Facts:

In land acquisition proceedings related to Award No. 79 of 1982-1983, the court had previously fixed the land value at Rs. 76,550/- per Bigha in a judgment dated 03.08.2004. Statutory benefits were denied for a period during which there was a stay operating in the proceedings initiated by the appellants.

Issues:

Whether the appellants could be denied statutory benefits under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, for a period of stay initiated by them.

Held:

The court rejected the argument that the appellants could be denied statutory benefits due to the period of stay initiated by them. It emphasized that such considerations are not relevant for the grant of statutory benefits under Section 28 of the Act. Section 28, which deals with the payment of interest on excess compensation, was interpreted to not exclude any period, and the liability to pay interest starts from the date of dispossession.

The appeals are allowed.

Referred Cases:

Delhi Development Authority Vs. Bali Ram Sharma, (2004) 6 SCC 533

Facts:

The land owned by the appellant and family members was acquired through notifications in 1972 and 1973. Legal challenges ensued, resulting in a judgment in 2001 exempting 10.76 acres from acquisition.

Issues:

The appellants sought the release of land under the Utilisation of Land and Allotment of Plots by Improvement Trust Rules, 1975. The Trust rejected the claim, citing previous allotments and a compromise exempting 10.76 acres.

Held:

The court clarified that the term 'local displaced person' under the Rules is specific to the acquisition concerned.

No evidence supported the Trust's claim of a compromise limiting future claims.

Dismissing the argument of a belated claim, the court noted the dispossession in 2008 and the claim made in 2010.

The court limited the current claim to 250 sq. yards each, considering the appellant's earlier claim, stating it served the interest of justice.

Facts:

Appellant, Nandram, initially employed in Aurangabad, was transferred to various locations, finally ending up in Pondicherry.

Company decided to close Pondicherry unit, leading to the termination of appellant's employment.

Company's registered office is in Aurangabad, and the decision to close the Pondicherry unit was taken there.

Issues:

Territorial jurisdiction of the Labour Court to hear the appellant's complaint.

Jurisdiction of Labour Court in Aurangabad and Pondicherry.

Held:

The Supreme Court held that both Labour Courts have jurisdiction to deal with the matter. While the Labour Court in Pondicherry has jurisdiction since the termination occurred there, the Labour Court in Aurangabad also has jurisdiction as the decision to terminate the appellant was taken in Aurangabad. The Court set aside previous orders and restored the order passed by the Labour Court in Aurangabad.

FACTS:

Consolidation proceedings in Village Karala, Delhi, started in 1975 and concluded in 1976.

After 23 years, respondents filed an application seeking land allotment based on their father's possession during the consolidation proceedings.

Final order by Consolidation Officer on 24.12.2004 allegedly passed without proper notice or opportunity to the appellant.

ISSUES:

Lack of opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

Nature of possession claimed under "Scheme Kabiz" not adequately examined.

Claim under Section 43A made after a delay of 23 years.

HELD:

The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, remitting the matter to the Consolidation Officer for fresh hearing. The final order on 24.12.2004 was deemed to be without proper notice or opportunity. Certain clarifications were provided for reconsideration, emphasizing the need to examine the recording of "Scheme Kabiz," investigate the nature of possession claimed, and limit the jurisdiction under Section 43A to clerical or arithmetical errors. The matter should be re-determined within six months.

Referred Cases:

Amar Singh, Jagram Dead Vs. Chandgi Dead, (1989) 1 SCC 308

Mange Ram Vs. Financial Commissioner, (2003) 2 SCC 1

Facts:

The case involved the seizure of gold biscuits concealed in meal trolleys at IGI Airport, New Delhi.

Two passengers, Varyam Singh and Ranbir Singh, were involved in smuggling, and the respondent, Pramod Kumar Dhamija, was implicated in the investment of money in seized gold.

Adjudication proceedings and criminal prosecution were initiated simultaneously.

The Commissioner of Customs initially imposed a penalty on the respondent, but the Appellate Authority set it aside.

The High Court quashed the criminal proceedings based on the respondent's exoneration in adjudication proceedings.

Issues:

Whether exoneration in adjudication proceedings implies complete innocence in criminal prosecution.

The validity of quashing criminal proceedings based on adjudication proceedings.

Held and Decision:

The exoneration of the respondent in adjudication proceedings was not on merits or indicative of complete innocence in criminal prosecution (Para. 8).

The statement of Kanwar Bhan, the brother of the respondent, suggested the respondent's presence in Delhi in April 1996, contradicting the claim of not visiting India after September 1994. The finding in the appellate order regarding two Pramod Kumars was incorrect (Para. 8).

The High Court's decision to quash criminal proceedings was not justified, and the case was directed to proceed in accordance with the law (Para. 9).

Referred Cases:

Collector of Customs Vs. L.R. Melwani, (1969) 2 SCR 438

K.G. Premshankar Vs. Inspector of Police, (2002) 8 SCC 87

Radheshyam Kejriwal Vs. State of West Bengal, (2011) 3 SCC 581

Facts:

The case involves the Chikotra project and the acquisition of lands from zones benefitted by the project.

Dispute arose regarding the requirement of notice when there is a change in the slab or area to be acquired after the publication of the first notification.

Original notification had Slab III, and a subsequent notification changed it to Slab I, impacting the extent of land available for acquisition.

Issues:

Whether there should be a notice to affected persons when there is a change in the slab or area to be acquired after the first notification.

The interpretation of Sections 13 and 14 of the Maharashtra Project Affected Persons Rehabilitation Act, 1986.

Held:

The High Court was not correct in holding that notice is not required for a change in the slab.

Notice and hearing are essential when there is a change in the slab, as it affects the extent of lands in the benefitted zone.

Procedure under Section 13(2) of the Act is required to be followed in case of a change in the slab reducing the exempted area.

Appellants were permitted to submit objections or suggestions on the change of slab within one month.

The Collector was directed to inquire into objections, forward a report to the State Government within two months, and the State Government to pass orders within two months.

Depending on government orders, the Collector should revise awards already passed, if necessary.

The appeals are allowed.

FACTS:

Original holder alienated Thalavari Inamthi land on 13.05.1971 to an alienee.

The land was re-granted to the original holder on 31.03.1982.

The Tehsildar initiated eviction proceedings against the alienee.

Plaintiff, successor-in-interest of the alienee, claimed ownership in a suit.

ISSUES:

Validity of alienation between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978.

Applicability of the doctrine of "feeding the grant by estoppel."

Competency of the Tehsildar to initiate eviction proceedings.

HELD:

Upon re-grant, the title of the predecessors of the Respondents would relate back. Alienation between 01.02.1963 and 07.08.1978, by principles of "feeding the grant by estoppel," enures to the benefit of the alienee. The Tehsildar was not competent to initiate eviction proceedings under Section 7 of the Act against the alienee. The High Court erred in setting aside the concurrent view.( Para 15)

The appeals are allowed. The judgment and orders of the High Court are set aside, and the Trial Court's judgment in OS No. 19 of 2004 is restored.( Para 16)

REFERRED CASES:

Lakshmana Gowda Vs. State of Karnataka, (1981) 1 Karnataka Law Journal 1

Syed Bhasheer Ahamed Vs. State of Karnataka, (1994) 1 KLJ 385

Facts:

Dattaraj, the respondent-accused No. 1, married Savita.

Monetary demands were made, including Rs. 21,000 at the time of marriage and Rs. 20,000 for agricultural land.

Alleged harassment and demands continued, including gifts during ceremonies and a sewing machine.

Savita died of burn injuries on 1.9.2006, leading to the filing of a complaint against the accused.

The trial court convicted all accused, and the High Court acquitted three, upholding Dattaraj's conviction.

Issues:

Whether the demands made constituted dowry under relevant legal provisions.

Whether there was sufficient evidence of cruelty and harassment leading to Savita's death.

Held:

The court, after examining the evidence, held:

The demand of Rs. 20,000 for agricultural land was too remote from the occurrence to satisfy the "soon before her death" requirement under Section 304B(1) of the IPC.

The sewing machine was a gift to Savita and not part of a dowry demand.

The evidence did not establish harassment or violence against Respondent-accused Nos. 2 to 4.

The High Court's acquittal of Respondent-accused Nos. 2 to 4 was justified, and the appeal was dismissed.

Referred Cases:

Appasaheb Vs. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 9 SCC 721

Kans Raj Vs. State of Punjab, (2000) 5 SCC 207

Rajinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2015) 6 SCC 477

Tummala Venkateswar Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2014) 2 SCC 240

Facts:

The Armed Forces Tribunal considered a case involving the restructuring of officers' cadre in the Army based on recommendations by the AVS Committee. The issue revolved around the allocation of additional vacancies in the rank of Colonel and the distribution among different branches of the Army.

Issues:

Whether the restructuring policy discriminated against officers serving in the Arms Support and Service Corps of the Army.

Validity of the distribution of additional vacancies on a pro-rata basis.

Scope of judicial review concerning the command tenure for officers in Arms and Arms Support.

Held:

Committee's Recommendations and Allocation of Vacancies: The AVS Committee recommended the lowering of the age profile and the creation of additional vacancies for Arms and Arms Support Operational Units. The distribution of the first tranche of vacancies on a pro-rata basis did not violate the recommendations, and there was no illegality or unfairness.

Allocation on "Command Exit Model" Basis: The Committee's recommendation of allocating vacancies on a "Command Exit Model" basis was accepted by the Government. The allocation of the first tranche on a pro-rata basis did not negate the Command Exit Model. However, the allocation of the second tranche on a standalone basis was deemed the right method.

Command Tenure and Judicial Review: The command tenure is a policy matter with limited scope for judicial review. The decision to prescribe a four-year tenure for Arms Support Officers was not arbitrary. The Government's flexibility to consider a three-year tenure for command was accepted.

Creation of Additional Posts: The tribunal directed the creation of 141 additional posts of Colonel to be allocated to the 'Combat Support' stream over a five-year period from 2009 to 2014.

Service Streams and Promotion Cadres: Officers in service streams do not constitute a single cadre with those serving in Arms and Arms Support. Allocation of vacancies should be based on distinct cadres.

Legitimate Expectation: The argument of legitimate expectation was rejected as there was no factual basis for officers to expect simultaneous promotions with Combat Arms or Combat Arms Support. Regulations provided for retrospective promotions to restore seniority.

Policy Not Unreasonable: The policy of lowering the age profile was deemed reasonable, and the argument based on legitimate expectation could not unsettle the laudable policy.

Final Result : Partly Allowed

Referred Cases:

Attorney General for New South Wales, (1990) 64 Aus LJR 327

Chakradhar Paswan Vs. State of Bihar, (1988) 2 SCC 214

Confederation of Ex- servicemen Association Vs. Union of India, (2006) 8 SCC 399

Dr. Chanchal Goyal Mrs. Vs. State of Rajasthan, (2003) 3 SCC 485

Food Corporation of India Vs. Kamdhenu Cattle Feed Industries, (1993) 1 SCC 71

K. S. Srinivasan Vs. Union of India UOI, AIR 1958 SC 419

M. Hara Bhupal Vs. Union of India, (1997) 3 SCC 561

Monnet Ispat and Energy Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (2012) 11 SCC 1

Punjab Communications Ltd. Vs. Union of India, (1999) 4 SCC 727

Ram Pravesh Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (2006) 8 SCC 381

S.I. Rooplal Vs. Lt. Governor through Chief Secretary, Delhi, (2000) 1 SCC 644

Sethi Auto Service Station Vs. Delhi Development Authority, (2009) 1 SCC 180

State of Bihar Vs. Kalyanpur Cements Ltd., (2010) 3 SCC 274

State of U.P. Vs. Bharat Singh, (2011) 4 SCC 120

Union of India Vs. Hindustan Development Corporation, (1993) 3 SCC 499