L-NLProc/TathyaNyaya-and-FactLegalLlama-NyayaScrape-Datasets huggingface dataset:
Prem Singh vs Sukhdev Singh

2. We do not intend to give detailed facts of the case. The gist of the case is that on 25.05.2005, accused Jagir Singh had caused injuries to Palwinder Kaur, who is the sister­in­law of Prem Singh (PW­1). Prem Singh (PW­1) had gone to the milk chilling centre at Lopoke, because his father was contesting election being contested there. At about 3.15 PM, Prem Singh (PW­1), along with Major Singh (PW­2) proceeded to Civil Hospital at Lopoke to see his sister­in­law, Palwinder Kaur. Satinder Pal Singh (since deceased) was already there in the Hospital.

3. When these two witnesses reached the Hospital, they found a Tata Sumo vehicle bearing registration no. PB­02­AL­5478 was parked outside the Hospital. Accused Sardul Singh alias Kalu came out of the Tata Sumo with a knife in his hand. Accused Sawinder Singh raised a lalkara (exhortation) that Satinder Pal Singh should be killed. Thereafter, Sardul Singh inflicted a knife blow on the person of Satinder Pal Singh which hit both sides of his abdomen and chest. Satinder Pal Singh tried to run away, but in the meanwhile accused Sukhdev Singh, Resham Singh, 3 Sawinder Singh and Swaran Singh, who were armed with rifles came out of the sumo vehicle and fired at Satinder Pal Singh, which hit him on the forehead, right ear, eye and back of the head. Thereafter, he fell down. Prem Singh (PW­1) and Major Singh (PW­2) raised alarm. All the accused ran away with their respective weapons after jumping over the boundary wall of the Hospital, leaving behind the Tata Sumo and one motorcycle.

4. The case of the appellant is that there was a land dispute and Jagir Singh wanted to take possession of the land of the complainant and hence the appeal. FIR was got lodged by Prem Singh (PW­1), at the milk chilling centre at Lopoke, because according to him the police was present there. Thereafter, the police came to the Hospital. After investigation the accused were charged with committing murder of the deceased and other offences. The trial court convicted them. The High Court, in appeal acquitted them mainly on the ground that the medical version was totally different from that of the eye­witnesses and, therefore, reliance cannot be placed on the eye­witnesses.

13. In view of the above discussion, we find no merit in the aforesaid appeals and the same are dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand dismissed.
Rajender @ Rajesh @ Raju vs State (Nct Of Delhi)

2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Atma Ram Gupta (hereinafter ‘deceased’) who was a Councillor of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi ( hereinafter “MCD’) went missing on 24.08.2002. On that day, he left his residence around 10.30 a.m. informing his wife Sumitra Gupta (PW-18) that he would first be going to the house of another Councillor of the MCD, Sharda Jain (A-1) and then be proceeding to attend a Congress Party rally at the Ferozshah Kotla Grounds along with her. His driver, Prabhu Yadav (PW-17) drove him to the residence of Sharda Jain and upon reaching there, the deceased instructed the driver to take the car back to their residence. When the deceased did not return home until evening, enquiries were made by his wife and family 2 members. A missing report was consequently lodged at 1 a.m. on 25.08.2002. Ultimately, the body of the deceased was found on 31.08.2002 in a sub-canal of the Bulandshar Rajwaha/Sanota Canal. A charge sheet came to be filed against nine accused, namely, Sharda Jain (A-1), Raj Kumar (A-2), Pushpender (A-3), Nirvikar (A-4), Rajender (A-5), Roshan Singh (A-6), Shri Pal Singh Raghav (A-7), Satender Kumar (A-8) and Rakesh Kumar (A-9). All the accused were tried before the Fast Track Court, Rohini in S.C. No. 139 of 2006.

5. The convicted persons have approached this Court in the instant appeals. Among them, Roshan Singh (A-6) who had filed Appeal No. 1888 of 2010 expired on 02.05.2017 and his appeal has therefore been dismissed as abated. Accordingly, only the appeals filed by Sharda Jain (A-1), Raj Kumar (A-2) and Rajender (A-5) were heard and have been decided by this common judgment.

6. It is the case of the prosecution that Sharda Jain (A-1) had developed close relations with the deceased. When he began ignoring her for another woman, she hatched a conspiracy with her brother, Raj Kumar (A-2) and two other persons, Rajender (A-5) and Roshan Singh (A-6) to murder him. Pursuant to this, the deceased was taken to village Chajjupur in her car, where 4 two hired assassins, namely, Pushpender (A-3) and Nirvikar (A-

4), shot him dead. It is alleged that the dead body was disposed of with the help of three police officers, namely, Shri Pal Singh Raghav (A-7), Satender Kumar (A-8), and Rakesh Kumar (A-9) who threw it in a canal.

7. There are no eye witnesses to the incident in question. The case of the prosecution fully rests on circumstantial evidence, which has been used to weave a chain that points to the guilt of each of the convicted persons.

(d) a false claim was made by her that she did not visit Ghaziabad on 24.08.2002;

(f) two meetings took place between Sharda Jain, Raj Kumar, Rajender and Roshan Singh at the residence of Sharda Jain, just a few days prior to 24.08.2002;

18. In view of the foregoing discussion, the following order is made:

His bail bonds stand discharged accordingly.

October 24, 2019 33
Govt. Of Nct Delhi vs Pradeep Kumar

The resultant challenge by the Reason: appellants was dismissed under the impugned order of the Page 1/19 High Court of Delhi in the Writ Petition (C) No. 557 of 2019, which has led to the present appeal.

4. The respondents had obtained the CTET i.e. Central Teacher Eligibility Test qualification, under the relaxed pass norms for the OBC category, in States other than Delhi. They offered their candidature for the vacancies in Delhi and appeared in the recruitment test. But their candidature were held to be not-eligible, through the office order dated Page 2/19 19.02.2014 (Annexure P/2). The ground mentioned in the order is that the applicants are “CTET qualified as OBC but OBC outsider”.

17. The question, therefore, to be answered here is whether the above case pertaining to recruitment in Rajasthan with candidates competing for vacancies in their home State, would apply to the situation in the present case where candidates from other states obtaining qualification under Page 11/19 relaxed norms, are aspiring for general category vacancies in Delhi.

25. The respondents with their CTET qualification under relaxed norms would be eligible for OBC category posts Page 17/19 provided their OBC status is certified and recognized by the Delhi government. But such not being the case, they are ineligible for the reserved category vacancies. To allow them to migrate and compete for the open category vacancies would not be permissible simply because, they have secured the CTET qualification with relaxation of pass marks meant for those belonging to the OBC category. As the respondents have not secured the normal pass marks for general category, their eligibility for the general category vacancies is not secured. Therefore, their performance in the selection examination would be of no relevance, in the present process.

26. As earlier discussed, this case concerns qualifications obtained with concession in pass marks. Such concession would have a direct impact on standards of competence and merit in the recruitment of Special Education Teachers. The principles of reservation under the Constitution of India are intended to be confined to a specifically earmarked category and the unreserved category must be protected, to avoid dilution of competence and merit. If Vikas Sankhala (supra) is interpreted shorn of Page 18/19 its peculiar facts, as has been suggested by the respondents’ counsel, it would in our perception, considering that respondents secured the qualification under relaxed norms, would lead to dilution of merit in the unreserved category. The arguments made to the contrary by the respondents is therefore rejected.

27. In view of the forgoing, the High Court and the Tribunal erred in granting relief to the respondents. The impugned judgment of the High Court of Delhi in Writ Petition (C) No. 557 of 2019 dated 21.1.2019 is set aside and this appeal is allowed. No order as to costs.
Jagjiwan Coop. House Bldg. Soc. ... vs Lt. Governor, N.C.T. Of Delhi .

2. The appeals were earlier heard by a Division Bench of this Court and decided vide order dated 26.2.2015. At the time of hearing of the appeal, it was submitted that in view of the provisions contained in section 24(2) of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (the 2013 Act). The acquisition has lapsed. This Court disposed of the appeals and permitted the landholders to initiate appropriate proceedings before the proper forum/court claiming the benefit of section 4 of the 2013 Act, and in case orders under section 24 of the 2013 Act are adverse to their interest, they may apply for reviving the appeal within 90 days of the passing of the order.

5. We find that no case for interference is made out in the appeals filed at the instance of the appellants. There is no rhyme or reason to direct de­notification of the land and a prayer in that regard has already been rejected by the appropriate Government. Merely by the 4 fact that one of the appellants is Cooperative Society, the complexion of the case does not change and this fact was duly taken note of at the time of land acquisition under the Act. Thus, no advantage can be derived from the policy of the State Government, the land acquisition could not be said to be illegal in any manner. There is no room for making indulgence to quash the land acquisition proceedings. Resultantly, the appeals being devoid of merits, are hereby dismissed.
Rajasthan Public Commission Ajmer vs Shikun Ram Firoda

2. The brief facts leading to the present appeals are that an advertisement was published on 18 th June, 2013 inviting applications for various posts in the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services under the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Services (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 19991. Number of posts advertised were 233 in the State Services and 490 in the Subordinate Services. A corrigendum was issued on 24th June, 2013 increasing number of posts to 990. It was on 10 th July, 2014, a Press Note was issued cancelling the examination on account of certain irregularities which came to the notice of the Commission. On 12 th November, 2014, another Press Note was issued, which has led to the present set of appeals. The Press Note gave an opportunity to the candidates to make corrections in their online application forms and change of category after payment of Rs.100/-. The said Press Note reads as under:

3. The last date of submission of application forms was 31 st July, 2013 and the preliminary examination was conducted on 26th October, 2013. The respondents, who shall hereinafter be called as writ petitioners, were serving in the Army on the last date of submission of application form as also on the date on which preliminary examination was held on 26th October, 2013. Laxman Singh, one of the writ petitioners, retired on 31st July, 2014 but applied for change of status from General Category to Ex-servicemen Category in pursuance of the Press Note dated 12th November, 2014. Since, such change was not accepted, writ petitions were filed. Writ petition filed by Laxman Singh was dismissed by the learned Single Bench on 9th November, 2016 holding as under:

10. We have been informed that in terms of order passed by the Division Bench of the High Court, certain candidates have been appointed and have joined the State services, though subject to the decision of the present proceedings. Therefore, in exercise of powers conferred under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, we order that all those Army personnel who have been appointed and 6 joined in the category of Ex-servicemen in terms of the orders passed by the Division Bench of the High Court will continue as such but no other candidate will be appointed in terms of the order passed by the High Court.

11. The appeals are thus allowed.

OCTOBER 25, 2019.
State Of M.P. . vs Murti Shri Chaturbhujnath .

The defendants are in appeal consequent to the dismissal of their second appeal. The respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction which was dismissed. The dismissal was reversed in the first appeal and the suit was decreed.

2. Shri Rahul Kaushik, learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that respondent no.1 was a public Temple. The revenue records were therefore rightly corrected by recording the name of the collector as ‘Vyawasthapak’ (Manager) which was done for better management of the temple properties. Respondent 1 nos.2 and 3 were only “Pujaris”. Therefore, they had no right to claim ownership of the Temple lands, much less have their names entered in the revenue records, seeking restraint against interference. The Temple being situated on government land belonging to the Aukaf Department was a “Devsthani Muafi”. The Pujaris had no “Bhumiswami Rights” in the lands. Reliance was placed on an order dated 22.07.2019 in Civil Appeal No. 5041 of 2009 Ramesh Das (Dead) thr. Lrs. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh & ors., and Shri Ram Mandi Indore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh and ors., 2019 (4) SCALE 302.

3. Conversely Shri Randhir Singh Jain, learned counsel for the respondents, submitted that the Pujaris never claimed any ownership rights in themselves to the lands. The lands belonged to the Deity gifted by Syed Mohammed Ali, Manager of the landlord Hakim. The Deity was in peaceful possession and enjoyment of the lands since very long. Puja was being done by the Pujaris on basis of the income of the Temple. The unilateral correction in the land revenue entries as late as 1979­80, by recording the collector as ‘Manager’ was in complete violation of the procedure prescribed in Section 115 of the Madhya Pradesh 2 Land Revenue Code 1959 (hereinafter referred as “the Code”) as concurrently held by the First Appellate Court and the High Court. Reliance was placed on an order dated 06.10.2016 in Civil Appeal No. 8554 of 2015 “State Government of Madhya Pradesh & ors. vs. Narsingh Mandir, Chikhalda & ors.”.

6. It is not the case of the appellant that the plaintiff Temple stands recorded in the list of public temples prepared in 2013 for the District of Ujjain as noticed in Shri Ram Mandir Indore (supra). The lands have not been taken on lease by the Deity from the Government but from the erstwhile owner. Ramesh Das (supra) is distinguishable on its own facts as the ownership of the lands for a claim of a private temple was not being made in the name of the Deity but those physically in possession of the lands.

The appeal is dismissed with the aforesaid observations.”

9. We therefore find no merit in the present appeal. The appeal is therefore dismissed but with similar observations as aforesaid.

(Sanjiv Khanna) New Delhi, October 25, 2019 6
The State Of Madhya Pradesh Home ... vs Man Singh

3. The accused­respondent, Man Singh filed an appeal. The Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal. On the issue of sentence he found that the accused had been dealt with leniently and 2 refused to interfere with the sentence. A criminal revision was filed in the High Court. The High Court affirmed the conviction but reduced the substantive sentence from one year to the period already undergone and enhanced the fine to Rs.10,000/­.

4. The accused­respondent, Man Singh deposited the fine and then filed a petition under Section 482 of CrPC praying that the fine had been deposited and since he is in Government job, he may be granted benefit of the Act. The learned Judge, without giving any other reasons, directed as follows:­ “After having heard learned counsel for the parties, prayer is allowed and the benefit of Probation of Offenders Act is extended to the petitioner for the purpose that the sentence, which has already undergone would not affect service career of the petitioner. With the aforesaid observations petition stands disposed of C.C. today.” This order is challenged before us. At the outset, we note that the manner in which the learned Judge entertained the petition under Section 482 CrPC is highly improper and uncalled for. There is no power of review granted to the Courts under CrPC. As soon as the High Court had disposed of the original revision petition, upheld the conviction, reduced the sentence to the 3 period already undergone and enhanced the fine, it became functus officio and, as such, it could not have entertained the petition under Section 482 CrPC for altering the sentence.

8. In the present case, on 03.01.2011, the counsel for the accused­respondent sought an adjournment on the ground that the accused proposes to file a special leave petition (SLP) against the order passed in criminal revision petition upholding his conviction. That SLP was filed but dismissed on 28.01.2011. Once that SLP has been dismissed, we cannot grant any relief to the accused­respondent.

11. In view of the above discussion, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
Union Of India vs Sepoy Pravat Kumar Behuria

2. The Respondent was enrolled in the Indian Army as Sepoy in the Unit 981 AD Regiment Workshop on 02.02.2002. He was posted at Jamnagar on 01.06.2011 and was scheduled to be on the third night duty from 04:00 hrs to 06:00 hrs. Thus, he was excused from physical training parade. On 02.06.2011, at about 07:45 1 hrs, he assaulted Subedar/Master Technical (Communication) Satyendra Singh Yadav, with a Talwar (grass cutting tool) without any provocation. Initially, the Respondent hit Subedar/Master Technical (Communication) Satyendra Singh Yadav on his head from behind and when Subedar/Master Technical (Communication) Satyendra Singh Yadav turned around, the Respondent hit on his forehead with the Talwar. When the Respondent attempted to give a third blow, Naib Subedar A. P. Singh intervened. Subedar/Master Technical (Communication) Satyendra Singh Yadav was immediately shifted to Gokul Hospital, Jamnagar and a surgery was conducted by a Neurosurgeon as his skull bone was fractured leading to internal bleeding and blood clotting in the brain.

4. The proceedings for recording the summary of evidence were initiated by Lt. Col. Amarvir Singh. Twelve witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution between 10.06.2011 and 15.06.2011. According to the Appellants, the Respondent declined to cross-examine the prosecution witnesses. The Respondent had voluntarily given a statement that he hit the victim with a grass cutting tool without any provocation. Thereafter, on 20.10.2011, additional summary of evidence was recorded. Two additional witnesses were examined and witness No. 2 and 12 were re-examined in the presence of the Respondent. The prosecution alleges that the Respondent refused to cross-examine the witnesses though he was given an opportunity to do so.

5. By an order dated 23.07.2012, the Summary Court Martial found the respondent guilty and imposed the sentence of dismissal from service.

2. The Appellate Court must always give proper weight and consideration to the findings of the trial Court.

15. Applying the law laid down by this Court as stated above, we are of the opinion that the judgment of the Tribunal should not be interfered with. 1 (2008) 10 SCC 450 11 | P a g e

17. For the aforementioned reasons, the judgment of the Tribunal is upheld and the Appeal is dismissed.
The Government Of Tamil Nadu And Anr. ... vs Arulmighu Kallalagar Thirukoil Alagar ...

1. H.H. Sri Sundara Ramanuja Periya Jeer Swamigal of Periya Jeer Swamigal Mutt, Tirupati and five others (hereinafter referred to as “devotees”) filed O.S.No.178 of 1982 in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Madurai for a declaration that the entire forest area in Alagar Hills belongs 1 | Page to Sri Arulmighu Kallalagar also called Sri Sundarajasami or Sundara Bahu or Paramasamy, the Presiding Deity of the Respondent-temple. A consequential relief of possession of the said forest area was also sought. O.S. No.171 of 1987 was filed by Arulmigu Kallalagar Thirukoil Alagar Koil (for short “the Respondent”) in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Madurai for a direction to the Government of Tamil Nadu (for short “the Appellant”) to deliver possession of the schedule mentioned property i.e. Alagar hills. Relief of permanent injunction restraining the Defendant i.e. the Appellant-herein and the Chief Conservator of Forest Department from disturbing the underground water reserves by digging wells or in any other manner was also sought. The schedule mentioned property is to an extent of 15,838.4 acres at Sellappa Naickenpatti Village. O.S. No.171 of 1987 filed by the Respondent, was dismissed by a judgment dated 14.03.1988 and O.S. No.178 of 1982 filed by the devotees was dismissed on 28.09.1995. The Appeals filed against the judgments of the trial Court were allowed by the High Court of Judicature at Madras vide judgment dated 27.06.2003. Aggrieved by the judgment, the Appellant approached this Court by filing the above Appeals.

18. We do not agree that the respondent was in continuous possession under an assertion of title as there is no evidence on record to reach such a conclusion. The presumption of lost grant is therefore not permissible.

19. The finding recorded by the High Court that there is adequate material to hold that Alagar hills belong to the temple is erroneous. The trial Court is right in holding that the Respondent miserably failed in producing any material to prove its title.

17 | P a g e

21. In view of the above, the judgment of the High Court is set aside and the Appeals are allowed.
Ravindra Singh vs District Inspector Of Schools

9. The UP Secondary Education Services Commission and Selection Boards Act, 1982 hereinafter “the Act, 1982”, was enacted to constitute Selection Committees and Selection Boards to select teachers for appointment in Government Aided Private Educational Institutions. Since the Commission 2(1996) 10 SCC 62 Page 5/14 failed to commence functioning before 01.11.1983, in order to address the difficulties in the interregnum, the Government had issued the First Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Service Commission (Removal of Difficulties) Order dated 1981 followed by the 2nd Removal of the Difficulties Order, 1981, to fill up short term vacancies. The Section 16 of the Act of 1982, provides for recruitment of teachers by the Commission on the requisition made by the Management and then the selected teachers are allotted to the Intuitions/Colleges as per their requirement. When the Commission is unable to allot teachers, Section 18 comes into operation and permits appointment of ad hoc teachers, as a transient measure.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .”

14. When the impugned judgment is analysed in light of the applicable norms, there is no escape from the conclusion that the appellant’s appointment by the Management, was not in accordance with paragraph 5 of the Removal of Difficulties Order. We are also of the view that the ratio in Radha Raizada (supra) of the Allahabad High Court (approved by the Supreme Court in Prabhat Kumar Sharma Page 13/14 (supra)) was correctly applied to the present facts. The State coffer should not according to us, be burdened with salary obligation for an appointment, not made by them. The decision repudiating the salary claim for the appellant is also found to be in order since the Management failed to adhere to the due process in filling up the substantive vacancy. Moreover, the State had imposed a ban on appointment during the relevant period. Therefore, the appellant cannot enforce a claim for salary against the State. The Appeal accordingly is found devoid of merit and is dismissed. The parties to bear their respective cost.