#writ appeal

The Madras High Court held that a temple’s letter lacking title proof cannot trigger the Section 22-A bar to registration. It also ruled that final orders of the Minor Inams Tribunal are binding and cannot be challenged collaterally.

The Madhya Pradesh High Court quashed a writ court’s direction to the Debt Recovery Tribunal to expedite SARFAESI proceedings, ruling that such a directive oversteps jurisdiction when borrowers retain the statutory remedy under Section 17(6) of the SARFAESI Act. The decision reinforces that writ jurisdiction cannot be used to fast-track recovery actions, preserving the borrower’s right to challenge dues before the DRT or appellate tribunal.

Section 22-A(2) of the Registration Act, 1908 bars registration of a sale deed for an unapproved plot unless the land was previously recorded as a house site, requiring prior house-site registration for any transfer.

The Gauhati HC held a Section 73(2) CGST show cause notice dated 29 Nov 2024 timely as three months remained after excluding the notice date, letting the appellant reply. This clarifies the GST notice limitation period and affects taxpayers.

The Madras High Court ruled that revenue authorities cannot cancel patta based on succession claims and must refer such disputes to civil court, quashing the cancellation order. The decision protects patta holders from administrative overreach and clarifies that only civil courts can decide title disputes over government-assigned land.

Applicants seeking fresh compensation for land acquired under the National Highways project were denied because the court held that the statutory limitation period under the RFCTLARR Act, 2013, had expired, invoking the fence-sitter doctrine. The ruling confirms that delayed claims for re-determination are barred, affecting all land-acquisition claimants.

Madhya Pradesh High Court ruled that ministerial cadre employees cannot be forced to repay salaries mistakenly paid at executive scale, setting a precedent for similarly situated employees. The court also awarded 6% interest on the recovered amount, reinforcing protections against unjust salary recoveries under service law.

Kerala High Court holds that 'kulam puramboke' land does not automatically vest with Grama Panchayats under Section 218 of the Kerala Panchayat Raj Act, 1994, absent explicit statutory inclusion. The ruling clarifies the limits of vesting provisions, impacting local self-government land disputes and revenue authority claims.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that disciplinary proceedings marred by undue delay and insufficient evidence cannot sustain punitive actions like pension cuts. The Court also clarified that notional promotion is not an automatic entitlement, even if the punishment order is set aside, reinforcing principles of natural justice in service law.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that continuous, unblemished service of over three decades in a sanctioned post justifies regularization as a one-time constitutional remedy, even when state rules impose stricter eligibility criteria. This sets a critical precedent for long-serving casual and time-scale workers across state-funded institutions, affirming that service duration trumps procedural barriers when fundamental rights to livelihood are at stake.

Andhra Pradesh High Court rules that under the proviso to Section 29 of the Endowments Act, a Managing Trustee of a religious institution with annual income below Rs. 2 lakhs can legally act as an Executive Officer, even without formal appointment. This holding validates eviction proceedings initiated by the trustee, reinforcing the statutory flexibility for smaller trusts.

MP High Court rules that interlocutory orders with final relief implications-such as directions for enquiry or report submission-are appealable under Section 2(1) of the MP Uchcha Nyayalaya Adhiniyam, 2005. The judgment distinguishes between routine interim orders and those affecting substantive rights, reinforcing the right to appellate review for affected parties.

Karnataka High Court reaffirms that fraudulent submissions nullify all judicial or administrative actions, disentitling parties to equitable relief. The ruling underscores the absolute bar on fraud in land grant disputes, impacting property law practitioners and revenue authorities.

Karnataka High Court upholds the sanctity of judicial finality by dismissing the State’s appeal against a 1984 land grant, ruling that fraud allegations cannot be raised decades later to circumvent settled legal outcomes. The decision reinforces that administrative bodies must act promptly to challenge land grants or risk estoppel by delay.

Telangana High Court rules that landowners are entitled to Rehabilitation & Resettlement (R&R) benefits and compensation for structures/crops under the RFCTLARR Act 2013 before dispossession. The Court directed authorities to adjudicate claims within four weeks, reinforcing natural justice in land acquisition proceedings. This ruling impacts landowners facing premature dispossession without due compensation.