Civil Appeal – Land Acquisition – Consent Terms – Limitation – Appeals arising out of land acquisition proceedings where the High Court allowed the First Appeals, setting aside the award and remanding the matter to the Reference Court to decide the question of limitation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Appellant-trust aggrieved by the judgments and orders passed in First Appeal Nos. 1447 of 2006 and 1490 of 2006 by the High Court. [Para 1-2]

Consent Terms – Interpretation – Parties arrived at consent terms to determine the market value of the lands as on 17.12.1994. High Court disposed of the Writ Petition giving directions in terms of the consent terms. Respondent-Committee raised the issue of limitation before the Reference Court, taking undue advantage of ambiguity in the consent terms. Doctrine of harmonious construction applied to interpret the document as a whole. [Para 7-8]

Limitation – Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act – Issue of limitation raised by the respondent-Committee found to be not tenable and highly unreasonable. Reference Court's findings that the Reference was filed within the period of limitation as per the High Court's order were well-reasoned. High Court's interference with the findings was erroneous. [Para 6, 9]

Decision – Impugned judgments and orders passed by the High Court set aside. Both the appeals allowed. [Para 10]

Criminal Appeal – Acquittal under NDPS Act – Violation of safeguard under Section 50 – Appellants convicted under Section 20(b)(ii)(C) of the NDPS Act – Challenge to conviction on the basis of violation of the safeguard provided in Section 50 – Consent letter failed to inform appellants of their right to request a search before a gazetted officer or Magistrate – Precedent in Vijaysinh Jadeja case establishes mandatory nature of informing suspect about this right – Violation of safeguard found. [Para 4-8]

Acquittal – Conviction based on recovery of illicit items – Violation of Section 50 safeguard renders recovery suspect – Conviction solely based on such recovery could be vitiated – Appellants acquitted due to violation of safeguard. [Para 8-9]

Relief – Appeals allowed – Appellants acquitted of charges – Bail bonds to be canceled if appellants were on bail – Appellants in custody to be set at liberty. [Para 9-10]

Appointment – Assistant Teacher – Illegal Appointment – Appellant claimed appointment as Assistant Teacher in Bengabari M.E. School and sought release of salary from 12.03.2001 onwards. The Director of Elementary Education, Assam, declared all appointments, including the appellant’s, as illegal and void ab initio, as they were made against non-existent posts [Para 4].

Jurisdiction – Appointment Beyond Legislative Assembly Constituency – The appellant’s appointment was beyond the Udalguri Legislative Assembly Constituency, making it invalid and in violation of the Rules [Para 4].

Continuation in Service – No Legal Right – Once the appointment of the appellant had been declared illegal and void ab initio, and was canceled, the appellant could not legally continue in service. The appellant had no legal right to continue in service, especially when there was no order or letter allowing her to continue beyond 31.03.2002 [Para 7].

Claim for Salary – Dismissed – No claim for payment of salary could be made for any period, as the appellant’s appointment was declared illegal. The appeal was dismissed, concurring with the reasons recorded by the High Court [Para 8].

Arbitration – Road Construction Contract – Award Set Aside by High Court – Appeal by Contractor – Challenge to the common judgment of the Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court, which set aside an award in favor of the appellant concerning a road construction contract [Para 1-7].

Limitation – Claim Crystallization – The court observed that the claim crystallized upon the issuance of the final bill, and the claim before the civil court for the appointment of the arbitrator was within the period of limitation [Para 18-19].

Contractual Period – Delay in Submission of Claim – The court rejected the argument that the claims were not within the contracted period, considering the inordinate delay and extensions of time by mutual consent [Para 19].

Award of Damages – Water Releases in Canal – The court found no error in the award of damages for disruption in work due to water releases in the canal, and the tribunal consciously refused to grant damages for certain periods [Para 20-22].

Arbitrator – Sole Judge of Facts – Emphasis on the arbitrator as the sole judge of facts; interference with the award should be avoided unless an error of law is shown [Para 23-24].

Decision – Award Restored – The court set aside the impugned judgment and the judgment of the trial court, restoring the award. The respondents were directed to ensure full payment in terms of the award to the appellant within eight weeks. The appeals were allowed, and the appellant was entitled to costs throughout [Para 25].

Civil Appeal - Jurisdiction - High Court's Jurisdiction under Article 226 - Validity of Assignment and Resumption Proceedings - Scope of - Whether High Court's decision to entertain and decide disputed questions of fact was within its jurisdiction under Article 226 - Whether resumption proceedings against allotted land were valid - Examination of - Disputed questions decided based on documents and records - High Court not deciding fact in issue on title, identity, or entitlement - Admitted documents forming basis of findings - High Court's approach deemed appropriate - Jurisdiction under Article 226 not exceeded. [Para 10, 12.2]

Property Dispute - Land Allotment - Resumption Proceedings - Power of re-entry - Law on power of re-entry - Re-entry without reference to law - Whether needs of justice demand interference by Supreme Court against impugned Judgment - Examining needs of justice - High Court's finding on Points 1 and 2 available from record - Respondent-State's method for dispossessing or attempting to dispossess first petitioner unconstitutional and illegal - State's objections against impugned Judgment rejected - Respondent-State's actions contradictory and arbitrary - Answer of High Court upheld. [Para 11, 12, 12.1]

Land Allocation - Government Land - Allotment to Armed Personnel - Allocation of land to armed personnel participated in Indo-China war - Assignment order for land settlement in favor of Surgeon Vice Admiral GP Panda - Validity of assignment examined - Revision against assignment order dismissed earlier - Land allocated to IDCO subsequently - Resumption proceedings initiated against allotted land - State's attempt to dispossess and allocate land to IDCO found unconstitutional and illegal - State's actions contradictory and arbitrary. [Para 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8]

Appeals - Dismissal - Appeals filed by State and IDCO - Dismissal of appeals - High Court's findings based on documents and records, not disputed questions of fact - Appeals lacked merit - High Court's decision in favor of GP Panda's legal heirs affirmed - Importance of lawful process emphasized. [Para 9, 13, 14]

Criminal Appeal - Regular Bail - Offence under Sections 302 and 114 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - High Court granted regular bail to the respondent No.2 - Appellant challenged the High Court's order - Peculiar nature of the case and considerations warrant further review by the Supreme Court - Special leave granted. [Para 1-5]

Bail Criteria - Considerations for granting bail - Settlement between parties and absence of adverse antecedents considered by the High Court - Importance of proper assessment of circumstances and antecedents in bail decisions. [Para 7-8]

Antecedents of Accused - Criminal antecedents of respondent No.2 considered by the State - Record of previous FIRs and subsequent arrest during bail period - Antecedents indicate propensity towards committing crimes - Significance of considering antecedents in bail decisions. [Para 8-9]

Tampering with Evidence - Apprehension of tampering with evidence if accused remains on bail - Defense's argument against tampering with evidence - Court's consideration of this aspect. [Para 10-11]

Denial of Bail - Inadequacy of time spent in custody and serious nature of the offence - Antecedents and propensity towards crime weighed in decision - High Court's bail order quashed and set aside - Respondent No.2 directed to surrender before the trial court. [Para 12]

Future Bail Application - Possibility of future bail application based on new facts and circumstances acknowledged - Directions for consideration of any new application in accordance with law. [Para 14]

Criminal Procedure – Complaint under Section 200 of CRPC – Allegation of offences under Sections 120-B, 406, 420 read with Section 34 of IPC – Summons issued – Objection raised by respondents regarding non-compliance with Section 202(1) of CRPC – High Court quashed the summons and remanded the complaint for compliance with Section 202(1) – Petitioner’s contention of substantial compliance with examination of complainant before issuing summons – Reliance on Vijay Dhanuka case – Mandatory nature of Section 202(1) of CRPC emphasized – Failure of substantial compliance in this case – Impugned order of remand upheld. [Para 2-5]

Writ Petition (Criminal) – Revival of Withdrawn Petition – Differentiated Issues – Petitioner initially approached Delhi High Court with a writ petition – High Court passed interim orders, including medical evaluation – Petitioner later withdrew the petition based on a Supreme Court decision in another case – High Court’s order noting withdrawal – Supreme Court decided to address present petition separately due to distinct issues raised – Petitioner’s concerns related to detention procedure and medical facilities – Supreme Court set aside High Court’s order, revived the writ petition before Delhi High Court – Directed provision of necessary medical treatment based on medical advice – Registrar (Judicial) instructed to forward order to High Court – Pending application disposed of. [Para 1-13]

Divorce – Irretrievable Breakdown of Marriage – Appellant and respondent married for 12 years with a 12-year-old daughter – Living separately for over a decade – Previous attempts at reconciliation failed – High Court dismissed divorce petition – Appeal to Supreme Court – Court finds irretrievable breakdown of marriage due to continued bitterness, dead emotions, and long separation – Grant of decree of divorce justified – Appellant directed to deposit Rs.20,00,000/- for the daughter’s education – Maintenance amount and visitation rights granted – Mediation Centre to decide visitation terms – Decree of divorce granted. [Para 2-8]