L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Hari Ram & Anr vs State Of Haryana & Ors

This group of eight appeals involves identical controversy and, hence, all these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. As a matter of fact, five appeals (5440/2000, 5442/2000, 5443/2000, 5444/2000 and 5445/2000) have been disposed of vide common judgment dated August 13, 1998 by the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court. The other three appeals (5449/2000 5441/2000 and 5446/2000) have been disposed of by the High Court vide separate judgments dated March 26, 1998, May 18, 1998 and August 13, 1998 respectively.

4. It is pertinent to mention here that at least four petitioners whose writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court on the ground that Joint Inspection Committee had not recommended release of their land, later on applied under Section 48 of the Act and by separate orders the Government released their land from acquisition. It also appears that some of the owners although did not challenge the acquisition in the 4 court but represented to the Government for release of their land from acquisition and their lands were also released.

6. In pursuance of the order dated August 19, 2008, the appellants made representations before the State Government. The lands owned by them admeasure between 300 sq. yards to 1600 sq. yards. However, the representations made by the appellants came to be rejected on September 29, 2008 on the basis of the policy dated October 26, 2007. 5

25. Consequently, these appeals are allowed and the order of the State Government dated September 29, 2008 is set aside. The respondent no.1 (State of Haryana) is directed to issue appropriate order/s concerning the appellants' lands on the same terms and in the same manner as has been done in the matters of Sumitra Devi, Ram Kala, Mani Ram and others. Obviously, the portion of the lands which in the layout plan forms part of roads or common sites or public utility area shall not be considered for release. No order as to costs.

........................J (D.K. Jain) ........................J (R. M. Lodha) New Delhi February 11, 2010.
Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria & Anr vs State Of Gujarat & Ors

2. The incident that provides the genesis of the case aforementioned took place on 16th November, 2005 in which one Mulubhai Modhwadiya was gunned down resulting in registration of Criminal Case No.I 170 of 2005 at Kamlabaug Police Station, Porbandar for the offences mentioned earlier. Upon completion of the investigation, the jurisdictional police filed a charge sheet on 15th February, 2006 before a Magistrate who committed the same to the Sessions Court to be registered as Case No.5 of 2007.

3. The police charge-sheet cited a large number of witnesses out of whom as many as 134 have been examined by the prosecution. It was, at this stage, that an application was filed by the son of the deceased on 17th March, 2008 in which the applicant prayed for adding the petitioner- Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria as an accused in exercise of the Courts power under Section 319 of the Cr.P.C. The Sessions Judge allowed the said application and added the said Shri Babubhai Bhimabhai Bokhiria as a co- accused in the case vide order dated 29th March, 2008. Aggrieved by his addition as an accused the petitioner preferred Special Criminal Application No.638 of 2008 before the High Court of Gujarat which, as noticed earlier, has been dismissed by the High Court in terms of the order impugned in this special leave petition.

…...........…………………………………….……….…..…J (T.S. THAKUR) ............ ……………………………………….……….…..…J. (FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA) New Delhi January 30, 2013
Union Of India & Anr vs Dinesh Kumar

3. All these appeals have been filed by the Union of India. The main contesting respondents in all these appeals are the members of the Border Security Force. The respondents in all the matters succeeded before the High Court, which took the view that the orders passed against them by the Summary Security Force Court (hereinafter referred to as `SSFC' for short) and the appellate authority were bad and illegal, as there were no reasons given by any of these authorities.

4. On that count, the High Court directed remand in all the matters to the appellate authority under Section 117 (2) of The Border Security Force Act, 1968 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act' for short) for rewriting the order, giving reasons in support of the conclusions reached by the same. The lead judgment was passed on 16.1.2006 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 9427 of 2005 filed by one Constable Hans Raj. Relying on that judgment, all the other Writ Petitions in the above appeals before us were directed to 3 be disposed of. The Union of India has now challenged the lead judgment, as well as other judgments, which were passed relying upon the same.

14. It was, however, urged by all the Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents that since Delhi High Court has disposed of all the petitions only on the sole ground of the absence of reasons in support of the findings by SSFC and the appellate authority, the other contentions on merits of the Writ Petitions were not considered. They, therefore, urged that we should remand back all these matters. We had accordingly remanded the matters. Shri Malhotra, Learned ASG also very fairly conceded that the merits of the Writ Petitions were not considered and, therefore, on that count, it would only be proper to remand the matters back to the Delhi High Court for reconsideration on merits. We have ordered accordingly. In the result, all these appeals filed by the Union of India succeed. All the matters are sent back to the Delhi High Court, which shall be now considered on the other contentions raised on merits. Since the matters have become very old, we would request the High Court to 1 dispose of these appeals as early as possible and not beyond six months from the date when the records reach Delhi High Court.

February 16, 2010 1
Maya Mathew vs State Of Kerala & Ors

JUDGMENT 2010 (3) SCR 16 The Order of the Court was delivered by O R D E R R.V. Raveendran, J. 1. The appellant is a Pharmacist (Homeopathy) in the Homeopathy Department of State of Kerala. The Kerala State Homeopathy Services are governed by the `Special Rules for the Kerala State Homeopathy Services, 1989(`Special Rules', for short). All sub-ordinate services in the State of Kerala including the State Homeopathy Services are also governed by the Kerala State and Sub-ordinate Services Rules, 1958 (`General Rules' for short).

2. Rule 3 of the Special Rules provides that the method of appointment to different categories of posts shall be in the manner specified in the Table given under the said rule. Entry No.5 in the said Table relating to Medical Officers (inserted by G.O. dated 27.5.1999, with effect from 12.4.1999) is extracted below:

5. The appellant and two others filed a writ petition before the High Court seeking a direction to the state government to report to the Public Service Commission 32 vacancies of Medical Officers (Homeopathy) to be filled by appointment by transfer of Pharmacists (Homeopathy). They contended that the cadre strength of Medical Officers (Homeopathy) was 442; that having regard to the ratio of 5:1:1:1 for making appointments (provided in the Special Rules, vide Note (1) to Entry 5 of the Table), out of the said 442 posts, 277 posts could be filled by direct recruitment and the balance of 165 posts had to be filled by transferees from the posts of Nurses, Pharmacists and Clerks in the Homeopathy department at the rate of 55 each; that due to non-availability of qualified persons in the categories from which appointments were to be made by transfer, only 23 from the category of Pharmacists, one each from the categories of Nurses and Clerks were holding the post of Medical Officers, and all other Medical Officers (Homeopathy) were direct recruits; that as the direct recruits were occupying posts in excess of their quota, when making further recruitments, the vacancies to be filled have to be determined by applying the fixed ratio to the cadre strength and not the vacancies then existing; and that as the direct recruits were in excess of their quota and transferees were occupying less than their entitlement, the allocation of 55 vacancies to different categories had to be reworked; and all 55 vacancies ought to be distributed among Pharmacists, Nurses and Clerks without providing for any direct recruitment. The writ petitioners relied upon Note (3) to Rule 5 of the General Rules which requires that the ratio should be with reference to the cadre strength and not the actual vacancies existing at the time of recruitment. The appellant contends that Note (3) to Rule 5 of the General Rules will prevail over Note (2) to entry 5 of the Table under Rule 3 of the Special Rules.

16. It therefore follows that the ratio of 5:1:1:1 has to be applied with reference to vacancies which were notified and not with reference to the cadre strength. There is no ground to interfere with the decision of the High Court. Appeal is dismissed. Application for intervention is dismissed.
Angad Das vs Union Of India & Ors

4. The appellant was recruited as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force, Balia Police Line in the State of U.P. in the year 1969. He was promoted to the post of Lance Naik, then as Naik and thereafter to the post of Head Constable. When the appellant was posted as a Head Constable at Jammu and Kashmir, he was served a show cause notice dated 11.4.1995 by the Commandant 51 BN, C.R.P.F. (respondent no.4) alleging that the date of birth as given by him at the time of joining the service was found false. An enquiry was conducted and thereafter the appellant was compulsorily retired from the service by way of punishment by 2 an order dated 14th June, 1996 by respondent no.4. The said order reads as under:-

5. The appellant had sent a very polite letter of request to the Additional District Inspector General, Police (for short, DIG) praying that his request for re-employment be kindly considered because he has enormous responsibility of educating and marrying five daughters. The prayer was made with folded hands and touching his feet. The letter reflected pinnacle of humility. The relevant portion of request letter reads as under:-

9. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, we are constrained to set aside the orders dated 8th October, 1996 and 2nd August, 1997. Consequently, the order dated 21.5.1996 passed by the Commandant, 51 BN, CRPF as amended by order dated 14.6.1996 of compulsory retirement is restored. The appellant would be entitled to all the benefits which flow from the said order.

11. We also direct that the appellant be paid all the pensionary benefits which have become due and payable to 6 him, with interest at the rate of 9% per annum, within two months from the date of communication of this order.

12. Consequently, these appeals are allowed. Respondent No.1, Union of India is directed to pay costs of Rs.50,000/- to the appellant within two months.

13. We hope and trust that senior officials in future would not be totally oblivious of the problems of the humble and modest employees and pass similar orders.

February 18. 2010.
Sadashiv Shyama Sawant(D) Th:Lrs &Ors vs Anita Anant Sawant

3. Smt. Anita Anant Sawant - the sole respondent filed a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short `the Act') in respect of portion of property being Gram Panchayat House No. 97 situated on land bearing Gat No. 1, Hissa No. 61, Village Ambet, Taluka Mahasala, District Raigad, against the appellants and their predecessors-in-title (hereinafter referred to as `the contesting defendants') and one Smt. Nanibai Shankar Sawant, since deceased, (hereinafter referred to as `defendant no. 4'). The plaintiff averred in the plaint that she purchased the entire house No. 97 from defendant no. 4 by registered sale deed on October 1, 1981. At the time of purchase, part of house No. 97 was in possession of Pandurang Vichare who vacated that portion and she came into possession of entire house. Later on, she let out southern side one room along with hall adjacent to Padavi and northern side room of hall (for short `suit property') to one P.V. Warik. On October 1, 1988, the contesting defendants forcibly dispossessed the tenant - P.V. Warik, threw away his articles and took possession of the suit 2 property. The plaintiff, thus, prayed for recovery of possession of the suit property of which her tenant was forcibly dispossessed. The contesting defendants filed written statement and traversed plaintiff's claim by stating that suit property was joint family property and defendant no. 4 had no authority to sell the said house to the plaintiff. The contesting defendants, thus, claimed that they were co-owners and in possession of the entire house No. 97. Defendant No. 4 set up the plea that no consideration was paid to her for the sale of house No. 97 and that sale deed was obtained by fraud. It transpires, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as six issues, including that of title to property although such issue was unnecessary. The trial court, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, held that plaintiff was able to prove her dispossession on October 1, 1988 by the contesting defendants from the suit property and that she could maintain the suit under Section 6 of the Act against the contesting defendants as she was in possession through a tenant over the suit property. The trial court, accordingly, vide its judgment and decree dated July 31, 2001, directed the contesting defendants to handover the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.

AMARSINGH RUPSANG', 53 Bom 773. I respectfully agree with the view expressed in these cases. I am of opinion that there is nothing to bar a landlord from suing a trespasser under S. 9, Specific Relief Act, for possession even when at the date of dispossession the property is in occupation of a tenant entitled to possession".

21. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Sadashiv Shyama Sawant(D) Th:Lrs ... vs Anita Anant Sawant

3. Smt. Anita Anant Sawant - the sole respondent filed a suit for possession under Section 6 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (for short `the Act') in respect of portion of property being Gram Panchayat House No. 97 situated on land bearing Gat No. 1, Hissa No. 61, Village Ambet, Taluka Mahasala, District Raigad, against the appellants and their predecessors-in-title (hereinafter referred to as `the contesting defendants') and one Smt. Nanibai Shankar Sawant, since deceased, (hereinafter referred to as `defendant no. 4'). The plaintiff averred in the plaint that she purchased the entire house No. 97 from defendant no. 4 by registered sale deed on October 1, 1981. At the time of purchase, part of house No. 97 was in possession of Pandurang Vichare who vacated that portion and she came into possession of entire house. Later on, she let out southern side one room along with hall adjacent to Padavi and northern side room of hall (for short `suit property') to one P.V. Warik. On October 1, 1988, the contesting defendants forcibly dispossessed the tenant - P.V. Warik, threw away his articles and took possession of the suit 2 property. The plaintiff, thus, prayed for recovery of possession of the suit property of which her tenant was forcibly dispossessed. The contesting defendants filed written statement and traversed plaintiff's claim by stating that suit property was joint family property and defendant no. 4 had no authority to sell the said house to the plaintiff. The contesting defendants, thus, claimed that they were co-owners and in possession of the entire house No. 97. Defendant No. 4 set up the plea that no consideration was paid to her for the sale of house No. 97 and that sale deed was obtained by fraud. It transpires, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, the trial court framed as many as six issues, including that of title to property although such issue was unnecessary. The trial court, after recording the evidence and hearing the parties, held that plaintiff was able to prove her dispossession on October 1, 1988 by the contesting defendants from the suit property and that she could maintain the suit under Section 6 of the Act against the contesting defendants as she was in possession through a tenant over the suit property. The trial court, accordingly, vide its judgment and decree dated July 31, 2001, directed the contesting defendants to handover the possession of the suit property to the plaintiff.

AMARSINGH RUPSANG', 53 Bom 773. I respectfully agree with the view expressed in these cases. I am of opinion that there is nothing to bar a landlord from suing a trespasser under S. 9, Specific Relief Act, for possession even when at the date of dispossession the property is in occupation of a tenant entitled to possession".

21. In the result, appeal fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.
Kirpal Singh vs State Of U.P

2. The facts emerging from the record of the case are as under: -

3. The learned Judge framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code whereas other accused were charged under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. All the four accused, including the appellant, were also charged under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The Charge was read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded not guilty to the same and claimed to be tried. The prosecution, therefore, examined witnesses and also produced documentary evidence in support of its case against the appellant and others. After recording of evidence of prosecution witness was over, the learned Judge explained to the accused the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and recorded their further statements as required by Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the further statement the case of the appellant and others was that they were implicated falsely in the case due to enmity. On behalf of the accused 6 witness Pooran Singh was examined as DW-1, whereas Mr. Harish Chander, a fire arm dealer, was examined as DW-2 and Mr. Nihal Chand, arms clerk, was examined as DW-3.

10. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code as well as imposition of sentence of life imprisonment is well-founded and no case is made out by the learned counsel for the appellant to interfere with the same. The appeal, which lacks merit, deserves to be dismissed.

11. For the foregoing reasons the appeal fails and is dismissed.

February 23, 2010.
New India Assurance Co. Ltd vs Raghuvir Singh Narang & Anr

3. Respondents 1 and 2 on 3.3.2003 opted for the Special Voluntary Retirement Package. The Regional Office of appellant informed the Divisional Office at Indore by letter dated 28.3.2003 that in view of several writ petitions challenging the provisions of the Amendment Scheme, the Head Office had instructed that it will not be possible to relieve all the opting Development Officers with effect from 1.4.2003. The respondents were, accordingly informed on 29.3.2003. This was followed by a circular dated 31.3.2003 issued by the appellant stating that status quo should be maintained in regard to Development Officers who have opted for Special Voluntary Retirement Package. On 31.3.2003, the respondents requested the appellant to extend the scheme and give more time for exercising the option under the Scheme, and if that was not possible, then treat the option earlier exercised by them on 3.3.2003 as withdrawn as till that day (31.3.2003) there was no communication from the appellant regarding acceptance of the voluntary retirement.

13. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the judgment of the High Court and dismiss the Writ Petition filed by the respondents before the High Court.
Bhagwan Das & Ors vs State Of.U.P. & Ors

2. The lands of appellants within the municipal limits of Bisanda were acquired for establishing a Upmandi by Krishi Utpadan Mandi Samiti under preliminary notification dated 31.01.2004 and final notification dated 20.03.2006. An award was made by the Land Acquisition Collector on 14.03.2007. The appellants were served a notice 2 on 25.10.2007 by the office of the Collector to appear and receive the compensation. The respondents made enquiries and on 16.11.2007 learnt that an award had been made on 14.3.2007. Immediately they made an application seeking a reference under section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (`Act' for short) to the civil court for determination of compensation. The Collector, Banda vide his order dated 19.12.2007 rejected the application seeking reference, on the ground that it was made beyond a period of six months from the date of the award, prescribed under Section 18(2) of the Act. The appellants filed a writ petition for quashing the said order dated 19.12.2007 and seeking a direction to the Land Acquisition Collector to refer their claim for increase in compensation to the civil court. The writ petition was dismissed on 17.01.2008 as not maintainable, on the ground that an alternative remedy, by way of an appeal under section 54 of the Act, was available against the order dated 19.12.2007 passed by the Land Acquisition Officer. The appellants filed a review petition pointing out that Section 54 of the Act was inapplicable as it only provides for appeals against awards of courts. The review petition was dismissed by order dated 5.5.2008, on the ground that the appellants ought to have filed an application for condonation of delay along with the application for reference, before the 3 Land Acquisition Collector. The appellants have challenged the said orders dated 17.01.2008 and 05.05.2008 in these appeals by special leave.

6. The proviso to section 18 requires that an application by a person interested, to the Collector, seeking reference of his claim for higher compensation for determination by the Court, shall be made within six weeks from the date of the Collector's award, if such person was present or represented before the Collector, at the time when the award was 7 made. If not, the application for reference shall have to be made within six weeks of the receipt of the notice of the Collector under Section 12(2) or within six months from the date of the Collector's award, whichever period shall first expire.

Re : Question (d)

15. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed, the orders of the High Court dated 17.1.2008 and 5.5.2008 are set aside, the writ petition is allowed and the Collector is directed to make a reference to the civil court under section 18 of the Act, without any delay, not later than two months.