#Statutory Duty

Karnataka High Court quashed the FIR and charge-sheet against the Devi Villa Homestay owner, ruling that offences alleged under the now-repealed Foreigners Act, 1946 and Section 239 of the BNSS are untenable because the conduct occurred after the statute’s repeal. The decision underscores that once a law is repealed, no statutory duty to report arises, shielding individuals from retroactive criminal liability.

The Allahabad High Court has mandated that the Real Estate Regulatory Authority must conclude registration proceedings initiated via notice under Section 59 of RERA, 2016, within three months of its production. This enforces a strict statutory deadline, protecting homebuyers from indefinite delays and reinforcing RERA’s obligation to act with urgency, not discretion.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that under MOFA Section 14, the Competent Authority has a statutory duty to grant deemed conveyance to housing societies regardless of pending title disputes or exaggerated land claims by developers. This clarifies that procedural objections to title ownership cannot override the legislature’s intent to protect flat purchasers’ rights, reinforcing legal certainty for co-operative societies nationwide.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has mandated that District Magistrates dispose of Section 14 SARFAESI applications within three months, reinforcing statutory duty and judicial efficiency without prejudging merits. This sets a binding precedent for banks and financial institutions facing delays in asset recovery proceedings across the state.

The Kerala High Court has directed the Authorised Officer to decide the petitioner’s pending Form 6 application under Section 27A of the Kerala Conservation of Paddy Land and Wetland Act within two months of receiving the certified copy of this judgment. This ruling enforces statutory timelines for administrative action in environmental land protection cases, holding public officials accountable for undue delay in processing applications that affect agricultural land rights.

Allahabad HC reinforces that pending revenue cases under Section 34 of the U.P. Revenue Code 2006 must be decided within six months, emphasizing statutory compliance and timely justice. The ruling directs authorities to avoid unnecessary adjournments and ensure service of notice to all parties, setting a precedent for administrative efficiency in revenue disputes.

Allahabad HC directs Tehsildar to remove re-encroachment on public land under Rule 67 of U.P. Revenue Code Rules, 2016, rejecting delay due to pending criminal cases.

Bombay High Court rules that forest authorities must proactively remove hazardous trees under Section 12-A when property owners fail to comply with maintenance orders, prioritizing public safety over procedural delays. The judgment establishes a clear mandate for administrative action in environmental hazard cases.

Jharkhand High Court holds that District Magistrates must dispose of Section 14 SARFAESI Act applications within 30 days, failing which secured creditors can seek judicial intervention. The ruling underscores that statutory timelines are mandatory, and delays defeat the Act’s purpose of expeditious asset recovery.

The Madras High Court ruled that the Commissioner of Revenue Administration must dispose of representations alleging temple mismanagement within six weeks under Section 22 of the Tamil Nadu Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Act. Failure to act within this timeline violates statutory duty, empowering devotees and trustees to seek judicial redress for administrative delays.

Patna High Court reinforces that electricity licensees must accept and process connection applications from occupiers within four weeks, even if they lack ownership documents, under Section 43 of the Indian Electricity Supply Act, 2003 and Clause 4.13(B) of the Bihar Electricity Supply Code. The ruling mandates compliance with statutory duty, protecting occupiers' rights to essential utilities.

The Gujarat High Court has ruled that registrars under the Births and Deaths Registration Act, 1969, have a non-discretionary duty to correct substantive errors in birth certificates upon submission of affidavits from two credible persons. This clarifies that administrative authorities cannot evade their statutory obligations by directing applicants to file writ petitions - reinforcing accountability in civil registration systems.

Madras High Court reinforces procedural safeguards under the Tamil Nadu Land Encroachments Act, 1905, mandating that the Block Development Officer must first issue notice to encroachers before the Tahsildar can initiate eviction. Failure to follow this sequence renders eviction proceedings illegal, ensuring statutory compliance and protecting panchayat land rights.

The Uttarakhand High Court has ruled that superficial fixes such as repainting or patching walls do not negate the statutory obligation to demolish a structurally unsound century-old building under Section 331(1) of the UMCA, 1959. This sets a critical precedent for municipal authorities and property owners: safety trumps aesthetics, and heritage status does not exempt dangerous structures from enforcement.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has imposed a strict three-month deadline on revenue authorities to decide pending applications under Section 129(5) of the M.P. Land Revenue Code and to act on criminal complaints filed by aggrieved landowners. This ruling enforces statutory duty and curbs chronic administrative delay, directly impacting rural land dispute resolution and citizen access to justice in land matters.