Land Acquisition - Compensation and Resettlement - Scheme for allotment of plots to oustees - Interpretation of 'normal allotment rate' - Civil Appeal challenging the price for plots allotted to appellants whose land was acquired for urban development - Supreme Court held that the 'normal allotment rate' should be the rate prevailing when the sector was first floated for sale, not at the revised rate at the time of delayed allotment - Directed HUDA to charge the rate at the time of initial sector launch - Appellants entitled to compensation for delayed compliance. [Paras 1-14]

Allotment Rate for Oustees - Analysis - Held - The term 'normal allotment rate' refers to the price when the sector is first offered for sale, as per the policy requiring claims of oustees before public sale - Delays by HUDA in allotting plots to appellants should not result in higher charges for them. [Para 12-13]

Decision - Appeal Allowed in Part - Allotment Rate Adjustment - Court directs HUDA to charge Rs. 1032/- per sq.m. (or Rs. 863/- per sq.yd) as the allotment price for the six plots allotted to the appellants instead of the revised rate of Rs. 1342/- per sq.m. - Appellants awarded costs of Rs. 2500/- each. [Para 14]

Criminal Law - Bail - Proviso to Section 43D(5) of UAPA - Interpretation and Application – Appeal against High Court's order granting bail to respondent, a dentist, alleged to have treated one of the assailants involved in a violent attack. The Supreme Court emphasized the absence of prima facie evidence proving respondent’s involvement in the crime or conspiracy. Highlighted the respondent’s professional duty under the Hippocratic oath, allowing for medical treatment in emergency situations. Differentiated the case against the respondent from that against the alleged assailants. Discussed the relevance of organization membership and the necessity of proving active and knowing participation in unlawful activities. Reiterated the significance of Article 21 of the Constitution regarding undue delay in trials and the implications of prolonged incarceration on an accused. Held that denying bail in the absence of prima facie evidence constitutes a violation of Article 21. [Paras 1-14]

Role of Respondent in Crime – Analysis and Professional Duty – Held – The Supreme Court found no evidence to substantiate the claim that the respondent was part of a conspiracy or directly involved in the attack. Stressed the duty of a medical professional to provide treatment, even to alleged criminals, in emergency situations. The court highlighted the distinction between professional duty and criminal conspiracy. [Para 12]

Decision – Grant of Bail to Respondent – The Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision to grant bail to the respondent, considering the lack of prima facie evidence of his involvement in the conspiracy and his adherence to professional duties as a doctor. The court also noted the delay in trial and potential violation of Article 21 as significant factors in its decision. [Paras 13-14]

Facts:

The case involves a landlord-tenant dispute over three shops in Erode, Tamil Nadu. The landlord, the appellant, claimed rent increases and sought eviction for demolition and reconstruction. The tenants disputed the rent increase and denied the landlord's title, asserting he was only a co-owner.

Issues:

Whether the tenants committed willful default in paying rent and whether their denial of the landlord's title was bona fide.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that the tenants did not commit willful default in paying rent as the landlord had previously accepted rent payments. Furthermore, the tenants' denial of the landlord's title was not bona fide since they were unaware of a release deed, and their conduct did not renounce their status as tenants. Therefore, the High Court's decision to set aside the eviction order was upheld.

Decision: The appeals were dismissed without costs.