Facts:

The appellants leased their property to the Government, which was requisitioned, derequisitioned, and again requisitioned. The Estate Officer issued an eviction notice under ss. 4(1) and 4(2)(b)(ii) of the Public Premises Act, treating the appellants as unauthorized occupants. The High Court upheld the notice.

Issues:

Whether there is a bona fide dispute on the ownership of the property, and if so, does the Estate Officer have jurisdiction to invoke eviction powers under the Public Premises Act?

Held:

The appellants raised a bona fide dispute on ownership. The Estate Officer lacks jurisdiction to use summary eviction powers when a genuine dispute exists. Union of India admitted the dispute and initially expressed intent to pursue dispossession through a civil suit.

Quashing the resumption notice by the High Court meant Union of India couldn't resort to any summary remedy for eviction. The Civil Court is the proper venue for deciding ownership disputes, not summary proceedings under the Public Premises Act.

The principle of merger doesn't apply as the superior court didn't delve into the merits decided by the subordinate court. The order of the subordinate court holds unless the superior court specifically addresses the merits.

The court referred to Express Newspapers case, holding that A.P. Sen J.'s view is the majority view, binding under Art. 141. The appellants genuinely disputed ownership, and the Estate Officer lacked jurisdiction under the Public Premises Act.

Facts:

Appellants and two others were prosecuted for offenses under Sections 323, 324, 452, 504, and 506 IPC.

Acquitted by the Judicial Magistrate, Mathura, but the State appealed.

Appellate Court convicted appellants, sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment and fines.

Appellants filed a criminal revision before the High Court, which was dismissed ex parte.

Issues:

Validity of High Court's dismissal of the revision without assigning reasons.

Held:

The High Court failed to apply its judicial mind while dismissing the revision, lacking justification for interference. (Para 11)

The expectation was for the High Court to consider factual and legal aspects before passing appropriate orders, which was not fulfilled. (Para 12)

The impugned order lacked reasoning, making it improper for disposal in such manner. (Para 12)

Decision:

The appeal was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the High Court for fresh consideration of the revision petition within six months. (Para 14)

FACTS:

A First Information Report (FIR) was lodged regarding the fatal assault on the cousin of the Informant on 23.02.1997.

The trial involved 17 accused persons, including the present appellants, charged with offences under various sections of the IPC.

The prosecution witnesses provided inconsistent testimonies, and the appellants were not named in the initial reporting by PW-2.

The Trial Court found all accused guilty, leading to an appeal in the High Court.

ISSUES:

Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt.

Whether the appellants were named in the initial reporting and subsequent testimonies.

HELD:

The judgement highlights the statements of prosecution witnesses, including PW-2, PW-3, and PW-4, presenting their accounts of the incident.( Para 5)

The Court acknowledges the principle of vicarious liability but emphasizes the need for clarity in establishing a person's membership in an unlawful assembly.( Para 10)

Noting the absence of the appellants storming inside the house, the Court questions the sufficiency of evidence to establish their involvement in the crime.( Para 11)

The Court observes the lack of naming appellants in the FIR by PW-2 and the absence of attributing specific overt acts to them in his subsequent testimony. PW-3 and PW-4 did not name the appellants, raising doubts about their involvement.Considering the factual aspects, the Court concludes that guilt is not established beyond reasonable doubt, granting the benefit of doubt to the appellants.The appeals are allowed, and the appellants are acquitted of all charges. They are to be set at liberty unless required for any other offence. ( Para 12)

Facts:

The respondents, members of trade unions, were casual workers in the Border Roads Organization (BRO).

They sought regularization, claiming to have worked for a considerable period on a project for the construction of roads in Uttarakhand for the Char Dham Yatra.

The Single Judge allowed the writ petition, directing the Union of India (UOI) to regularize their services.

The Division Bench affirmed and modified the Single Judge's order, issuing further mandamus for the UOI to frame a scheme for the regularization and provide specific facilities to the workers.

Issues:

Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition and issuing directions for regularization and framing a scheme.

Whether the Court has the authority to frame a scheme, or it is the prerogative of the Government.

Held:

The Supreme Court referred to the precedent in Union of India v. Vartak Labour Union, where it was held that casual employment terminates when discontinued, and engagement beyond the original period doesn't entitle workers to absorption into regular service.

The Court held that it is not the function of the Court to frame a scheme; it is the sole prerogative of the Government.

The High Court's approach was criticized, emphasizing that, in exceptional cases, the Court may issue directions to consider framing a scheme, but not beyond that.

The Court noted that the UOI has already framed a welfare scheme for casual workers, providing specific benefits.

The appeal was allowed, setting aside the High Court's order, and the writ petition by the respondents was dismissed.

Facts:

Respondent appointed as Assistant Teacher in 1994, promoted to Trained Graduate Teacher in 2007.

Granted Assured Career Progression (ACP) on April 25, 2008, with upgraded pay scale from August 10, 2006.

6th Central Pay Commission enforced on August 29, 2008, with Central Civil Service (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

Respondent's pay revised on November 18, 2009, under Rules of 2008, but fixation disputed.

Issues:

Applicability of Rule 7 or Rule 11 for pay fixation under the Central Civil Services (Revised Pay) Rules, 2008.

Discrepancy in the manner of pay fixation as per respondent's representation.

Held:

Provisions of Rule 11 are applicable since the respondent opted for revised pay scale from August 10, 2006, the date of ACP upgradation.

Rule 7 deals with the initial pay in the revised pay structure as per the 6th Central Pay Commission, while Rule 11 deals with pay fixation after January 1, 2006, when a government servant continues to draw pay in the existing scale.

Noteworthy that Note 2A of Rule 7, relied upon by appellants, is not applicable in cases of upgradation under ACP scheme, as was the situation in this case.

The decision in Union of India Vs. K.V. Rama Raju, (2018) 2 SCALE 239, is distinguishable, as it did not deal with the specific scenario of exercising the option from the date of upgradation under the ACP.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, and pay revision under Rule 11 is ordered. Arrears, if any, to be paid within three months.

FACTS:

The respondent, Bunty, participated in the selection process for the post of Constable in 2013.

During the selection process, a criminal case involving moral turpitude under Sections 392 and 411 of the IPC was pending against Bunty.

Bunty was acquitted subsequently, with the judgment and order attaining finality.

The Screening Committee denied Bunty's appointment, citing reasons related to his involvement in the criminal case.

ISSUES:

Whether Bunty's acquittal was a clear exoneration or based on a benefit of the doubt.

The suitability of Bunty for the position of a Police Constable, considering the nature of the allegations and the Screening Committee's decision.

HELD:

The respondent participated in the selection process when the criminal case was pending, and he was subsequently acquitted. However, the acquittal was based on the benefit of the doubt, not a clear exoneration.

In cases of moral turpitude, especially involving serious offenses, mere acquittal on technical grounds does not automatically qualify an individual for a position in the disciplined police force.

The Screening Committee's decision to deem Bunty unfit for the role was appropriate, considering the serious nature of the allegations and the lack of a clear acquittal.

The court emphasizes the importance of maintaining a disciplined police force and the need for candidates with impeccable character.

The court refers to previous decisions, including Mehar Singh and Avtar Singh, supporting the Screening Committee's authority to assess fitness based on all relevant facts, even in cases of acquittal.

REFERRED CASES:

Avtar Singh Vs. Union of India, (2016) 8 SCC 471

Commissioner of Police, New Delhi Vs. Mehar Singh, (2013) 7 SCC 685

Joginder Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh, (2015) 2 SCC 377

State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Parvez Khan, (2015) 2 SCC 591

Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration Vs. Pradeep Kumar, (2018) 1 SCC 797

Facts:

Tiruchanur village is a minor Inam village under the Andhra Pradesh Inams (Abolition & Conversion into Ryotwari) Act, 1956.

The entire land in Survey No. 234 of Tiruchanur village is classified as "Peddacheruvu Poramboke" (Tank Poramboke).

The Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984 notified Survey No. 234 as "Peddacheruvu Poramboke."

Issues:

Whether the land in Survey No. 234 is available for grant of ryotwari patta under the provisions of the Inams Abolition Act.

Challenge to the Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984.

Held:

Per R. Banumathi, J.:

Tiruchanur village falls under the Inams Abolition Act, and the entire land in Survey No. 234 is classified as "Peddacheruvu Tank."

Communal government poramboke lands fall under Section 2-A of the Inams Abolition Act, making them unavailable for ryotwari patta.

The Gazette Notification dated 03.09.1984 was not challenged, and the High Court rightly declined to quash the District Collector's order.

Per Indira Banerjee, J. (Concurring):

The Inams Abolition Act aims to abolish Inam lands, and Section 2-A vests certain lands in the government.

The appellants did not challenge the Gazette Notification, and the decision was based on materials, not warranting interference.

Decision: The appeal is dismissed, affirming the District Collector's order.

Facts:

The State acquired land for the construction of Satluz-Yamuna canal under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

The appellant, a landowner, contested the compensation determined by the Land Acquisition Officer (LAO).

The Civil Court, on appeal, enhanced the compensation.

The High Court, in a lead appeal (Hari Singh's case), partly allowed appeals by landowners, enhancing compensation for lands in 9 villages, including Bhago Majra.

The appellant challenged this decision, seeking further enhancement.

Issues:

Whether the appellant is entitled to claim additional compensation for the land acquired.

Whether the High Court erred in determining the market value of the land in question.

Held:

The appellant failed to demonstrate that Courts below overlooked crucial evidence or that the High Court committed fundamental errors.

The High Court considered all aspects, including location, distance from Chandigarh, and land quality, in determining compensation rates for each village.

The appellant's argument for additional compensation for Bhago Majra was dismissed.

The High Court's approach, examining each village's potential from various angles, was deemed just and proper.

No grounds were found to further enhance compensation beyond the High Court's decision.

The appeal was dismissed.

Facts:

Beniram Gond, a member of a notified Scheduled Tribe, executed a sale deed of agricultural land in 1964 in favor of Dhaniram, a non-tribal.

Section 170B of the Madhya Pradesh Land Revenue Code, 1959, was inserted in 1980, allowing reversion of land transferred fraudulently from a tribal member.

Legal proceedings initiated by Beniram's son under Section 170B resulted in the Collector's order reverting the land to Beniram.

Issues:

Validity of the order under Section 170B challenged by Dhaniram, leading to a writ petition dismissed by the High Court in 1987.

Subsequent suit by Dhaniram challenging the Collector's order, barred by Section 257 (L-1) introduced in 1995.

Held:

The High Court erred in allowing the suit challenging the Collector's order when a prior challenge was decided in 1987. The civil court cannot arrive at a conclusion contrary to the High Court's final judgment.

The appeal is allowed, setting aside the High Court's judgment and restoring the Trial Court's decision to dismiss the suit.