 433 – Landowners permitted compensation under 2013 Act despite lapse of acquisition proceedings – Time extended to acquire land afresh under 2013 Act [Paras 6–7].

Compensation – Land Acquisition Act, 2013 – Timeline and Procedure – Fresh proceedings directed as per Tejpal – One-year period from date of Supreme Court’s order granted to complete acquisition and pay compensation – Compliance with Social Impact Assessment, rehabilitation, and resettlement requirements dispensed with – Collector to assess compensation as on 01.01.2014 and award within six months [Paras 7–8].

Relief – Judicial Discretion – Article 142 Invoked – Court balanced equities by protecting rights of landowners and public interest – Allowed DDA to proceed with acquisition afresh without being hindered by earlier lapses – Status quo to be maintained in the interim [Paras 6–8].

Decision: SLP dismissed – Relief granted under Article 142 by invoking Tejpal (2024) 7 SCC 433 – One-year window given to complete fresh acquisition and award compensation under 2013 Act – All pending applications disposed of.

Service Law – Waiting List/Reserved Panel – Counsel’s Concession – High Court directed absorption on future SC vacancy relying on 15.01.1999 assurance – Held: Wait list is not a source of recruitment and operates only if a selected candidate does not join – A concession contrary to statutory Recruitment Rules is not binding; cannot be enforced to extend life of wait list or fill future vacancies – Appeal allowed; High Court judgment set aside [Paras 12–13, 15–18; 1997 process closed].

Waiting List – Nature and Operative Period – The Court reiterates that mere placement in a wait list/“Reserved Panel” confers no vested right; it operates only if a selected candidate does not join and cannot continue indefinitely or after a fresh recruitment begins – Reliance placed on Gujarat State Dy. Executive Engineers’ Assn. v. State of Gujarat (three-Judge Bench) – Held, respondent’s right as a waitlisted candidate extinguished when all three selected candidates joined in 1997 [Para 12].

Concession by Counsel – Not Binding if Contrary to Law/Rules – The 15.01.1999 statement that respondent would be “absorbed” against next SC vacancy could not override Recruitment Rules or revive a closed selection – Wrong concession on law by counsel is not binding on the client; Court refers to Uptron India Ltd. v. Shammi Bhan and Central Council for Research in Ayurveda & Siddha v. K. Santhakumari – Held, State can place correct legal position and decline to act on an erroneous concession that violates statutory Rules [Paras 15–16, 17].

Future Vacancies & Prejudice to Fresh Candidates – Giving effect to the 1999 concession would fill posts in subsequent recruitment from an earlier list, prejudicing new aspirants and impermissibly extending the life of the wait list – Hence, the High Court’s absorption direction is unsustainable [Para 17].

Facts – 1997 selection for three SC Technician posts; respondent placed first in Reserved Panel; all three selectees joined; multiple rounds before CAT/High Court; 2013 recruitment and interim “one post to be kept vacant” order; ultimate HC (25.06.2024) direction to absorb with notional effect from 19.07.2013 set aside [Paras 3–11].

Decision: Appeal allowed – Calcutta High Court’s judgment dated 25.06.2024 set aside – Writ petition dismissed – No order as to costs [Para 18].

Land Acquisition – Market Value – Section 26 of the 2013 Act – Determination based on sale instances – Reference Court justified in enhancing compensation by applying statutory criteria – Six genuine sale deeds in vicinity produced by claimant; three highest-value transactions averaged as per Explanation 2 to Section 26(1)(b) – 10% annual escalation added to bring parity with acquisition year (2017) – Resultant market value ₹26,814 per sq. mtr. – High Court erred in restoring lower award ignoring statutory methodology – Enhanced compensation of ₹20.20 crore restored [Paras 24–27, 42].

Compensation – Unauthorised Possession by Public Authority – Claim for rental value – Held: Not maintainable – Records show possession and beneficial use of property remained with original owner and appellant till sale – No deprivation of use established – Rental/occupation damages payable only for unlawful possession prior to acquisition (ref. R.L. Jain v. DDA, (2004) 4 SCC 79) – Claim for rental compensation from 1972 to 2011 rejected [Paras 29–33, 39, 43].

Equitable Relief – Mesne Profits/Interest – Section 28 (Seventhly) of the 2013 Act permits equitable compensation “in the interest of justice and benefit to affected families” – Appellant entitled to interest at 8% per annum on purchase consideration of ₹1.17 crore from date of purchase (29.07.2011) till possession taken (08.05.2017) as mesne profits for deprivation of ownership during State’s occupation – Approach consistent with Shankarrao Bhagwantrao Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (2022) 15 SCC 657 [Paras 34–38, 44].

Assessment of Value – Ready Reckoner vs. Sale Instances – Preference – Statutory scheme mandates reliance on comparable sale deeds over ready reckoner rates unless sale data unavailable – Reference Court rightly preferred actual sale instances reflecting market realities over administrative rates [Paras 17–18, 26–27].

Judicial Conduct – Adverse Observations by High Court – Remarks against appellant pursuing statutory remedy held unjustified – Court expunges personal observations and sets aside costs of ₹10 lakh imposed by High Court [Paras 40–41, 45].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – High Court judgment dated 04.05.2023 set aside to extent of reducing compensation – Award of Reference Court dated 18.03.2021 restored granting total compensation of ₹20,20,11,533/- with interest at 9% p.a. for one year from 09.01.2017 and 15% p.a. thereafter till realization – Claim for rental compensation rejected – Appellant entitled to 8% interest on ₹1,17,00,000/- from 29.07.2011 to 08.05.2017 – Adverse observations and costs of ₹10 lakh expunged and waived – No order as to costs [Paras 42–47].

Criminal Law – Quashing of Proceedings – Scope of Interference under Section 482 CrPC – High Court’s “Mini Trial” Deprecated – High Court quashed complaint alleging fabrication of caste certificate by holding that accused acted out of “legal illiteracy” and no criminality was made out – Supreme Court held such findings conjectural and impermissible at quash stage – High Court virtually conducted a pre-trial appraisal of evidence, which is beyond its jurisdiction under Section 482 CrPC – Proper course was to allow trial to proceed to determine whether forgery and cheating offences were made out [Paras 20–24].

Forgery and Cheating – False Caste Certificate to Contest Reserved Seat – Prima Facie Offences under Sections 420, 467, 468, 471, 120B IPC Made Out – Complaint alleged that accused obtained SC certificate (“Sansi”) based on false affidavits, fabricated panchnamas, and forged verification reports – Certificate later cancelled by Scrutiny Committee and upheld up to Supreme Court – Held: Allegations disclose prima facie case of cheating and forgery – Whether acts constitute offences must be determined at trial, not quashed summarily [Paras 21–27].

Public Office – Misuse of Authority – Role of Public Officers in Issuing False Certificate – Conspiracy – Allegations that local revenue officials, patwari, and councillor abetted in issuance of false certificate by certifying accused as Scheduled Caste without inquiry – Held: Where complaint attributes active collusion to named officials, cognizance justified; proceedings cannot be quashed merely because officials relied on earlier records [Paras 6–9, 25].

High Court’s Approach – “Legal Illiteracy” as Defence at Threshold Impermissible – Finding that accused might have been “ignorant of law” or “mistaken about their caste” is speculative – Such subjective explanations cannot ground quashment when complaint and official findings (Scrutiny Committee) indicate deliberate falsification – Supreme Court emphasizes that issues of knowledge and intent must be tested by evidence at trial [Paras 23–24].

Caste Certificate Fraud – Effect of Cancellation by Scrutiny Committee – Independent Criminal Liability Survives – Even after administrative cancellation of false caste certificate, criminal liability for its fraudulent procurement remains – Complaint alleging forged affidavits and panchnamas discloses independent offences; cancellation does not extinguish culpability [Paras 20–22].

Madhuri Patil Guidelines – Enforcement through Prosecution – Reliance placed on Kumari Madhuri Patil v. Addl. Commissioner, Tribal Development (1994) 6 SCC 241 – Supreme Court reiterates that persons found to have obtained false caste certificates are liable to prosecution; quashing such complaints frustrates the object of the rule of law and constitutional reservation policy [Para 16].

Criminal Conspiracy – Common Intention – Section 120B IPC – Scope – Allegations that accused persons, including councillor and father of principal accused, forged documents and executed false affidavits in concert – Such coordinated acts sufficient to invoke Section 120B IPC at the cognizance stage – Whether conspiracy proved is for trial [Paras 5–7, 22–26].

Result – Appeals Allowed – Quashing Order Set Aside – Trial Restored – Orders of the Madhya Pradesh High Court dated 28.06.2016 quashing criminal proceedings in Misc. Criminal Cases Nos. 5897/2014 and 6319/2014 set aside – Criminal Complaint Case No. 1072/2014 restored to file of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Guna – Trial directed to proceed from stage of cognizance and conclude within one year – Trial to be held uninfluenced by findings of High Court or Supreme Court [Para 28].

Arbitration – Appointment of Arbitrator – Bar of Limitation – Petition seeking appointment of arbitrator under Section 11(5) of Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 dismissed as hopelessly barred by limitation – Claim based on alleged payments under a partnership agreement dated 20.09.2014 and property purchase on 04.05.2016 – Notice invoking arbitration issued only on 09.12.2020 – Court held that even computing limitation from last alleged payment on 04.08.2017, claim was still time-barred – Petition under Section 11(5) filed after further delays, including two years after notice of arbitration – Petition dismissed [Paras 1-6]

Limitation – Last Cause of Action – Receipt of Rs. 1 lakh on 04.08.2017 cited as last transaction – Court held that even with that date as starting point, limitation expired by 09.12.2020 – Prior criminal complaint filed in 2017 also rejected – Subsequent filing before High Court of Karnataka in June 2022, and again before Supreme Court in 2025 held to be belated – No explanation for delay provided – Held: Arbitration claim hopelessly time-barred [Paras 3-6]

Decision: Arbitration Petition dismissed – Pending applications disposed of.

Criminal Law - UAPA – Grounds of Arrest – Mandatory Written Communication – Appellants arrested under UAPA without being furnished written grounds of arrest at the time of apprehension – State argued that grounds were explained by remand court and later supplied to counsel – Held: Explanation by court or post-facto supply to counsel does not satisfy requirement under Section 43B UAPA and Article 22(1) – Arrest and remand proceedings quashed

Constitution of India – Article 22(1) – Protection Against Arbitrary Arrest – Supreme Court reiterates that furnishing written grounds of arrest to the accused at the time of arrest is mandatory – Reading out or explaining by the court is inadequate – Compliance must be contemporaneous and in writing to ensure right to legal remedy – Violation renders arrest illegal

Distinction Between “Reasons for Arrest” and “Grounds of Arrest” – Court draws distinction between general reasons (standard proforma) and personal grounds necessitating arrest – Arrest memo without specific grounds is insufficient under constitutional and statutory mandates

Precedents – Binding Nature – Supreme Court affirms that decisions in Pankaj Bansal v. Union of India, (2024) 7 SCC 576, and Prabir Purkayastha v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2024) 8 SCC 254 are binding under Article 141 – Followed and reiterated by Vihaan Kumar v. State of Haryana – Recent decisions in Kasireddy Upender Reddy and Sri Darshan also affirm compliance requirement

Decision: Appeal allowed – Arrest and remand proceedings set aside solely on ground of non-compliance with statutory requirement of furnishing written grounds of arrest – Liberty granted to State to take appropriate action in accordance with law, if warranted

Criminal Law – Kidnapping – Rape – Unnatural Offences – Conviction Restored – Appellant took 15-year-old minor to another city and subjected her to forcible sexual and anal intercourse – Trial Court acquitted appellant – High Court reversed acquittal and convicted under Sections 363, 366, 376, and 377 IPC – Held: As victim was a minor, her consent is irrelevant – Conviction upheld [Paras 2.5, 11, 15].

Victim Testimony – Credibility – Sterling Witness – Victim (PW-4) gave consistent and detailed deposition of rape and sodomy – Stated sequence of events from abduction to abuse – Also made similar disclosures to examining doctors – No material contradictions – Held: Victim's testimony reliable and qualifies as sterling witness – Conviction can be sustained solely on such testimony [Paras 11, 12, 13].

Medical Jurisprudence – Corroboration of Rape Allegations – PW-1 and PW-2 examined the victim and opined she may have undergone recent sexual intercourse – Though no direct evidence of anal intercourse, possibility of sodomy not ruled out – Medical evidence supported and did not contradict victim’s version – Held: Medical evidence need not conclusively prove offence if ocular testimony is credible [Paras 12–14].

Criminal Procedure – Reversal of Acquittal – Permissible Scope – Trial Court gave undue benefit of doubt despite clear and cogent prosecution evidence – High Court reappreciated evidence and found only possible view was conviction – Held: High Court rightly set aside acquittal – No interference called for by Supreme Court [Paras 5, 16].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – High Court’s judgment affirmed – Conviction and sentence of 7 years’ imprisonment with ₹20,000 fine confirmed – Default sentence of 1-year simple imprisonment upheld.

Criminal Law – Kidnapping and Rape of Minor – POCSO – SC/ST Act s.3(2)(v) – Conviction Upheld – Victim’s testimony held trustworthy and consistent with statement under Section 164 CrPC – Her version that accused took her to forest and forcibly committed intercourse found reliable – Minor contradictions and omissions immaterial – Age proved through school register entry (Section 35 Evidence Act) showing DOB as 15.09.2004 – On date of incident (14.05.2018) victim was below 18 years – Medical evidence corroborated allegations – Doctor (PW-10) found hymenal tear, and FSL report confirmed presence of semen on victim’s vaginal slide and underwear of both victim and accused – Chain of custody proved – Hostile witnesses’ testimony partly relied on for corroboration – Court found no ground to interfere with concurrent conviction – Appeal dismissed [Paras 4, 7, 16-20, 21-25, 26].

Witnesses – Hostile Witnesses – Discretion under Section 154 Evidence Act / Section 157 BSA, 2023 – Judicial Restraint in Declaring Hostile – Court cautions that permission to treat a witness as hostile cannot be granted mechanically or as a matter of routine – It is an extraordinary power to be used sparingly when witness’s testimony is inconsistent, evasive, or indicates deliberate suppression of truth – Minor inconsistencies or non-recollection do not justify declaration of hostility – Reliance placed on Sri Rabindra Kumar Dey v. State of Orissa and Bhagwan Singh v. State of Haryana – Trial Court must record reasons for such declaration [Paras 9-12].

Proof of Age – Evidentiary Value of School Register – Section 35 Evidence Act – School admission register produced and proved by headmaster/teacher (PW-9) as official record of birth – Entries made contemporaneously, maintained in ordinary course of school’s functions – No suspicion regarding authenticity – Therefore admissible under Section 35 and sufficient to determine age of prosecutrix – Birth certificate or ossification test not mandatory where reliable school record exists – Followed State of Chhattisgarh v. Lekhram [Paras 16-18].

Victim’s Testimony – Credibility – Sole Testimony of Victim in Sexual Offences – Court reiterates that conviction can rest on sole testimony of victim if it inspires confidence and is found reliable – Prosecutrix consistently narrated sequence of abduction and sexual assault – Statement under Section 164 CrPC corroborates deposition before Court – Absence of external injuries not fatal, as delay in medical examination explained – Defence cross-examination failed to shake core version – Held: Victim’s testimony forms the substantive basis of conviction [Para 7].

Medical & Forensic Corroboration – Reliability of FSL Evidence – Doctor (PW-10) observed hymenal tear and prepared slides; FSL report confirmed human semen on slides and on victim’s and accused’s clothes – Seizure of exhibits proved by investigating officer (PW-12) – Chain of custody established beyond reasonable doubt – Forensic findings corroborate ocular testimony and exclude hypothesis of false implication [Para 20].

SC/ST Act – Section 3(2)(v) (Post-2016 Amendment) – Knowledge Standard – Presumption under Section 8(c) – Court notes legislative shift post-2016 amendment replacing “on the ground that such person is a member of SC/ST” with “knowing that such person belongs to SC/ST” – Requirement of specific motive based on caste no longer applicable – Once accused is shown to have known victim’s caste, presumption arises under Section 8(c) – In present case, accused was resident of same village and acquainted with family; thus, presumption stands unrebutted – Offence under Section 3(2)(v) made out – Followed Patan Jamal Vali v. State of A.P. [Paras 21-24].

Concurrent Findings – Scope of Appellate Interference under Article 136 – Supreme Court reiterates that where Trial Court and High Court have recorded concurrent findings based on credible evidence, interference is warranted only if perversity or gross misappreciation is shown – In absence of such infirmity, conviction under IPC, POCSO and SC/ST Act sustained – Appeal dismissed [Paras 25-26].

Result – Appeal Dismissed – Conviction under Sections 363, 366, 376, 506 IPC, Section 4 POCSO Act and Section 3(2)(v) SC/ST Act affirmed – Sentences including life imprisonment under SC/ST Act to run concurrently – Accused to continue serving sentence as awarded [Paras 2, 26].

Labour and Service Law – Gratuity – Applicability of Government Notified Ceiling – Regulation 107 – Interpretation – Respondents retired between 2018–2019 from AFC – Gratuity paid with ceiling of ₹7 lakhs as per 2012 Office Order – Held: Regulation 107 of the 2007 Staff Regulations specifically provides gratuity to be paid as per internal formula or “as notified by the Government of Assam from time to time” – State Government had increased gratuity limit to ₹15 lakhs in 2017 – AFC’s failure to adopt higher ceiling does not defeat right of employees – Higher limit notified by State is applicable by operation of the regulation itself [Paras 12–18]

Service Law – Delay in Adoption of Enhanced Benefits by Public Sector Corporation – Equitable Treatment – Lethargy of Corporation – Consequences – Though AFC deferred proposal to enhance ceiling in 2022, Court held that employees who retired prior to formal decision are also entitled to enhanced limit – Observed: Inequitable to deny benefit due to AFC’s inaction – Regulation already incorporated dynamic link with State's notification – Gratuity must be paid as per State-notified ceiling of ₹15 lakhs [Paras 16–19]

Labour Law – Gratuity Act – Non-obstante Clause in Section 14 – No Finding on Statutory Applicability – Though High Court granted relief relying on Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, Supreme Court refrained from expressing conclusive view on Act’s applicability to AFC – Held: Since benefit flowed directly from Regulation 107, no need to determine whether AFC is covered under the Act – Statutory question left open [Para 20]

Interpretation of Service Regulations – Liberal Construction in Favour of Employees – Court held that Regulation 107 must be interpreted benevolently – Restriction of benefit solely based on Board approval is untenable when regulation already mandates alignment with government notification – Notification by Government of Assam to prevail [Paras 16–18]

Decision: Appeal dismissed – Judgment of Gauhati High Court affirmed – Employees of Assam Financial Corporation held entitled to gratuity up to ₹15 lakhs as per Government of Assam notification – Gratuity to be recalculated and paid within six months – Pending applications also disposed of.