Land Acquisition – Delay in Filing Petition – Maintainability: High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition challenging the land acquisition solely on the ground that it was filed after the passing of the award – Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in not examining the merits of the challenge – Respondents failed to prove that possession of the land was taken and delivered to HUDA – Writ petition maintainable despite being filed post-award [Paras 5, 8, 14].

Misuse of Power – Colourable Exercise of Authority: Acquisition declared illegal due to misuse of power by the state – Notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act cited public purpose, but the real objective was to benefit a private developer – Evidence showed acquisition was for handing over to a colonizer, violating legal provisions for land acquisition for companies [Paras 15-16].

Discrimination – Policy Non-Application: Appellant's plea of discrimination upheld – State policy required release of land with constructions prior to Section 4 notification – Appellant's land not released despite qualifying under the policy – Contrasted with release of land for other private entities without justification [Paras 17-19].

Decision: Appeal allowed – High Court's order set aside – Acquisition of appellant's land declared illegal and quashed – Respondents directed to bear their own costs [Paras 20].

Juvenile Justice – Determination of Age – Section 7A of JJ Act: Appellant claimed juvenility for the first time before the Supreme Court – District and Sessions Judge directed to conduct an inquiry and found the appellant was 16 years old at the time of the offence – Appellant's date of birth confirmed as 01.12.1981, making him a juvenile on the date of the incident, 11.03.1998 – Juvenile Justice Act applies retrospectively in such cases [Paras 2-6, 13-14].

Juvenile Justice – Rule 12 – Procedure for Age Determination: Rule 12 prescribes evidence for age determination – School records confirmed appellant’s date of birth – Medical Board’s report corroborated appellant's age – Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules 2007 and related provisions from the Juvenile Justice Act applied [Paras 10-12].

Sentencing – Benefit of Juvenility – Precedents: Supreme Court upheld conviction but set aside the sentence due to juvenility – Remitting to Juvenile Justice Board unnecessary given appellant's current age – Followed precedents from similar cases: Jayendra v. State of U.P., Bhoop Ram v. State of U.P., Bhola Bhagat v. State of Bihar, Pradeep Kumar v. State of U.P., Upendra Kumar v. State of Bihar, Vaneet Kumar Gupta v. State of Punjab [Paras 16-23].

Decision: Appeal partly allowed – Conviction upheld – Sentence set aside – Appellant directed to be released forthwith if not required in any other case [Para 23].

Criminal Law – Common Object – Section 149 IPC: Conviction of appellants for offences under Sections 148, 302 read with Sections 149, 341 read with Section 149, 323 read with Section 149 IPC – High Court and Sessions Court found that the prosecution case was corroborated by medical evidence – Common object to commit murder not conclusively proved – Injuries being grievous in nature warranted conviction under Section 326 IPC – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside [Paras 19-20].

Evidence – Dying Declaration – Section 32 Evidence Act: Statement made by the deceased considered as dying declaration – Consistent with the evidence provided by eyewitnesses – Medical and forensic evidence supported the assault description – No substantial infirmity in conclusions recorded by lower courts regarding the assault [Paras 14, 17].

Sentencing – Reduction of Sentence – Section 326 IPC: Considering the nature of the weapons used and the injuries inflicted, conviction under Section 302 IPC not sustainable – Offences committed fall within the scope of Section 326 IPC due to grievous nature of injuries – Appellants sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for seven years under Section 326/149 IPC [Paras 20-21].

Decision: Appeals partly allowed – Conviction under Section 302 IPC set aside – Conviction under Section 326/149 IPC imposed with a sentence of seven years rigorous imprisonment – Other convictions and sentences maintained [Paras 21-22].

Representing Advocates:

Sudhanshu S. Choudhary, Rajshri Dubey, Sushil Karanjkar, Sudhanshu Choudhari, Naresh Kumar, Manish Chitale, Chinmoy Khaladkar, Sanjay V. Kharde for the Appellant

Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondent

Property Law – Lease vs. License – Sections 105 and 52: Supreme Court holds that the document of allotment granted to the appellants was a license and not a lease – A license allows use of the property without transferring any interest, whereas a lease transfers an interest in the property – The terms of the document clearly indicate control by the Indore Development Authority (IDA) over the land, supporting the conclusion that it was a license [Paras 16-21].

Land Use – Change of Designation – Sections 23 and 23(A)(2): State Government's notification changing land-use from 'commercial' to 'regional park' upheld – Change made following due process, including inviting objections and hearing the concerned parties – Allegations of malafides not supported by evidence and not involving all necessary parties – Decision to retain land as an open parcel for a regional park considered valid [Paras 7-8, 26].

Administrative Law – Promissory Estoppel: Appellants' claim of promissory estoppel rejected – Legitimate expectations based on alleged promises for renewal of the license not justified – The incomplete development of the land and the intent to use it for purposes other than a children's amusement park violate the terms of the license – Promissory estoppel cannot be invoked in violation of license terms [Paras 25-26].

Decision: Appeal dismissed – The High Court's decision upheld – The appellants' allotment was a license, not a lease – The change of land-use notification and the decision to invite fresh tenders for the land were valid and legal [Para 27].

Criminal Procedure – Quashing of FIR – Article 226: Supreme Court dismisses petition for quashing FIR due to non-compliance with procedural requirements – FIR not placed on record – Necessary parties not impleaded – Protection sought for non-party (husband) – Petition fundamentally defective [Paras 3-7].

Constitutional Law – Right to Choose Partner – Article 21: Petitioner claimed she was a major (born on 2.9.1993) and married of her free will – Asserting right to choose a partner under Article 21 – Court observed procedural lapses in the petition, including failure to attempt obtaining FIR copy or to lodge complaint against alleged harassers [Paras 2-6].

Judicial Conduct – Professional Responsibility: Court criticizes casual approach in legal practice – Incomplete and inaccurate pleadings, non-payment of court fees, failure to serve parties – Emphasizes seriousness of professional conduct and its impact on judicial efficiency – Cites In Re: Sanjiv Datta and Others regarding professional responsibility [Para 7].

Decision: Petition dismissed – Petitioner advised to approach High Court with appropriate petition for relief – Emphasizes need for compliance with procedural requirements in filing petitions [Paras 8].

Criminal Law – Conspiracy and Misconduct – Sections 120B, 409, 420, 468, 471 IPC; Sections 13(1), 13(2), 5(3) PC Act: Allegations of criminal conspiracy against the then Finance Minister in the 2G spectrum allocation case – Supreme Court upheld the impugned judgment rejecting the claims of conspiracy and misconduct – No evidence found to support the involvement of the Finance Minister in the alleged criminal activities alongside A. Raja – Official discussions and decisions, even if flawed, do not constitute criminal conspiracy [Paras 4-5, 18, 19, 52, 53].

Telecom Regulation – Spectrum Pricing and Allocation – TRAI Act: Decisions related to spectrum pricing and allocation were taken by the Department of Telecom (DoT) and approved by the Telecom Commission without the involvement of the Finance Ministry – Allegations that the Finance Minister conspired to fix spectrum prices at 2001 levels dismissed due to lack of evidence – Process followed by TRAI and DoT upheld as per statutory provisions [Paras 20-23, 27].

Judicial Review – Evidence and Proof of Conspiracy: Court emphasizes the necessity of concrete evidence to establish criminal conspiracy – Mere suspicion or poor management not sufficient to prove conspiracy – Rigorous standards of proof applied to allegations of high-level corruption and conspiracy [Paras 39, 52, 53].

Decision: SLP dismissed – Impugned judgment upheld – Allegations against the Finance Minister found baseless – No further investigation warranted [Para 54].

Civil Procedure – Ex Parte Order – Order 9 Rule 7 CPC: Appellant Kanpur Development Authority (KDA) challenged the ex parte order of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (State Commission) and subsequent dismissal of its appeal by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (National Commission) on grounds of non-service of notice – Supreme Court set aside National Commission’s order – Matter remitted for consideration of whether notice was properly served [Paras 1, 15, 21].

Consumer Law – Service of Notice – Sections 2, 12 Consumer Protection Act: State Commission’s order was ex parte due to non-appearance of KDA – National Commission held that notice was served based on postal records – Supreme Court found no conclusive proof of service as per required procedure – Directed National Commission to reassess service of notice and decide appeal on merits [Paras 13-14, 19-21].

Judicial Review – Procedural Fairness: Emphasized importance of ensuring procedural fairness and right to be heard – Reaffirmed necessity of proper service of notice in judicial proceedings – Orders based on inadequate service liable to be set aside [Paras 19-21].

Decision: Appeal allowed – National Commission’s order set aside – Matter remitted to National Commission to decide on proper service of notice and to adjudicate appeal on merits [Paras 21].

Representing Advocates:

Abhishek Chaudhary for the Appellant;

K.P. Sunder Rao, Wajeeh Shafiq, and Chandan Kumar Rai for the Respondent

Motor Vehicles Act – Just Compensation – Sections 166, 168, 173: High Court reduced compensation and interest rate without assigning reasons – Supreme Court held such non-speaking orders as calling for interference – Determined appropriate compensation based on established legal principles and precedents – Multiplier of 16 applied for a 35-year-old deceased – Compensation recalculated to Rs. 13,44,000/- [Paras 3-6].

Judicial Review – Speaking Order: High Court’s order reducing compensation and interest rate set aside due to lack of reasoning – Emphasized necessity for judicial orders to provide reasons to uphold principles of justice and transparency – Recalculated compensation ensuring adherence to legal standards and precedents [Para 3].

Compensation Calculation – Established Precedents: Followed principles laid out in Santosh Devi v. National Insurance Co. Ltd. and Others and Smt. Sarla Verma v. Delhi Transport Corporation – Multiplier and dependency criteria applied – Ensured just compensation for dependents based on earnings and age of deceased [Paras 4-5].

Decision: Appeals allowed – High Court’s order set aside – Compensation of Rs. 13,44,000/- awarded with 7% interest per annum from the date of application till realization – Respondent directed to pay the compensation within three months, crediting any prior payments made [Paras 5-6].

Education – Admission – Qualifying Marks – Appellant challenged the decision allowing respondent's admission to a post-graduate course by rounding off her marks from 54.71% to 55% – Supreme Court held that when eligibility criteria are prescribed, they must be strictly adhered to without any rounding off – Appeal allowed, setting aside the decisions of the High Court and the Single Judge [Paras 1-12].

Rounding Off of Marks – Legal Inadmissibility – The Court emphasized that no statutory provision or rule permits the rounding off of marks for the purpose of meeting eligibility criteria – Highlighted that such practices undermine the rigor and fairness of the eligibility standards, affecting other candidates adversely [Paras 8-10].

Decision: Appeal allowed – The judgment of the High Court and the Single Judge permitting the rounding off of marks set aside – Held that prescribed qualifying marks must be strictly adhered to without any alteration [Para 12].