LAW OFFICE ONLINE

Land Encroachment Act, 1905; S. 6, 7 – Evidence Act, 1872; S. 90, 110 – Presumption of title as a result of possession, can arise only where facts disclose that no title vests in any party -
- Possession of the plaintiff is not prima facie wrongful, and title of the plaintiff is not proved -- It certainly does not mean that because a man has title over some land, he is necessarily in possession of it -- if at any time a man with title was in possession of the said property, the law allows the presumption that such possession was in continuation of the title vested in him -- person must establish that he has continued possession of the suit property -- other side claiming title, must make out a case of trespass/ encroachment etc -- mere acceptance of municipal tax or agricultural tax by a person, cannot stop the State from challenging ownership of the land -- Nor can such a presumption arise in case of grant of loan by a bank upon it hypothecating the property -- revenue records confer title, for the reason that they merely show possession of a person -- Held: A revenue record is not a document of title -- It merely raises a presumption in regard to possession

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; S. 8 -----
Consumer Protection Act, 1986; ------- Whether presence of Arbitration clause in the agreement oust the jurisdiction of Consumer Forum ----- Observation of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission by holding that Arbitration clause in the agreement cannot circumscribe the jurisdiction of a Consumer For a notwithstanding the amendments made to Section 8 of the Arbitration Act.

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955 ----- Recording of Barga ---- Held that in order to establish bargadar in the land of another person, the Bargadar must prove the following : -
1. that he himself is cultivating land from his own sources;
2. that he shares crops with the land owner, in the proportion provided in the Act and such factum of sharing of crops must be established by documentary evidence, namely receipt;
3. that in case of refusal to accept the share crops by the land owner, he must deposit the same to the credit of the land owner with the concerned Block Land and Land Reforms Officer and obtain a receipt;
4. that in case of refusal to grant receipt against tendering of share crops, the bargadar has to lodge a complaint before the Magistrate under Section 19A (2A) of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act.

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955. S. 19A (2A) ----- Lodging of complaint ----- Held: therein that lodging of such complaint, prima facie establishes the fact of refusal to grant receipt as Section 19A (2A) of the West Bengal land Reforms Act provides that refusal to grant receipt is a punishable offence and the same is cognizable also. Therefore, the importance of issuance of receipt is well‐understood.

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955; S. 18 ----- Recording of Barga ---- Standard of proof ----- Held: though laws of evidence is not strictly applied in such proceeding but the basic facts regarding cultivation of the petitioners’ land by the respondent No.7 and sharing of produce between them in the same proportion as mentioned in the said Act arerequired to be proved by substantive evidence.

West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955; S. 18 ------ Refusal by landowner to accept the share of produce ---- Duty cast upon claimed Barga ----- He should intimate the B.L. & L.R.O. and must deposit the share of crop with the Revenue Officer against receipt ----- Issuance of notice to the Land owners regarding deposit of such share of crops ----- Intimation given to the Pradhan about the refusal to accept the share of the produce by the petitioner, cannot be regarded as due compliance of the provision contained in Section 18 of the West Bengal Land Reforms Act, 1955

Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881; S. 138/147 ----- Compounding of offence punishable under section 138 N. I. Act ----- The Accused offered cheque amount along with interest in accordance with the judgment of Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H. (LU Mar 15) 2018 has not been accepted by the complainant on the pretext that the complainant is entitled to more amount beyond the amount of cheque for having been unnecessarily harassed ----- Held: the proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be permitted to be used as a trump card to earn interest in the garb of prosecution -----bonafide of an accused, who offer the amount of cheque in dispute in proceedings under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act cannot be ignored ----- Direction that the personal appearance of the accused may be exempted if the cheque amount along with interest is paid in accordance with the Damodar S. Prabhu vs Sayed Babalal H. (LU Mar 15) 2018 ------ evidence can be recorded in the presence of counsel for the petitioner by exempting his personal appearance.

Passport Act – Whether father’s is mandatory in Passport --- Being divorced the wife brought up the child as single mother -- Biological father had completely abdicated his responsibilities – Passport authority insisted upon petitioner No. 2 mentioning her father's name in the application -- Name of the biological father in the Passport only if it is a requirement in law, like standing instructions, manuals etc. In the absence of any provision making it mandatory to mention the name of one's biological father in the Passport, the respondents cannot insist upon the same -- Court is of the view that mother's name is sufficient in certain cases like the present one to apply for Passport, Especially as a single woman can be a natural guardian and also a parent -- Directed to modify software and accept the application and issue her a Passport without insisting upon mentioning her father's name.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 154 – Registration of F.I.R. – The mandate upon the Police – Held: (i) Registration of FIR is mandatory under Section 154 of the Code, if the information discloses commission of a cognizable offence and no preliminary inquiry is permissible in such a situation. (ii) If the information received does not disclose a cognizable offence but indicates the necessity for an inquiry, a preliminary inquiry may be conducted only to ascertain whether cognizable offence is disclosed or not. (iii) If the inquiry discloses the commission of a cognizable offence, the FIR must be registered. In cases where preliminary inquiry ends in closing the complaint, a copy of the entry of such closure must be supplied to the first informant forthwith and not later than one week. It must disclose reasons in brief for closing the complaint and not proceeding further. (iv) The police officer cannot avoid his duty of registering offence if cognizable offence is disclosed. Action must be taken against erring officers who do not register the FIR if information received by him discloses a cognizable offence. (v) The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. (vi) As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/ family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry. (vii) While ensuring and protecting the rights of the accused and the complainant, a preliminary inquiry should be made time bound and in any case it should not exceed 7 days. The fact of such delay and the causes of it must be reflected in the General Diary entry. (viii) Since the General Diary/Station Diary/Daily Diary is the record of all information received in a police station, we direct that all information relating to cognizable offences, whether resulting in registration of FIR or leading to an inquiry, must be mandatorily and meticulously reflected in the said Diary and the decision to conduct a preliminary inquiry must also be reflected, as mentioned above.

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; S. 154 ----- Guidelines to be followed by the police while registering F.I.R. -----

(a) An accused is entitled to get a copy of the First Information Report at under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
(b) An accused who has reasons to suspect that he has been roped in a criminal case and his name may be finding place in a First Information Report can submit an application through his representative/agent/parokar for grant of a certified copy before the concerned police officer or to the Superintendent of Police on payment of such fee which is payable for obtaining such a copy from the Court. On such application being made, the copy shall be supplied within twenty-four hours.
(c) Once the First Information Report is forwarded by the police station to the concerned Magistrate or any Special Judge, on an application being filed for certified copy on behalf of the accused, the same shall be given by the Court concerned within two working days. The aforesaid direction has nothing to do with the statutory mandate inhered under Section 207 of the Cr.P.C.
(d) The copies of the FIRs, unless the offence is sensitive in nature, like sexual offences, offences pertaining to insurgency, terrorism and of that category, offences under POCSO Act and such other offences, should be uploaded on the police website, and if there is no such website, on the official website of the State Government, within twenty-four hours of the registration of the First Information Report so that the accused or any person connected with the same can download the FIR and file appropriate application before the Court as per law for redressal of his grievances. It may be clarified here that in case there is connectivity problems due to geographical location or there is some other unavoidable difficulty, the time can be extended up to forty-eight hours. The said 48 hours can be extended maximum up to 72 hours and it is only relatable to connectivity problems due to geographical location.

(e) The decision not to upload the copy of the FIR on the website shall not be taken by an officer below the rank of Deputy Superintendent of Police or any person holding equivalent post. In case, the States where District Magistrate has a role, he may also assume the said authority. A decision taken by the concerned police officer or the District Magistrate shall be duly communicated to the concerned jurisdictional Magistrate.
(f) The word 'sensitive' apart from the other aspects which may be thought of being sensitive by the competent authority as stated hereinbefore would also include concept of privacy regard being had to the nature of the FIR. The examples given with regard to the sensitive cases are absolutely illustrative and are not exhaustive.
(g) If an FIR is not uploaded, needless to say, it shall not enure per se a ground to obtain the benefit under Section 438 of the Cr.P.C.
(h) In case a copy of the FIR is not provided on the ground of sensitive nature of the case, a person grieved by the said action, after disclosing his identity, can submit a representation to the Superintendent of Police or any person holding the equivalent post in the State. The Superintendent of Police shall constitute a committee of three officers which shall deal with the said grievance. As far as the Metropolitan cities are concerned, where Commissioner is there, if a representation is submitted to the Commissioner of Police who shall constitute a committee of three officers. The committee so constituted shall deal with the grievance within three days from the date of receipt of the representation and communicate it to the grieved person.
(i) The competent authority referred to hereinabove shall constitute the committee, as directed herein-above, within eight weeks from today.
(j) In cases wherein decisions have been taken not to give copies of the FIR regard being had to the sensitive nature of the case, it will be open to the accused/his authorized representative/parokar to file an application for grant of certified copy before the Court to which the FIR has been sent and the same shall be provided in quite promptitude by the concerned Court not beyond three days of the submission of the application.
(k) The directions for uploading of FIR in the website of all the States shall be given effect from 15th November, 2016.

Consumer Protection Act, 1986-Ss. 11 (1), 21 (a) (i), 17 (1) (a) (i) and 24A –

Allotment-Complainants applied for-Payments in installments-Terms and conditions of allotment-It is the case of complainants that respective date of possession have long expired but opposite party has failed to complete construction and deliver possession of respective apartments to complainant-Pecuniary jurisdiction-Interest claimed by apartment buyer is in nature of compensation-Held case should be dealt with under Clause 4 (e) of subject Builder Buyer Agreement, which provides that if opposite party is not in a position to offer possession of apartment to allottee, opposite party shall refund consideration amount received with 10% p.a.-Opposite party is liable to refund money received from the complainants with 10% p.a. on amount w.e.f. dates of respective payments of installments-Directions issued-Complaint allowed.

Protection of Women from Domestic Violence, 2005; Ss. 18, 19, 20 ------ Relief when the complainant/wife failed to prove Domestic Violence -------- Held: since the learned Magistrate has come to a conclusion that the domestic violence could not be proved and since that finding of the learned Magistrate has not been challenged by the aggrieved person, it follows that no relief could have been given to respondent Nos. 2 and 3 also

Code of Civil Procedure,1908 ; Order XIII, Rule 3 –
Indian Stamp Act, 1899 : Art. 45, Sec. 35 –
Indian Registration Act, 1908; Sec.17,49 –
Hindu Succession Act, 1955 –
Civil Procedure Code, 1908; Order VII Rule 11—Difference between Memorandum of family settlement and Family Settlement – the alleged memorandum of family settlement divided the entire property between plaintiff and defendant and there is relinquishment of the rights of other heirs of the properties and as such it is Family Settlement and not memo (Para 11) – memo does not create any right -- the document was compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act as there was relinquishment of share – it should be stamped in proper manner as specified in the Indian Stamp Act – document also being not stamped could not have been accepted in evidence (Para 13) -- whether the said document could have been accepted by the trial court in evidence or not -- whether the said unregistered and properly not stamped document which was inadmissible in evidence could have been used for any collateral purpose -- Held: the same are not admissible in evidence for the purpose of proving primary purpose of partition – unstampped instrument is not admissible in evidence even for collateral purpose, until the same is impounded by paying stamp with penalty.