Land Acquisition and Requisition — Release from Acquisition — Development charges: Imposition of development charges, in terms of S. 17(1) proviso of 1973 U.P. Act upon release of land from acquisition, would depend on whether development of released land had indeed been carried out or not. Moreover, determination and imposition of development charges must be in accordance with law. [LDA v. Gopal Das, (2019) 8 SCC 172]
Constitution of India — Art. 244(2) r/w Sch. VI Para 12-A(b) and Sch. VII List II Entry 23 and List I Entry 54 — Autonomous district or region in State of Meghalaya: Nature of rights, including subsoil/mineral rights of private owners/community-owned land in Hills Districts, applicable law and approval procedure for mining/grant of mining leases in respect of such land, explained. [State of Meghalaya v. All Dimasa Students Union, (2019) 8 SCC 177]
Contempt of Court — Civil Contempt — Matters at large/review etc. of earlier order/orders that may be passed: Alternative or Additional relief in review of earlier order/orders, not permissible. [Ashok Kumar v. Depinder Singh Dhesi, (2019) 8 SCC 280]
Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 — S. 5 — Cancellation of allotment and eviction from premises for non-payment of instalments and ground rent: Grant of opportunity to make payments of instalments and ground rent after defaults is subject to payment of market value of allotted booth in year 2010, as opposed to price prevailing at time of allotment i.e. in year 1996. [Chandigarh Administration v. Hari Ram, (2019) 8 SCC 289]
Service Law — Appointment — Non-appointment/Denial of appointment/Right to appointment: Successful completion of training for appointment to post in question, guarantees no appointment. Further held, appointments are to be made only in terms of applicable recruitment rules if any, or in terms of executive instructions issued by State.[State of Odisha v. Pravat Kumar Dash, (2019) 8 SCC 294]
Constitution of India — Arts. 32 and 21 — Suo motu writ petition in child rape case: Ex parte transfer of investigation and trial from CBI Court Lucknow to court of competent jurisdiction in Delhi, directed. Investigation and trial to be completed in a time-bound manner, as directed. [Alarming Rise In The Number Of Reported Child Rape Incidents, In Re, (2019) 8 SCC 300]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302 r/w S. 34 — Murder — Vicarious liability for: Conviction for murder on basis of common intention, with aid of S. 34, confirmed, even if firing of fatal gunshot(s) not established against accused but he was found to share common intention to murder. Minor contradictions/inconsistencies were found immaterial. [Rameshwar v. State of M.P., (2019) 8 SCC 303]
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — S. 13(1)(i-a) — Divorce — Mental cruelty: Mere allegations of illegitimate relationship, even if due to misunderstandings, does not amount to inflicting mental cruelty. Wife initiated legal proceedings as shield against assault to protect herself and her own property, which cannot be termed as cruelty leading to inference of irretrievable breakdown of marriage. The order of the High Court dissolving marriage on pre-conceived notion of irretrievable breakdown of marriage was not proper. Hence, Divorce decree, reversed.[Ravinder Kaur v. Manjeet Singh, (2019) 8 SCC 308]
Rajasthan Municipalities Act, 1959 (38 of 1959) — S. 173-A (as amended by Act 19 of 1999) — Restriction on change of use of land and power of State Government to allow such change: Prior to amendment of S. 173-A, power of State Government to allow change in use of land was confined to a land allotted or sold by municipality or State Government but, after amendment, restriction on change of use of land in S. 173-A applies: (i) by virtue of S. 173-A(1), to a land originally allotted or sold by State Government, any municipality, any other local authority or any other body or legal authority, and (ii) by virtue of subsection (2) thereof, also to any land not allotted or sold as aforesaid and not covered under sub-section (1). Prior to amendment, restriction was there only with regard to use of land for any purpose other than purpose for which land was originally allotted or sold but, after amendment, restriction is also with regard to use of land otherwise than as specified in Master Plan. Thus, even if prior to amendment in S. 173-A a person holding land which was neither allotted nor sold to it by municipality or State could have used land for any purpose, a restriction in this regard has now been placed by amended S. 173-A. [Municipal Corpn. Jaipur v. Thakur Shiv Raj Singh, (2019) 8 SCC 315]
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — S. 31(7)(b) r/w S. 85(2)(a) — Rate of interest awarded by the arbitrator — Legality of: Para 7-A of First Schedule to Arbitration Act, 1940 inserted by S. 24 of U.P. Civil Laws (Reforms and Amendment) Act, 1976 is not applicable to proceedings/award under 1996 Act even if arbitration agreement is earlier to date of coming into force of Act of 1996. [Shahi and Associates v. State Of U.P., (2019) 8 SCC 329]
Penal Code, 1860 — S. 302 — Murder: In this case of murder of son by the accused father, on the basis of circumstantial evidence, last seen evidence and non-explanation of incriminating evidence by accused, conviction of accused confirmed. [Sudru v. State of Chattisgarh, (2019) 8 SCC 333]
