:

The Appellant filed an (online/offline) RTI application dated 06.04.2023 seeking the following information:

"1. Please provide the below information of under all Railway Zones of Indian Railways on all India basis.

S.No Name of the Full postal Address Name of the Telephone/Mo Email ID of Railway with PIN code of officer bile Nos. of the the Unions/Mazdoor the Railway Bearers and Officers Railway Sanghs/Associati Union/Mazdorr Designations bearers Unions/Ma ons Sanghs/Association zdoor s Sanghs/As sociations

:

The Complainant filed an (offline) RTI application dated 20.04.2023 seeking the following information:

"1. Whether exclusion of the undersigned in the list of DRMs posting order issued by Railway Board dated 07.03.2023 was on account of a pending major DAR case? If so, on what basis order of the undersigned on deputation to Bangalore Metro Rail Corporation Limited vide order no. 2022/E(O)II/6/19 dated 12.09.2022 as Chief Engineer (Rolling Stock) was issued despite pending DAR case Whether Railway Board is following different criteria for DAR clearance for deputation posting) (Please furnish name & designation of authority that gave approval for above Major DAR case? Please furnish name & designation of authority who has gone into this DAR case detail and given any recommendation on case file to make it a fit case for major penalty proceeding?)

[Judgment of the Court was made by M.SUNDAR, J.,] Captioned intra-Court appeal i.e., 'Original Side Appeal' {hereinafter 'OSA' for the sake of brevity} is under Section 37 of 'The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (Act No.26 of 1996)' [hereinafter 'A and C Act' for the sake of convenience and clarity].

2. Short facts (shorn of particulars not imperative for appreciating this order) are that the appellant before this 'Commercial Appellate Division' {'CAD' for the sake of brevity} is engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing and distributing Sugar and its by-products; that the appellant shall hereinafter be referred to as 'SBSL' denoting 'Sree Basaveshwar Sugars Limited'; that the respondent before this CAD is a company which is https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing and supplying / selling plant, machinery and equipment required for sugar plants; that the respondent before CAD shall hereinafter be referred to as 'UIEPL' denoting 'Uttam Industrial Engineering Private Limited'; that short facts / abbreviations are deployed for the sake of brevity and convenience; that fulcrum or in other words nucleus of lis between the parties is a 'contract dated 05.05.2011' {hereinafter 'said contract' for the sake of brevity}; that vide said contract, UIEPL {to be noted, 'UIEPL' shall be referred to as 'contractor' also for the sake of brevity and convenience} was to design and supply Sugar Mill House Equipments for sugar factory of SBSL {to be noted, 'SBSL' shall be referred to as 'employer' also for the sake of brevity and convenience}; that under the said contract, contractor was to supply employer in Karnataka all material and equipments so as to enable erection and commissioning of Mill House equipments including Cane Handling on or before April 2012; that said contract broadly had three aspects included in it namely, (i) Commercial Terms and Condition for supply at site, (ii) Technical Terms and Conditions and (iii) Data Sheet and Annexure; that under the said contract, contractor UIEPL supplied the sugar house https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis equipments till May 2012; that thereafter, said contract ran into rough weather as according to the contractor, employer did not make payments though clause 1.14.6 of the said contract stipulates that employer has to pay as per invoice without making deductions unless the details of such claims have already been communicated to the contractor; that according to the contractor, as per clause 1.14.1(d) of said contract, money should have been settled within 15 days; that this Court is on a legal drill under Section 37 of A and C Act and therefore it is really not necessary to delve into numbers in terms of claims with specificity and exactitude; that it will suffice to say that employer in and by a notice dated 12.02.2012 terminated the said contract; that this lead to eruption of arbitrable disputes and constitution of a three member 'Arbitral Tribunal' {'AT' for the sake of brevity}; that before AT, UIEPL contractor was claimant and SBSL employer was respondent; that contractor as claimant made a claim for a sum of a little over Rs.4.43 Crores stating that the same are monies due from employer SBSL for supply of machinery and equipments supplied during the period of 23.12.2011 to 15.03.2018 under said contract; that this amount of a little over Rs.4.43 Crores (Rs.4,43,56,687/- to be precise) was claimed with interest at 14% per https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis annum; that employer SBSL as respondent before AT resisted the claim and also made a counter claim for Rs.5 Crores saying that the same is towards damages said to have been suffered by SBSL for breach of terms of said contract; that this damages of Rs.5 Crores was claimed by employer SBSL with 18% interest per annum; that AT, after full contest, made an 'award dated 03.08.2019' {hereinafter 'impugned award' for the sake of brevity} inter alia returning a verdict in favour of claimant / contractor / UIEPL in a sum of Rs.4,43,56,687/- together with 12% interest per annum besides costs of Rs.6 Lakhs; that as regards the counter claim of employer SBSL i.e., counter claim of Rs.5 Crores, the entire counter claim was dismissed as a case of no evidence {no pleadings with specificity too}; that the employer SBSL assailed the impugned award under Section 34 of A and C Act vide O.P.No.39 of 2020 and Section 34 Court in and by an 'order dated 30.06.2021' {hereinafter 'impugned order' for the sake of brevity} dismissed the Section 34 petition; that against the impugned order of Section 34 Court, captioned OSA has been filed by SBSL employer; that the captioned appeal was heard out in full;

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to recompute the pensionary benefits to the petitioners, who are all retired from service under the 2nd respondent management on the basis of average salary drawn by them for the last 10 months prior to their retirement and also direct the second respondent to pay arrears of pension.

2. The facts in brief in this writ petition are that the petitioners originally joined their service at the Bank of Madura at various positions on different dates. The Bank of Madura was amalgamated with ICICI Bank Limited, the 2nd respondent herein by the Scheme of amalgamation with effect from 10.03.2001. As per the said scheme, all the employees of Bank of Madura stood transferred to the service of ICICI Bank Limited however, all the service conditions of the employees of Bank of Madura are protected.

This writ petition is filed seeking mandamus to direct the respondents to extend the petitioners an opportunity to exercise option notionally with effect from 1.8.2003 or any subsequent dates based on the date of cession of service, in any event as per the 9th bipartite settlement.

2. The facts in brief in this writ petition are that the petitioners were originally joined their service at the Bank of Madura at various positions on different dates. The Bank of Madura was amalgamated with the 1st respondent Bank under the Scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the Reserve Bank of India with effect from 10.03.2001. As per the said scheme, all the employees of Bank of Madura stood transferred to the service of https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ICICI Bank Limited however, all the service conditions of the employees were protected.

08.11.2024 Order No.

01. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid mode.

2. Heard learned counsel for the Petitioner and learned Additional Standing Counsel appearing for the Opposite Party-State.

3. The present application has been filed under Section 438 of Cr.P.C. by the Petitioner seeking pre-arrest bail in connection with Byree P.S. Case No.95 of 2023, corresponding to C.T. Case No.946 of 2023, pending in the court of learned J.M.F.C., Chandikhole, for alleged commission of offences punishable under Sections 341, 323, 294, 307, 507, 506, 34 of I.P.C.

12.11.2024 Order No.

04. 1. This matter is taken up through Hybrid Arrangement (Virtual/Physical Mode).

2. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the records.

3. The Petitioner is apprehending arrest for the alleged commission of offence under Sections 147/148/323/325/307/302/ 427/506/149 of I.P.C. in G.R. Case No.170 of 2017 of the Court of the learned J.M.F.C., Salipur arising out of Mahanga P.S. Case No.49 of 2017.

4. Considering the facts of the case, this Court is not inclined to grant anticipatory bail to the Petitioner. However, on the submission of the learned counsel, the Petitioner is given liberty to surrender before the learned court in seisin over the matter in the aforesaid case in the first hour within 21 working days hence and move for bail. On such event, the learned Magistrate shall consider his application for bail in the first hour strictly on the basis of the materials on record. In case of rejection of the bail application, the Petitioner may move for bail before the higher forum in the second hour. On such event, the higher forum shall consider and dispose of the bail application of the Petitioner on the same day strictly on the basis of the materials on record, by maintaining the principles of parity, if applicable.

Date of Hearing :08.11.2024 :: Date of Order :11.11.2024 A.C. Behera, J. This bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C., 1973 filed by the petitioner arising out of Spl. G.R. Case No.4 of 2024 in connection with Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 pending in the Court of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-II, Cuttack is taken up into consideration.

{{ 2 }}

2. I have already heard from the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned Additional Government Advocate for the State and the learned counsel for the informant.

3. The petitioner is facing trial in the Court of learned Adhoc Addl. Sessions Judge, F.T.S.C.-II, Cuttack in Spl. G.R. Case No.4 of 2024 arising out of Cuttack Sadar P.S. Case No.16 of 2024 remaining in the jail custody since 29.01.2024 as an under trial prisoner having been charged under Section 292-A, 212, 376(2)(n) of the IPC, 1860, Section 6 of the POCSO Act, 2012 and Sections 66-E, 67-A & 67-B of the I.T. Act, 2000 along with his other co-accused persons on the allegations alleged against him that, due to the frequent talking between the petitioner and the victim since the month of May, 2022, they loved each other and the petitioner proposed the victim for marriage. Thereafter, in the months of August and November, 2023, the petitioner took the victim by his motorcycle to the OYO Hotel on three different dates and made sexual intercourse with her in a room of that hotel in each occasion and took the naked/nude photographs of the victim inside the room of that hotel through his mobile phone and sent the said nude/naked photographs to the mobile phone of the victim through whatsapp and the said nude photographs of the victim were in her mobile phone, to which, she (victim) had not disclosed before {{ 3 }} any of her family members including her parents. Thereafter, there was disturbance between the victim and the petitioner, for which, the victim stopped her talking with the petitioner. So, the petitioner made the nude photographs of the victim viral. Thereafter, on dated 07.01.2024, she (victim) lodged F.I.R. against the petitioner at Sadar police station, Cuttack, alleging the aforesaid allegations.

1. First Appeal has been preferred at the instance of legal heir of the original Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 who are aggrieved by the impugned judgment dated 19th September 2016 decreeing S. C. Suit No.19 of 2019 in terms of prayer Clause (a), (b) and (c). For sake of convenience parties are referred to by their status before the Trial Court.

2. The facts of the case are that Short Cause Suit No.19 of 2009 rsk 2 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc was instituted interalia seeking enforcement of obligations under the Maharashtra Ownership Flats, (Regulation of the Promotion of Construction, Sale, Management and Transfer) Act, 1963, (for short, MOFA) by conveyance of the suit property together with the structure and building known as "Chandraraj Apartment" in favour of the Plaintiff. The plaint pleads that Defendant Nos.1 and 2 were the owners of the suit property which was entrusted to Defendant Nos.3 and 4 for development. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 represented that they are the owners of sub-divided land bearing S. No 5 (a)(pt) and 4(a) (pt) of Village Malad, Taluka Borivali admeasuring 1502.49 square meters bearing CTS No 15-D, 15/D-1 to 6. The entire larger Plot of land was subdivided into different sub-divided Plots being Plot Nos. A, B, C, D and certain portion towards 15% recreation ground on the northern side of the property. The conveyance was sought by the Plaintiff -Society in respect of sub-divided Plot No. B along with benefit of 22 feet internal road and 15% recreation ground to be enjoyed in common with the other occupants and residents of the remaining subdivided Plots. The subdivision was certified by the Architects. The building plans were sanctioned by the planning authorities and IOD and CC was obtained on 30 th April 1982. The Defendant Nos 3 and 4 entered into flat purchasers agreement with the individual flat purchasers under MOFA in or about the year 1984 rsk 3 of 24 FA-888-18-F30.doc and were put in possession of their respective tenements after obtaining occupation certificate on 23rd October, 1989. As there was non compliance by the Defendants of their statutory obligations, the flat purchasers formed and registered the Plaintiff Society in the year 1991.

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER : AVINASH G. GHAROTE, J.)

1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. The petitions are heard finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

2. All these petitions question the rejection of the offer of the petitioners, in the various tenders issued by the respondent No.1, for the work of "Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by manual means Quantity 5000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Truck loading by mechanical means Quantity 65000 MT, Handling and Transport on Lumpsum Basis - Handling & Transport Service, Rehandling and stacking on exigency Quantity 2000 MT". The quantities of work in the various NIT are different. The position in this regard can be depicted as under:

(PER: VINAY JOSHI, J.) Heard.

2. This appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 01.08.2023 rendered by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha in Special (Atro.) Case No. 36/2019, whereby appellant/accused was convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 447 of the Indian Penal Code ("IPC") read with Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act ("SC and ST Act"). The appellant was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 50,000/- with default clause for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 3(2)(v) of the SC and ST Act whilst he was sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- for the offence punishable under Section 447 of the IPC. Both sentence were directed to run concurrently.

11.11.2024

1. The petitioner being a consolidated worker engaged by the Municipal Committee, Handwara came to be terminated/disengaged from service with immediate effect in terms of impugned order No. MC/Hand/Estt/2022-23/32-36 dated 06.04.2023 by the Executive Officer, Municipal Committee, Handwara. This order is under challenge in the present writ petition by the petitioner.

2. In terms of an order dated 12.04.2023, this Court came to keep on hold the operation of the impugned order dated 06.04.2023, with a further interim direction unto the respondents to allow the petitioner to continue as a consolidated worker in terms of his original engagement order dated 30.12.2006.

1. This First Appeal is filed by defendants No.2 to 4 in O.S.No.145/2014, on the file of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Gokak. The suit for declaration and injunction is decreed with cost.

2. The declaration granted by the Court reads as under:

i. Suit of the plaintiffs is decreed with costs. ii. It is declared that, the decree passed in O.S.No.58/2008 is partially canceled to the extent of suit property.

iii. Defendants No.2 to 4 are hereby restrained by an order of permanent injunction from entering their names in record of rights of suit property on the basis of compromise decree passed in O.S.No.58/2008.

(PER: THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE J.M.KHAZI) Petitioner who is complainant before the trial court has filed this petition under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. challenging the order dated 13.12.2017 passed by the trial court dismissing the complainant as against accused Nos.8 to 11, by which the trial court has ordered for issuance of process against accused Nos.1 to 7, but refused to proceed against accused Nos.8 to 11 who are revenue officials.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to by their ranks before the trial court.

NC: 2024:KHC-D:16229

3. In support of the petition, complainant has contended that the refusal by the trial court to take cognizance against the accused Nos.8 to 11 is opposed to law, facts and probabilities of the case. The trial court has failed to appreciate that accused Nos.8 to 11 have failed to act in accordance with law. They have altered the boundaries of the property of the complainant in a manner advantageous to accused Nos.1 to 7, without issuing notice to the complainant. There are specific allegations in para 8 of the complaint regarding illegal acts of accused Nos.8 to 11 which is sufficient to take cognizance against them. Not only accused Nos.8 to 11 guilty of not providing opportunity to the complainant by issuing notice, but also in altering boundaries of the property of the complainant contrary to the documents. Complainant is required to be provided with an opportunity to establish the allegations made against accused Nos.8 to 11 and hence, the petition.

Petitioner is in custody for 11 months. He submits there was a romantic relationship between the parties. Victim has already been examined. Accordingly, he prays for bail.

2. Learned Advocate for the State opposes the bail prayer.

3. Inspite of notice nobody appears for the victim.

4. We have considered the deposition of the victim. Though she is a minor, she admitted there was friendly relationship between the parties. Her deposition is complete. There is little possibility of trial concluding in the near future.

Heard learned lawyers for both parties.

2. Petitioner submits there was a romantic relationship between two young persons. He is in custody for about more than four and half months. He prays for bail.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the bail prayer.

4. Inspite of notice, nobody appears for the victim.

5. We have considered the materials on record. Statement of victim supports the version of the petitioner that there was a romantic relationship between two young persons. Petitioner is in custody for a considerable period of time. There is no chance of trial concluding in the near future, we are inclined to grant bail to the petitioner.

12.11.2024 jb.

jdt.

Allowed C.R.M. (SB) 150 of 2024 In Re : An Application for bail under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973/ Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 filed in connection with Chandipur Police Station Case No. 31/2022 dated 06.02.2022 under Section 380 with added Section 411 of the Indian Penal Code.

And In Re : Prasanta Jana ... Petitioner.

Mr. Ayan Basu Mr. Sandip Kr. Mondal Mr. Sumit Routh ... For the Petitioner.

Nobody appears for the petitioners.

2. Accordingly, the application for anticipatory bail is dismissed for default.

(Ajay Kumar Gupta, J.) (Joymalya Bagchi, J.) Signed By : ARUP KUMAR DAS High Court of Calcutta 12 th of November 2024 03:58:09 PM

Mr. Satyam Mukherjee, Ms. Sayani Ahmed Hearing concluded on : 07.11.2024 Judgment on : 12.11.2024 Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.:-

1. The present first appeal has been preferred against the grant of probate of the Will of one Late Shanti Shaw. The appellant is the son of the testatrix whereas, by virtue of the Will, the testatrix bequeathed her properties to her daughter Smt. Sabitri Shaw (the respondent's wife).

2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the inordinate delay in filing the probate application is itself to be construed as a suspicious circumstance vitiating the application. It is contended that the Will was purportedly executed on January 6, 1997, and the testatrix died on July 16, 1997. A previous probate application was filed on January 6, 1999 but the same was dismissed on April 17, 2002 due to non-

1. Challenging the impugned proceeding being GR Case no. 1238 of 2021, arising out of Lake Town police station case no. 263 of 2021, petitioners have preferred the present Application with a prayer for quashing the said proceeding, qua the petitioners herein.

2. Petitioner contended in the Application that complainant stated in the FIR (First Information Report) that the opposite party no.2/FIR maker was introduced to Mr. Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal by one Subhash Kumar Roy and one Samaresh Das and relying upon the representation that the said Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal is a developer, the petitioner expressed his desire to join Mr. Agarwal as partner in his firm and thereafter Mr. Agarwal took the opposite party as a partner with him in his partnership firm namely "Shree Krishna Realtors". It is alleged that relying upon said representation the opposite party no.2 along with aforesaid person entered into a registered development agreement dated 18.12.2016 and it is further alleged that when the construction work commenced, said Sanjay Kumar Agarwal took control of the project and also taking advantage of the same took custody and control of the bank account, cheque books, vouchers papers etc. It has been further alleged that the opposite party No. 2 from time to time deposited money in the accounts of his said partner Sanjoy Kumar Agarwal but he did not cooperate with the opposite party no.2 herein /FIR maker and not only that said Sanjay had made huge withdrawal of funds and also misappropriated the funds of the firm amounting to Rs. 40 lacs in between August 2016 to March 2020 on the basis of false and fabricated documents and thereafter retired from the said firm on 17th November, 2020. The allegation against the present petitioners is that said Sanjay and the petitioners are jointly fraudulently took advance money from different buyers pertaining to the said project but neither executed deed nor refunded refundable money.

1. The present revisional application has been preferred by the petitioners praying for quashing of the proceeding being GR No. 1173 of 2022 arising out of Shyampukur P.S. Case No. 85 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022, pending before the learned Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Calcutta, under Sections 354A/354B/323/506/509/188/427/34 of the Indian Penal Code.

2. The petitioners' case is that G.R. No. 1173 of 2022 arising out of Shyampukur P.S. Case No. 72 of 2022 dated 29.09.2022 was registered on the basis of a complaint lodged by one Smt. Mita Roy, wife of Shri Pradip Roy, residing at 8B, Abhoy Mitra Street Police Station-

as follows. The writ petitioners namely, Everrise Housing Private Limited being the Petitioner No. 1 and one Sanjay Agarwal, Director Everrise Housing Private Limited came forward before this Hon'ble Court prayed for declaring the purported proceeding initiated in terms of the alleged notification bearing no. 9817-LA (II) /5 M-1/88 Pt. dated 30th December, 1989 as lapsed. The issue was whether a Post-Acquisition Purchaser or a purchaser after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had any legal right to challenge the acquisition proceeding on the ground of lapse or any other grounds. The answer was 'No'. There was no single instance or any case which had been successfully challenged by the Post Acquisition Purchaser or after the issuance of a notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, since 1894 till July, 2024 and or the same had been declared as Good Law. On the contrary, there were hundreds of decisions that Post Acquisition Purchaser had no legal standing to the question of acquisition or to its lapse. The reason was that the legal precedent of jurisprudence surrounding the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 had established that a purchaser a land after issuance of notice under Section 4 and 6 of the Act did not have any locus Standi to challenge the acquisition or the lapse of the acquisition proceeding. This was because the right of the original land owner was extinguished upon the acquisition and the purchasers' right were derivative and limited to the extent of their purchase. They were not aggrieved parties therefore, lacked legal capacity to question the acquisition or its lapse. In the case of Shiv Kumar and Another Vs. Union of India and others reported at (2019) 10 SCC 229, it had been clearly stated that admittedly Power under Section 17(4) was exercised dispensing with the enquiry under Section 5A and on service of notice under Section 9 possession was taken since urgency was acute viz pumping station house to be constructed to drain out flood water. Consequently, the land stood vested in the State under Section 17(2) free from all encumbrances. It was further settled law that once possession was taken by operation of Section 17(2) the land vested in the State free from all encumbrances unless a notification under Section 48(1) was published in the gazette withdrawing the acquisition. Section 11A as amended by Act 68 of 1894 therefore, did not apply and the acquisition did not lapse. The said Judgment held, "It has been laid down that purchasers on any ground whatsoever cannot question proceeding for taking possession. A purchaser after Section 4 notification does not acquire any right in the land as the sale is ab-initio void and has no right to claim the land under policy". Paragraph 22 of the said Judgment stated," a nullity is inoperative and a person cannot claim the land or declaration once no title has been conferred upon him to claim the land should be given back to him". The said judgement was of Three Judges' Bench and had been affirmed the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129. In the case of Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported in (2020)8 SCC 129 it had been held by the Five Judges' of the Hon'ble Supreme Court "It does not visualise a situation where possession has been taken under the urgency provision of Section 71, but the award has not been made in such case under Section 24(1)(a) of the 2013 Act, there is no lapse of entire proceeding but compensation is to be determined in accordance to the provisions of the 2013 Act. In case of urgency possession is usually taken before the award is passed. Thus, where no award is passed, where urgency provisions under Section 17(1) of the 1894 Act had been invoked, there is no lapse". In this instant case the provision of Section 17(4) of 1894 Act had been invoked and as such, there could not be any lapse of the proceeding under Section 11A of the Land Acquisition Act in any manner whatsoever. In the case Delhi Development Authority Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and Others reported at (2022) 8 SCC 771 stated that still further the purchaser had purchased the property after vesting of the land with the State. In fact, none of Dharam Trust earlier Three Judges Bench Judgement in M. Venkatesh was not even referred to the purchaser had no right to claim lapsing of acquisition proceeding in view of the recent Larger Bench Judgement of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 it had been held the purchaser had no right to claim a declaration sought for. In very recent judgement in the case of Delhi Development Authority Vs. Narendra Kumar Jain and Others reported at (2024) 3 SCC 721, it had been held deemed lapse of acquisition proceedings none payment of compensation was not a ground, where possession of land taken furthermore writ petition by subsequent purchaser claiming lapse of proceeding, held not maintainable as such person did not have locus standi to challenge acquisition proceeding and/or pray for deemed lapse of acquisition proceeding. In paragraph 4 of the said judgment it was stated "however, it is required to be noted that the decision of this Court in Manab Dharam Trust which has been relied by the High Court while passing the impugned judgement and order, is held to be not a good law in view of the decision of this Court in Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and subsequent decision of this Court in DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited reported in (2022)8 SCC 771". In paragraph 5 it stated "In Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited, it is specifically observed and held that the subsequent purchaser has no locus Standi to challenge the acquisition and/or pray for deemed lapse acquisition". The petitioner relied upon a decision (reportable) in M/S Delhi Airtech Services Pvt. Vs. State of U.P. on 14th October, 2022 by Two Judges Bench without referring and considering the ratio of the Judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported in (2019)10 SCC 229 which was a larger bench decision. In paragraph no. 26, the concluding paragraph (ii) if the requirement was compiled and possession was taken after tendering and paying eighty per centum, though there was need to pass an award and pay the balance compensation within a reasonable time, the rigor of section 11A of Act, 1894 would not apply so as to render the entire proceedings for acquisition to lapse in the context of absolute vesting. The right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation. The ratio of this case was distinguishable in the facts and circumstances of the case of the petitioner as the right of land loser in such case was to enforce passing of the award and recover the compensation, but the same could not be the right of a Post Acquisition Purchaser under any circumstances and as such, the judgement relied upon by the petitioner was distinguishable and had no manner of application in the facts and circumstances of this case. First of all, it had not considered the judgement passed in the case of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India reported at (2019)10 SCC 229 a judgement of Three Judges' Bench and the judgment did not consider paragraph 123 of the case reported in Indore Development Authority Vs. Manoharlal reported at (2020)8 SCC 129 which was a judgement of Five Judges and as such, the writ petition was liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs solely on the ground that the land in possession of the government and notice under Section 17 Sub Section (4) had been invoked and the judgment relied upon by the petitioner was of the judgement of Two Judges Bench without considering the ratio of Three Judges and Five Judges Bench. Furthermore, in the recent judgment of (2024)3 SCC 721 it had affirmed the judgment of Shiv Kumar Vs. Union of India and DDA Vs. Godfrey Philips (1) Limited and as such, the instant writ petition was devoid of merit and was liable to be dismissed with costs. In the case reported at (2011) 5 SCC 394 it was held that once possession had been taken under section 17 section 11A could not be sustained and elaborate explanation had been given.

1. Maya Kunwar, W/o Late Kamlesh Sah

2. Parwati Kunwar, W/o Late Narayan Sah

3. Lilawati Kunwar, W/o Late Sudama Sah All are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Jitendra Singh, S/o Late Anutha Singh, R/o Jeshu Tower, Dibdih, P.O.-Doranda, Office Adress-J.K. International Public School, Agru, P.S. Ratu, District-Ranchi.

.......... Opp. Parties.

With A.B.A. No.1856 of 2024

-----

1. Krishna Kumar, S/o Late Sudama Sah

2. Kaushal Kumar, S/o Late Kamlesh Sah Both are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.

Faziran Khatoon wife of Md. Anwar Ali, resident of Phase-II, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro

2. Gulam Hussain, son of Md. Anwar Ali, resident of Phase-II, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro

3. Gulam Ali, son of Md. Anwar Ali, resident of Phase-II, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro

4. Hassain Raza @ Hasnain Raja, son of Md. Anwar Ali, resident of Phase-II, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro ... ... Petitioners Versus

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Neha Kumari daughter of Umesh Ravani, resident of Phase-II, P.O. & P.S.- Bokaro Thermal, District- Bokaro .... ... Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR For the Petitioners : Mr. Shadab Eqbal, Advocate For the State : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, A.P.P. Order No. 05 Dated: 11.11.2024 The petitioners apprehending their arrest for the offences punishable under Sections 341/323/354/504/506/34 of the Indian Penal Code, have prayed for grant of anticipatory bail.

1. Maya Kunwar, W/o Late Kamlesh Sah

2. Parwati Kunwar, W/o Late Narayan Sah

3. Lilawati Kunwar, W/o Late Sudama Sah All are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Jitendra Singh, S/o Late Anutha Singh, R/o Jeshu Tower, Dibdih, P.O.-Doranda, Office Adress-J.K. International Public School, Agru, P.S. Ratu, District-Ranchi.

.......... Opp. Parties.

With A.B.A. No.1856 of 2024

-----

1. Krishna Kumar, S/o Late Sudama Sah

2. Kaushal Kumar, S/o Late Kamlesh Sah Both are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.

1. Maya Kunwar, W/o Late Kamlesh Sah

2. Parwati Kunwar, W/o Late Narayan Sah

3. Lilawati Kunwar, W/o Late Sudama Sah All are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.

-Versus-

1. The State of Jharkhand

2. Jitendra Singh, S/o Late Anutha Singh, R/o Jeshu Tower, Dibdih, P.O.-Doranda, Office Adress-J.K. International Public School, Agru, P.S. Ratu, District-Ranchi.

.......... Opp. Parties.

With A.B.A. No.1856 of 2024

-----

1. Krishna Kumar, S/o Late Sudama Sah

2. Kaushal Kumar, S/o Late Kamlesh Sah Both are R/o village-Muradabad, P.O. & P.S.-Sasaram, District-Rohtas (Bihar). .......... Petitioners.

Reserved on 27.08.2024 Pronounced on 12.11.2024

1. This criminal revision petition is directed against the judgment dated 09.06.2017 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge 1st, Bokaro in Criminal Appeal No.13 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court has affirmed the conviction of the petitioner under Sections 353, 504/34 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC) but modified the sentences awarded to the petitioner to undergo Simple Imprisonment for 06 months with fine of Rs.500/- for each offence with default sentences. Both sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Vide Judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 07.02.2005 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, 1st, Class, Bokaro in G.R. Case No.559 of 2003 / Trial No.15 of 2005 (arising out of Pindrajora P.S. Case No.52 of 2003 dated 05.07.2003), the petitioner along with Banamali Singh Choudhary and Ramlal Singh were convicted for offence under Sections 353, 504/34 of IPC and had sentenced them to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years under Sections 353 and 504 of IPC for each offence and had directed that the sentences shall run concurrently. The learned trial court had acquitted the petitioner and co- accused persons from the charge under Section 448 of IPC. Arguments on behalf of the petitioner.

Journal Editorial Report: The week's best and worst from Kim Strassel, Jason Riley, Kyle Peterson and Dan Henninger. Reuters/AP/Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly

Inside View: Much like too many films these days, “No Time to Die” and the other Daniel Craig 007 movies have taken a dark turn. This from a franchise that used to deliver fun and sophistication. Images: Danjaq/MGM Composite: Mark Kelly

Potomac Watch: Stacey Abrams lost the 2018 Georgia governor's race to republican Brian Kemp, and to this day she's never accepted the result. In 2022 the progressive democrat will take him on again, despite still being mostly focused on "voter suppression." Images: AP/Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly

Wonder Land: The end of Roe would erode the foundations not just of abortion, but of an entire philosophy of American governance born 50 years ago with Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society." Image: Olivier Douliery/AFP via Getty Images

Joe Biden came to office promising he'd take a tough stance with Vladimir Putin, but his foreign policy decisions to date haven't deterred Russia amassing thousands of troops in readiness to invade Ukraine. Images: Getty Images/Maxar Composite: Mark Kelly

Journal Editorial Report: He fought the law, and the law won. Image: Drew Angerer/Getty Images

Journal Editorial Report: Progressive prosecutors make no apologies. Image: Gabriella Audi/AFP via Getty Images

Journal Editorial Report: A diplomatic Olympic boycott may not be enough. Image: Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images

Journal Editorial Report: The week's best and worst from Kim Strassel, Bill McGurn, Jillian Melchior and Dan Henninger. Images: AFP via Getty Images Composite: Mark Kelly

Wonder Land: As District Attorneys pull back on prosecution and focus on areas like bail reduction, crime rates are rising. Perhaps voters are now starting to regret the consequences of electing progressives. Image: Johannes Eisele/AFP via Getty Images

Singles Day in China is the world’s largest annual shopping extravaganza. Its creator, the e-commerce giant Alibaba, is now exporting the event to the rest of the world as part of its push to challenge Amazon and others. Photo: Geoffroy Van der Hasselt/Agence France-Presse/Getty Images

Everyone is blabbing about the metaverse. But what does this future digital world look like? WSJ’s Joanna Stern checked into a hotel and strapped on a VR headset for the day. She went to work meetings, hung out with new avatar friends and attended virtual shows. Photo illustration: Tammy Lian/The Wall Street Journal

Corporate titans General Electric and Johnson & Johnson both announced that they are splitting, two of the latest in a long string of conglomerate break ups. Here’s why big businesses divide and what it could mean for investors. Photo illustration: Tammy Lian/WSJ

Apple’s polishing cloth turned heads online when the tech giant began selling it for $19. But it’s far from the only Apple add-on selling at that price. WSJ’s Dalvin Brown explains why. Illustration: Rafael Garcia

A coral reef in pristine condition was discovered in the South Pacific. It is thought to be one of the largest found, as deep as 230 feet beneath the ocean’s surface. Photo: Alexis Rosenfeld/Associated Press

The U.S. said about 100,000 Russian troops have been deployed near the Ukrainian border. Satellite images show the growing presence of military equipment at several locations. Photo: Maxar Technologies

Ahead of a possible sexual assault trial, Prince Andrew is preparing his defense as a private citizen after Buckingham Palace stripped him of royal titles. WSJ looks at how the queen’s second son’s financial situation could affect the legal battle. Photo: John Thys/AFP/Getty Images

The first nor’easter of the season barreled across the east coast, bringing heavy rain and high winds. Cars were stuck on flooded roads in Massachusetts as some homes in New Jersey lost power on Tuesday. Photo: Peter Pereira/Associated Press