251. POCSO – Rape -- Bail to juvenile in conflict with law/ CCL – Right of -- Penetrative sexual assault on minor prosecutrix -- Word “shall”, suggests that normally, prayer, if any, made for grant of bail deserves to be allowed -- No material worth credence was ever adduced on record by the prosecution to suggest that in the event of CCL being enlarged on bail, he may not only come in contact of hardened criminals but may again indulge in such activities – Principle of non-stigmatizing semantics is required to be followed -- Bail allowed with conditions. (HP HC) Decided on: 21.08.2024

252. Additional evidence in Rebuttal -- The fact concerning which, additional evidence being sought to be led, was already pleaded in the plaint -- In fact, it was the foundational fact -- Plaintiffs were required to lead evidence in affirmative on the facts pleaded in the plaint -- They cannot be allowed to lead such evidence in rebuttal -- Application dismissed. (HP HC) Decided on: 21.08.2024

253. Appointment of Local Commissioner – Suit for declaration -- No allegation in the plaint that defendants had encroached the suit land -- Suit itself was for declaration simplicitor that plaintiff had become owner of some portion of suit land by adverse possession & remaining portion of suit land by purchase -- It was for the plaintiff to prove his case by leading cogent evidence -- Plaintiff cannot be permitted to involve the Court in an exercise to hunt for evidence – Application dismissed. (HP HC) Decided on: 21.08.2024

254. Appeal – Pleadings – It is well-settled principle of law that the Court cannot create any new case at the appellate stage for either of the parties, and the appellate court is supposed to decide the issues involved in the suit based on the pleadings of the parties. (SC) Decided on: 21.08.2024

255. Pre-emption decree – Partition of land – Naksha bey – Naksha jeem -- Severance of co-sharer status -- Prior to the passing of the judgment and decree by the trial Court not only the 'naksha bey' had been sanctioned but even the 'naksha jeem' had been prepared and thus, on the date of the judgment and decree, there was severance of the relationship of co-sharers between the plaintiffs and defendants No.1 and 2 and thus, the plaintiffs had no right of pre-emption on the date of the passing of the judgment by the trial Court. (P&H HC) Decided on: 21.08.2024

256. Regularisation of daily wages employees – Petitioners completed more than 14 years of service -- Services of the petitioners can be regularized under Regularization Rules of 2013 -- Respondent cannot take other plea to deprive the petitioners of their right to claim regularization with the respondent-Department -- Writ petitions allowed, a writ of mandamus issued commanding the respondents to consider the case of petitioners of all these writ petitions for regularization. (UK HC) Decided on: 21.08.2024

257. NDPS -- Recovery from Bag – Compliance of Section 50 of NDPS Act – Requirement of -- If the recovery was not from the person and whereas from a bag carried by him, the procedure formalities prescribed u/s 50 of the NDPS Act was not required to be complied with. (SC) Decided on: 20.08.2024

258. Appointment of Lambardar – Less educated candidate – Less land holding – Effect of – Choice of Collector : -- Respondent no. 4 recommended by Assistant Collector Ist Grade and Assistant Collector IInd Grade. Although, the Collector is not bound by the recommendation made by the Revenue Authorities in favour of a candidate; however, due consideration is to be accorded to such recommendations as they are in a position to assess the suitability of a candidate and such recommendation would have some persuasive value. -- Respondent No. 4 has about 7 acres of land, which is sufficient to be taken into consideration for the purpose of security of revenue, collected by the Lambardar -- Moreover, land revenue stood abolished in both the State of Punjab and Haryana, long back, thus owning land by the candidates for the post of Lambardar would not be of much significance any further. -- Respondent no. 4 acquitted in criminal case under Section 170 and 420 IPC. Learned Collector is the main authority for appointment of the Lambardar -- It is the Collector, who not only appreciates the antecedents of all the candidates in the fray but also personally interacts with them -- Merely because the petitioner is more educated or holds slightly more land than respondent No. 4, it cannot be said that the choice made by learned Collector, keeping in view all the relevant considerations, is illegal or perverse – Writ petition dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 20.08.2024

259. Anticipatory bail -- Onerous condition -- Court can impose necessary, just and reasonable conditions while enlarging an accused on bail -- Any other condition not specified u/s 438 Cr.P.C. may also be imposed by the Court, but the other conditions, which may be imposed, must be ejusdem generis as the condition specified u/s 438 Cr.P.C. -- Condition of tendering a FDR of Rs. 3,90,00,000/- on the case file by the petitioners was highly unwarranted, unreasonable and onerous and is liable to be set aside – Condition set aside. (P&H HC) Decided on: 20.08.2024

260. Qualification in advertisement – Recruitment Rules – Applicability of -- Bachelor degree in Agricultural Engineering added as one of the qualification for appointment to the post in question after issuance of advertisement -- Petitioner cannot claim benefit of such changed qualification, and his eligibility has to be seen with reference to the Rules as were prevailing on the date of commencement of selection process. (UK HC) Reserved on: 12.08.2024 Decided on: 20.08.2024

261. Custody of minor child – Sisters of deceased wife -- Natural father – Right of -- Child, who lost her mother at tender age, cannot be deprived of the company of her father and natural brother -- At the relevant time, the appellant had no other option but to look upon the sisters of his deceased wife to nurture his infant child -- Merely because of the unfortunate circumstances faced by the appellant as a result of which, respondent Nos. 5 and 6 were given the temporary custody of the minor child and only because they looked after her for few years, the same cannot be a ground to deny the custody of the minor child to the appellant, who is her only natural guardian -- Respondent Nos. 5 and 6 directed to handover the custody of the minor child forthwith – Meeting rights given for every Wednesday between 04:00 pm and 06:00 pm. (SC) Decided on: 20.08.2024

262. Dismissal from service – Acquittal in criminal case – Right to re-instatement -- In departmental proceedings petitioner found guilty of misappropriation of 80 Urea bags and embezzlement of Rs.29,656/- and award was passed against petitioner – No appeal/ revision filed against by petitioner – Held, acquittal from criminal proceedings does not automatically entitle an employee to reinstatement -- No ground to interfere with impugned dismissal order. (P&H HC) Decided on: 14.08.2024

263. Application for additional evidence – Decision upon – Mandate of -- When an application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC is moved during pendency of the appeal, it is incumbent on the part of the appellate Court to consider the same at the hearing of the appeal on merits so as to find out whether the documents for evidence proposed to be adduced have any relevance/ bearing on the issues involved or not -- Appellate Court directed to dispose of the application in accordance with law and then decide the appeal accordingly. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 05.08.2024 Decided on: 14.08.2024

264. NDPS – Anticipatory bail -- Confessional statement made by co-accused u/s 67 of NDPS Act is a very weak piece of evidence and cannot be a basis for the conviction of a person and has to be weighed very cautiously alongwith other piece of evidences -- No recovery effected from the possession of petitioner and has only been nominated as an accused subsequently on the disclosure statement of coaccused – Anticipatory bail allowed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 14.08.2024

265. Compensation in motor vehicle accident case – Rash and negligent driving – Proof of – FIR against the unknown driver – Appellants-claimants, ought to have examined the Investigating Officer, who recorded the statements of witnesses and nominated respondent No.1, as accused in a criminal case – FIR and report u/s 173 Cr.P.C. simply tendered into evidence -- It is required on the part of the appellants-claimants to lead evidence of its own, with regard to the factum of accident and to establish the rashness and negligence, on the part of the offending vehicle -- No such, evidence has been led -- No sustenance, as such, can be drawn from the contents of the FIR and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C -- Claim petition dismissed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 14.08.2024

266. POCSO -- Bail to juvenile in conflict with law – Right of -- A juvenile in conflict with law has to be necessarily released on bail unless proviso is applicable -- No finding recorded by JJ Board that the proviso to sub-Section 1 of Section 12 is applicable to the facts of the case -- Without recording the said finding, bail could not have been denied -- Psychological Assessment Report of the Juvenile records that the juvenile does not belong to high risk category and against the column “worry list of child” it is mentioned that there was “no worry” – Bail allowed. (SC) Decided on: 14.08.2024

267. Birth by surrogacy in 2019 – Altruistic surrogacy through an egg donor -- Right of Donor -- Guidelines of 2005 are applicable -- Under Guideline No.3.12.1 and the Surrogacy Agreement dated 30.11.2018, it is clearly stated that a child born through ART shall be presumed to be the legitimate child of the couple as having been born from the wedlock and with the consent of both the spouses -- Though the younger sister of Petitioner is the oocyte donor, she has no legitimate right to claim that she is the biological parent/ mother of the twin daughters -- She may qualify to be a genetic mother and nothing more, but by such qualification she would have no intending legal right whatsoever to claim to be the biological mother of the twin daughters as the law clearly does not recognise so. (Bombay HC) Decided on: 13.08.2024

268. Cheque bounce complaint -- Principal amount – Interest thereupon – Repayment of loan – Ground of -- If the rate of interest of 3% instead of 1.8% per month has been added on the principal amount and the amount in the cheques reflects the same, it cannot be said that the cheques were not for repayment of the principal amount -- When the respondent/ accused does not dispute that he has handed over the cheques or signed on them, it was incumbent upon him, the moment he claims the amount(s) were repaid to the appellant/ complainant to have either taken back the cheques or instructed the bank concerned to not honour the concerned cheques -- Closure of the bank accounts within a few weeks of issuance of the cheque raises serious questions about the conduct and intent of the respondent/ accused – Conviction by trial court, upheld. (SC) Decided on: 13.08.2024

269. Issue of possession – Decree of civil court – Effect of -- Proceedings u/s 145/146 Cr.P.C. pertain to the factum of possession of a party and not the right to possess which is to be determined by the Civil Court -- Once the factum of possession and right to possess both have been adjudicated upon by the appropriate Civil Court, the question of initiation of proceedings under Sections 145/146 Cr.P.C. does not arise. (P&H HC) Decided on: 13.08.2024

270. Abetment to suicide – Refusal to marry -- Anticipatory bail -- Neither there is any incident of provocation nor any instigation -- Mere refusal of the proposal for marriage does not attract the provisions of the offence u/s 306 IPC – Bail allowed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 12.08.2024

271. Divorce -- Irretrievably breaking down of marriage – Ground of -- Boggy of irretrievably breaking down of marriage cannot be used to the advantage of a party who is solely responsible for tearing down the marital relationship. (SC) Decided on: 12.08.2024

272. Proclaimed person – Accused abroad -- Petitioner had left for England on 19.05.2019 and though the summons were issued vide order dated 19.04.2019, the same was not received back and thereafter, when the non-bailable warrants were issued against the petitioner vide order dated 06.06.2019, received back unserved with the report that she has gone to England -- A person cannot be said to “abscond” or “evade” the execution of warrant when he had gone to a distant place before the issue of the warrant – Impugned order was not passed in consonance with the mandate of Sections 82 & 105 of Cr.P.C. and is not sustainable in the eyes of law, set aside. (P&H HC) Decided on: 09.08.2024

273. Proclaimed offender – Quashing -- Proclamation u/s 82 Cr.P.C. was ordered to be issued for 04.11.2022 -- Proclamation warrant were fixed on 03.11.2022 at the house of the petitioner, public place and notice board of the Court -- On 04.11.2022, as one month’s time has not elapsed after the publication, the case was adjourned to 16.12.2022 awaiting the presence of the petitioner – Held, the trial Court could not extend the time by simply adjourning the case for awaiting the appearance of the petitioner and was mandatorily required to issue the proclamation against for publication thereof in accordance with the provisions of Section 82(2) Cr.P.C -- Apart from that, the proclamation was not read publicly in some conspicuous place in the town/ village in which the accused ordinarily resided and the proclamation was not duly published – Impugned order declaring petitioner as proclaimed offender set aside. (P&H HC) Decided on: 09.08.2024

274. Bail – Principles – Held, over a period of time, the trial courts and the High Courts have forgotten a very well-settled principle of law that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment -- On account of non-grant of bail even in straight forward open and shut cases, Supreme Court is flooded with huge number of bail petitions thereby adding to the huge pendency -- Trial courts and the High Courts attempt to play safe in matters of grant of bail -- Trial courts and the High Courts should recognize the principle that “bail is rule and jail is exception”. (SC) Decided on: 09.08.2024

275. Railway Accidents (Compensation) Rules 1990, Schedule I -- Compensation in railway accident case – Death by fall from train – Accident on 5 September 2003 – Revised compensation – Permissibility of -- In 2003, the compensation payable for the death of a passenger was Rs 4,00,000 -- The compensation payable for the death of a passenger as on date is Rs 8,00,000, which was enhanced by a notification bearing GSR 1165(E) dated 22 December 2016 -- Appellant is entitled to compensation quantified at Rs 8,00,000. (SC) Decided on: 09.08.2024

276. Reinvestigation/ Further investigation -- Right of an accused at the stage of investigation – Accused has no right -- Charge sheet submitted before the Court concerned -- Discrepancies related to date(s) and time would be considered by the trial Court at the stage of trial and the same are not required for seeking re-investigation/ further investigation in present case. (Allahabad HC) Reserved on: 18.07.2024 Delivered on: 09.08.2024

277. Nikah/ Muslim marriage in autorickshaw – Conversion of religion -- CBI enquiry – Witnesses of marriage stated that neither did they participate in the marriage nor have signed the marriage certificate -- Marriage solemnized appears to be an eye wash as by no stretch of imagination, a Maulvi/Quazi under the Mohammedan law can be expected to perform NIKAH in an auto-rickshaw, without the presence of two witnesses coupled with the place of solemnization of marriage stated to be at Masjid, raises a profound and conspicuous suspicion which needs to be debunked by conducting probe through an independent and Central agency i.e. CBI. -- CBI will conduct a thorough and fair inquiry into the matter particularly from the perspective as to whether any such attempt of coordinated and illegal conversion for the sake of marriage has been made and the motive behind the marriage of getting it solemnized in an auto-rickshaw without the presence of any witnesses and an attorney; and also whether the Maulvi/Quazi was competent enough to perform the marriage as per the desired customs and rituals of the Muslim religion, at such a ‘place’, and also to inquire into the credentials of the attorney. (P&H HC) Decided on: 09.08.2024

278. Benefit of increments withdrawn from employee – Recovery of -- Petitioner is working as SS Master, which is a Class-III Post -- Benefit of the increments given in the year 2011, withdrawn in the year 2021 after a period of ten years – Held, no recovery can be made from the petitioner -- Any recovery done from the petitioner be refunded back to him within a period of eight weeks. (P&H HC) Decided on: 08.08.2024

279. Appointment of Lambardar – Less land holding – 10th pass in comparison to BA -- Choice of Collector – Interference in – Petitioner is 10th Pass having 6 acres of land -- Respondent no. 4 is BA Pass having 15 acres of land -- Petitioner is younger in age than respondent No. 4 and is sufficiently educated and has sufficient landholding -- Further, the name of the petitioner was recommended by the lower revenue officers and the learned Collector found the petitioner as the most suitable candidate for appointment to the post of Lambardar -- Financial Commissioner/ FC remanded the case by noticing the claim of respondent No. 4 that he is more educated and he holds more land than the petitioner whereas the other relevant aspects have not been taken into consideration -- Choice of Collector is not to be lightly interfered with, even if two views are possible – Order of FC set aside, order passed by ld. Collector, appointing the petitioner as Lambardar upheld. (P&H HC) Decided on: 08.08.2024

280. Amendment of plaint -- Petitioner initially filed a suit for mandatory injunction, however, reserved her right to seek recovery of the amount through separate legal proceedings -- Subsequently, the petitioner sought amendment of the plaint -- Foundational facts for recovery of amount have already established in the plaint, therefore, the reasoning adopted by the learned trial Court that amendment would change the nature of the suit, is untenable – Order of the trial Court set aside and the application for amendment allowed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 08.08.2024

281. First Information Report (FIR) -- First version of the incident as narrated by the Police Constable would be required to be treated as the FIR -- FIR was lodged much later based on the statement of PW-11, it would be relegated to the category of a statement u/s 161 CrPC -- Same could not have been treated to be the FIR as it would be hit by Section 162 CrPC -- Prosecution is guilty of concealing the initial version from the Court and hence, an adverse inference deserves to be drawn against the prosecution on this count. (SC) Decided on: 08.08.2024

282. Disciplinary proceedings after retirement – Permissibility of -- No disciplinary proceedings could have been initiated after 2 years of the retirement -- Petitioner retired from service on 31.03.2020 and the chargesheet being served upon him on 02.05.2022 relating to an incident related to the year 2014 – Held, respondent-State did not had jurisdiction to serve a chargesheet, the same is set aside. (P&H HC) Decided on: 08.08.2024

283. Family Pension – Right of wife – Deceased employee gave affidavit in favour of respondent no. 4/ brother’s wife for service benefits and family pension – Held, once the widow is claiming the family pension on the basis of the Rules, the Department cannot deny her benefit -- Family pension is to be admissible only to the claimants envisaged under the Rules, will not be governed by the affidavit issued by the employee concerned – Petitioner/ wife held entitled family pension and interest on the arrears @ 6% per annum. (P&H HC) Decided on: 07.08.2024

284. Senior Citizen -- Eviction of niece – Maintainability of -- Civil suits between parties pending – Effect of -- Petitioner, is an old-aged lady in her late seventies, who is stated to have been suffering from serious ailments and is presently undergoing Dialysis; she is currently on ventilator -- Respondent no. 2/ niece interfering in the peaceful possession of the petitioner’s property thereby endangering her life -- Court deemed it just and proper that justice would be met if the petitioner is allowed to enjoy her property without any hindrance -- Maintenance Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction to pass an order of eviction against niece -- Rights of the parties over the property is sub-judice before the civil court is concerned, it has no bearing to the facts of the case -- Application filed by the petitioner against the respondent no. 2/ niece was clearly maintainable -- Respondent no.2 is directed to vacate the property in question within a week. (UK HC) Reserved on: 16.05.2024 Decided on: 07.08.2024

285. GST -- Excess Stock at business premises -- Proceedings u/s 130 of the UP GST Act cannot be put to service if excess stock is found at the time of survey. (Allahabad HC) Decided on: 07.08.2024

286. NDPS case -- Second sample to FSL – Permissibility of -- As per the FSL report, nothing to indicate, any damage to the seals or that the sample was in a damaged condition -- Merely because the presence of Codeine is not mentioned in the FSL report in the sample of Rexcof would not amount to compelling circumstances under which the second sample was required to be sent for reanalyses to CFSL, Chandigarh – Application of prosecution for re-testing dismissed by Ld. Trial Court, upheld. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 01.08.2024 Decided on: 06.08.2024

287. Nakka from the watercourse – Finality of order – Once the matter regarding provisioning of Nakka to the land of respondent No. 3 and/or father of respondent No. 3 was considered and decided by the Superintending Canal Officer and the said order having attained finality, it would be just and expedient not to permit the same issue being agitated again -- Superintending Canal Officer by directly entertaining application of respondent No. 3 and by passing the impugned order has unsettled the settled position, which has not only prevented the finality of decision that has been reached at, but has conveyed a wrong message that a litigant may go on filing applications for a relief claimed and even if the same is denied, it could be granted at some subsequent stage -- This is clearly against public policy and administration of justice -- Civil writ petition allowed and the impugned orders set aside. (P&H HC) Decided on: 06.08.2024

288. Appointment of Arbitrator – Jurisdiction – Cause of action -- Definition of ‘Court’ -- High Court does not fall within definition of Court as defined under Section 2 (1) (e) of 1996 Act -- High Court gets jurisdiction u/s 11(6) where principal Civil Court of original jurisdiction has jurisdiction to decide the questions forming the subject matter of arbitration, had the same been the subject matter of suit -- Cause of action has arisen within jurisdiction of principal Civil Court at Karnal (Haryana) -- Contention of respondent that as per arbitration agreement, Mumbai Court has exclusive jurisdiction – Held, Court at Karnal (Haryana) as well as Mumbai has jurisdiction in term of Section 2(1)(e) read with Section 20 of 1996 Act -- As Civil Court at Karnal (Haryana) has jurisdiction to entertain dispute in question, Punjab and Haryana High Court has jurisdiction to entertain application under Section 11 (6) of 1996 Act. (P&H HC) Decided on: 06.08.2024

289. Deficiency in service by Hospital -- Dead body of father of complainant handed over to another family – That family cremated the said body – Appellants-Hospital could not have avoided their liability on account of deficiency of service -- NCDRC directed the appellant-Hospital to pay only a sum of Rs.5,00,000/- to the complainants and with a further direction that a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- be deposited with the Consumer Legal Aid Account of the State Commission – Held, no justification for passing such an order – Rs.25,00,000/- compensation awarded by SCDRC affirmed to be paid to respondent/ complainant with interest. (SC) Decided on: 06.08.2024

290. Specific performance of contract – Limitation -- In the agreement dated 17.12.1989, it is specifically mentioned that the sale deed would be executed within one month from the date of the said agreement -- One month would expire on 16.01.1990, limitation period would be three years from the said date, which would expire on 16.01.1993 – Suit filed in September, 1993 -- Suit liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation alone – Advance of Rs. 80,000/- ordered to be returned to the plaintiffs along with 12% simple interest. (SC) Decided on: 05.08.2024

291. Appointment of Lambardar -- Petitioner is younger in age; is more educated than respondent No.4 and her name was recommended by the SDM – Ld Collector’s appointed petitioner as Lambardar and order was further upheld by the learned Divisional Commissioner, however the Financial Commissioner set aside both orders and appointed respondent no.4 as Lambardar. -- In the State of Punjab, age of a candidate is a relevant factor. -- Respondent No. 4 owns more land however the petitioner has about 5 Kanals of land, which is sufficient to be taken into consideration for the purpose of security of revenue, collected by the Lambardar. -- Petitioner is a well-educated lady having done M.A. B.Ed. and also holds an I.T. diploma. Order passed by learned Financial Commissioner is unsustainable and the same is accordingly set aside. (P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2024

292. Special Leave Petition (SLP) Civil/ Criminal -- Certified copy of impugned order – Requirement of – Exemption of -- Petitions shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the judgment or order appealed from -- If the certified copy is not available on the date of presentation of a special leave petition, proof of application for such copy has to be adduced for the court to consider the prayer for exemption -- This practice direction has to be observed by all litigants who propose to file special leave petitions both on the civil side as well as on the criminal side with effect from 20th August, 2024. (SC) Decided on: 05.08.2024

293. Custody of children -- Writ of habeas corpus – Maintainability of -- Effort to secure temporary custody of the children through a Writ of Habeas Corpus, especially when both the children are girls and are living with their mother, can neither be entertained nor appreciated. (SC) Decided on: 05.08.2024

294. Removal of President of Municipal Council – Appointments of contractual employees -- Appointment letters distributed by President in a programme which was yet to be fixed -- Employees are still working in the Municipal Council, no allegation by the official respondents that the same was done dishonestly or for any extraneous consideration or by using the corrupt practices – It amount to misuse of power, but not an abuse of power – Not warrant his removal from the office – Impugned order quashed. (P&H HC) Reserved on: 30.07.2024 Decided on: 05.08.2024

295. Suit for specific performance – Insufficient stamp on agreement – Penalty of 10 times – Trial court imposed 10 times penalty -- Imposition of penalty to the extent of ten times, is not mandatory and discretion lies with the authority -- Parties entered into agreement to sell, without having knowledge of the amendment carried out by the State of Punjab -- Petitioner-plaintiff shall be liable to pay the deficient stamp duty, along with equivalent amount of penalty, within a period of 30 days. Amit Kumar’s case 2022(3) Law Herald 2472 relied – Revision allowed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2024

296. Recovery suit -- Attachment of property before judgment -- Provision contained in Order 38 Rule 5 CPC is an extraordinary provision and a drastic one -- It is not the provision to be adopted as a matter of course -- Provision has to be invoked with utmost caution and circumspection -- It has to be invoked only when there is cogent material on record for the Court to believe possible mischief at the hands of defendant with an intent to defeat or to obstruct the execution of decree yet to passed. (P&H HC) Decided on: 05.08.2024

297. Maintenance to major daughter u/s 125 Cr.P.c. granted by Family court – Challenge to – Section 20(3) of Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 makes it statutory obligation of a Hindu to maintain his or her daughter, who is unmarried and is unable to maintain herself out of her own earnings or other property -- Section 125 Cr.P.C. limits the claim of maintenance of a child until he or she attains majority -- Held, since the order has been passed by the family court which has jurisdiction to entertain the application u/s 125 Cr.P.C. as well as application under Sub-clause (3) of Section 20 of Act of 1956, no purpose will be served in interfering with the revision and relegating the daughter to move a fresh application before the same court under different provision of law i.e. Section 20(3) of Act of 1956 -- No interference is required with the order impugned. (Allahabad HC) Reserved on: 04.06.2024 Decided on: 02.08.2024

298. Consolidation proceedings -- Possession of new holding -- Petitioners continued in possession of the old khasra numbers and the effect to the consolidation proceedings has not been given, though revenue record may have been corrected -- Writ petition disposed to give effect to the consolidation proceedings qua the petitioners by way of handing over the physical possession of the land to which they are entitled. (P&H HC) Decided on: 02.08.2024

299. Eviction of unauthorised person – Right under consolidation – Ground of -- Final authority came to the conclusion that petitioner had encroached upon the land in dispute, auction whereof had taken place on 10.05.1993 -- Question of entitlement, as such, could not be raised and which is now contended on the strength of consolidation proceedings. (P&H HC) Decided on: 02.08.2024

300. Shamilat deh – Ownership dispute – Framing of issues -- Summary procedure – Sustainability of -- Statutory authorities in a most summary manner declined the espoused declaratory decree – No issue struck on the contentious pleadings -- It was imperative for the authorities concerned, to formulate issues for the relevant evidence adducing onus becoming cast upon the litigants concerned -- Petition allowed, impugned order set aside, matter remanded back to Collector. (P&H HC) Decided on: 02.08.2024