Legal Reference Library

In a significant judgment, the Supreme Court in Devinder Singh & Ors vs. State of Punjab through CBI, has summarized the principles governing requirement of sanction to prosecute Government servants and held that the offence committed by the Government servants must be directly and reasonably connected with official duty to require sanction. The Court also observed that Protection of sanction, which is an assurance to an honest and sincere officer to perform his duty honestly and to the best of his ability to further public duty, cannot be camouflaged by them to commit crime. Justices V. Gopala Gowda and Arun Misra made the following observations in an appeal by some police officers accused of fake encounter in Punjab. The question before the Apex Court was whether in view of the provisions contained in section 6 of Punjab Disturbed Areas Act, 1983 the prosecution or other legal proceedings relating to Police officers can be instituted without prior sanction of the Central Govern...

Justice MS Ramachandra Rao of the Hyderabad High Court has ruled that the officials of survey department are bound to conduct survey of private land if anyone makes such a request after paying the required charges. Authorities cannot deny this facility to people citing provisions of the AP Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923, he said, in his judgement pronounced in a case filed by M Padmavathy of East Godavari district. The petitioner challenged the denial of the survey officials in conducting survey of her land and also to demarcate the boundaries. The officials were citing the provisions of the Survey Act which did not ask them anywhere to conduct survey of private land. The judge in his order pointed out that the Act, at the same time, did not say anywhere that they should not do it. Just as experts in DNA analysis, ballistics and handwriting are extending their expertise to private persons even when they are working with the government, the experts of survey wing too must extend th...

GOVERNMENT OF WEST BENGAL Land and Land Reforms Department Land Policy Branch NABANNA (6th Floor) 325, Sarat Chatterjee Road, Howrah-711 102. No. 756-LP/1A-03/14(Pt-II) Date: 25.02.2016 MEMORANDUM It has been observed that often important infrastructure projects like food godowns, roads, bridges etc. are not fully commissioned for want of small parcels of land. To ensure the optimal utilization of public funds and early implementation of such projects, direct land purchase from land owners may become necessary. 2. The State Government has considered the immediate need of land for such projects. 3. Now, therefore, the Governor is hereby pleased to allow the various departments of the State Government and also the Central Government department(s) or its organization(s) based on merit of its project to go in for the direct purchase of land for public purpose mainly involving the early commissioning of infrastructure projects like roads, railways, bridges, food godowns, drinking...

Essar Steel Ltd. Vs. Union of India & Ors. [Civil Appeal No. 4610 of 2009] [Civil Appeal No. 4609 of 2009] [Civil Appeal No. 4657 of 2009] V. GOPALA GOWDA, J. The present appeals arise out of the impugned common final judgment and order dated 16.05.2008 passed in Special Civil Application No. 4468 of 2008 etc. by the High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, wherein by a majority of 2:1, a Three Judge bench upheld the validity of the impugned policy decision dated 06.03.2007 on the ground that the Union of India is competent to take the policy decision and further it has held that it is either arbitrary, unjust or violative of the fundamental rights of the appellants herein. Since the facts in all these appeals raise the same issue for our consideration, for the sake of brevity, we refer to the facts of Civil Appeal No.4610 of 2009. The necessary relevant facts required to appreciate the rival legal contentions advanced on behalf of the parties are stated in brief hereunder: ...

The Delhi High Court speaking through Justice Ved Prakash Vaish in Dr.Professor Santhosh Panda vs. Indira Gandhi National Open University [ W.P.(C) 2299/2016] has ruled that a person on deputation (deputationist) cannot seek to claim any vested right to the post deputed, or get absorbed to the deputed department once the period of deputation, from his parent department is over. The Petitioner was working as professor in the respondent university. A notification in the meanwhile was issued, calling for appointment to the post of Chairperson, National Council of Teacher Education. The term prescribed for the post was a period of four years or 60 years whichever was earlier. The Petitioner made a request with the university to be deputed to the said post. The petitioner’s request was accepted by the university and his services were accordingly relieved. The petitioner was granted Extraordinary Leave(EOL) in his parent department, to enable him to take his new assignment. The Petitioner to...