Case BriefsHigh Courts

Jammu and Kashmir High Court:  The case of the petitioners before Sanjay Kumar Gupta, J. was that they had filed an application for direction of equal bifurcation/partition of the whole land between the petitioners and the other co-sharers and respondent. 

It was stated that the father of the petitioners during his lifetime had acquired various lands at a village in Jammu. It was also stated that the real uncles of the petitioners who were also co-sharers in the aforesaid property had not taken care of the petitioners. The counsel for the petitioners, Mr Sudesh Sharma, stated that the petitioners were co-sharers in the land under different Khasra numbers at that village and they had also inherited the ownership rights of the land situated at the same village after the death of their father and mother. The other co-sharers of the petitioners were influential persons and they had illegally encroached upon the land of the petitioners and despite the above-said fact the respondents were not deciding the application of the petitioners for equally bifurcating/partitioning of the whole land between the petitioners and the other co-sharers. The counsel requested for a time stipulated disposal. 

The Court disposed of the instant petition with a direction to the Tehsildar to consider and decide the application filed by the petitioners as per the rules and regulations governing the field, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. [Anju Devi v. State of J&K, 2019 SCC OnLine J&K 410, Order dated 03-05-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Madhya Pradesh High Court: This petition was filed before the Bench of Prakash Shrivastava, J., where the party had shown his willingness to give land under Section 56 of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam.

Facts of the case were such that land of petitioner was included in the Scheme published under Section 50 (7) of the Nagar Tatha Gram Nivesh Adhiniyam. It was submitted that the petitioner was willing to give land under Section 56 of the Act, but the respondent had not acted upon it.

Aviral Vikas, Counsel on behalf of respondent had submitted that an application which was filed earlier under Section 56 by Lotus Buildinafra P. Ltd. could not be considered as it was not the owner of the land in question. Further, a notice under Section 56 was issued to the petitioners but the same was challenged under Section 50 (7) instead of filing reply to it. Counsel pleaded that if petitioner files an application under Section 56 of the Act then the same will be considered by the petitioner.

High Court permitted petitioner to file an appropriate application under the relevant provision of the Act before the respondent. And the same should be considered and decided by respondents in accordance with law. [Kanhaiyalal v. Chief Executive Officer, 2019 SCC OnLine MP 447, dated 12-03-2019]

Case BriefsTribunals/Commissions/Regulatory Bodies

Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI): The Board comprising S.K. Mohanty whole time member, concluded that launching/ floating/ sponsoring / causing to sponsor any ‘collective investment scheme’ (CIS) by any person requires obtaining of a requisite certificate of registration from SEBI.

Maitreya Plotters and Structures Private Limited (MSPSL), a company engaged in the real estate business purchased large quantities of land in different States, divided it into smaller plots as per requirements of customers and then sold it. In the year 2013, it was found that MSPSL had illegally mobilized funds from the public through CIS without obtaining a certificate of registration from SEBI. 

The issue for determination was: whether mobilization of funds by MPSPL under its various schemes/plans for ‘purchase or booking of plots of land’ fell under the ambit of CIS in terms of Section 11AA of the SEBI Act, 1992. 

The Regulator noted that payments received from investors were pooled and utilized by MPSPL for its schemes. The property, that was part of its scheme, was managed by MSPSL on behalf of investors. An agreement entered into between investor and MPSPL vested it with the right to carry out development work on the plot, and investor was handed over the plot only after the said development was complete even if he had paid the entire consideration. Thus, investors were not aware of the plot allotted to them and did not have any control over utilization of funds for its development.

In view of the above, it was held that scheme offered by MPSPL was a CIS and required to be registered as mandated under Section 12(1B) of the Act.  MPSPL and its Directors were held jointly and severally liable to wind up its existing CIS and refund the contributions collected from investors with returns due to them and submit a report thereon to SEBI. [Maitreya Plotters and Structures (P) Ltd., In re,  WTM/SKM/EFD DRA1/06/2018-19, Order dated 31-01-2019]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Punjab and Haryana High Court: A petition was filed before a Single Judge Bench of Tejinder Singh Dhindsa, J. wherein extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court was invoked.

Petitioner had invoked the extraordinary writ jurisdiction of the High Court in order to seek issuance of directions to respondent not to forcibly and illegally interfere with the peaceful possession of the land. The land was alleged to be under the ownership of the petitioner. Petitioner, in addition to the above, sought directions praying for restraining the respondent from making changes in the revenue record and to restore possession of 2 marlas of land. Whereas the respondent submitted that the civil proceedings that had already initiated were in respect of the same land which the petitioner seeks directions for in this writ petition.

The High Court after perusing the submissions of both the parties observed that the petitioner himself brought to notice of the Court that a suit had been instituted praying for permanent injunction in respect of the land restraining gram panchayat and others from digging in the land and to change the nature of the agricultural land. Therefore, the Court refused to interfere in the instant writ petition. [Harbhajan Singh v. State of Punjab,2018 SCC OnLine P&H 1693, dated 02-11-2018]

Case BriefsForeign Courts

Court of Appeal of Sri Lanka: An appeal was filed before a Single Judge Bench comprising of M.M.A. Gaffoor, J., against a judgment of district judge where the original plaintiff instituted an action seeking partition of a land.

Claim of plaintiff regarding the land was to receive undivided 1/2 share against the share of defendants whereas the two defendants were entitled to receive undivided 1/4 share according to his amended petition. The other defendants averted that they were exclusively entitled to the plantations and improvements in the land sought to be partitioned in this action. District court favoured the other defendants. Subsequently, the original plaintiff died and his son was substituted in his place as plaintiff-appellant who filed this appeal for setting aside of the above order of District Court.

Supreme Court observed after perusal of the plaint that the substituted plaintiff had amended the original plaint claiming that he was entitled to an undivided 1/2 share against two others entitled to an undivided 1/4 share while in the original plaint it was to be divided between four defendants. It was observed that substituted plaintiff was not completely aware of the facts of the case due to his admission of the fact that his father, the original plaintiff, was well aware of the facts of the case compared to himself and due to the same he had to amend the plaint. Appellant failed to show the existence of facts which could show his legal right or liability, thereby he failed to prove his case. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed. [Ahamed Abdulla Marikkar Mesthiriyar  Mohamed Ismail v. Sammon Hadjiar,2018 SCC OnLine SL CA 85, decided on 01-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Allahabad High Court: This petition had been filed before a Single Judge Bench comprising of Vivek Kumar Birla, J., in order to quash the impugned order passed by District Magistrate.

Facts of the case were that petitioner had been accused of encroaching upon the land of Gaon Sabha which was recorded as navin parti in the Revenue Code due to which damages were imposed upon petitioner under Section 67 of the U.P. Revenue Code, 2006. Petitioner aggrieved by the above filed an appeal before District Magistrate which was dismissed. This petition was filed against the above-impugned orders.

Petitioner contended that the impugned orders were arbitrary and illegal as petitioner’s ground was not considered. The orders also did not consider the claim filed in the appeal under Section 67-A. Whereas the respondent argued that the land in question was recorded as navin parti and it was not allotted to the petitioner.

The High Court while perusing impugned order found that notice was duly issued to petitioner whereby in reply he claimed that the land in question belonged to him but according to Code there is no allotment of land to petitioner and he is not eligible for the same. Court while perusing appellate order found that no documents to show allotment of land to petitioner were brought also petitioner was not eligible for allotment of land under Section 64 of the code. Court observed that not even this court had been presented with evidence to that effect. Court found no legal infirmity in the impugned order. Therefore, petition was dismissed due to lack of merit. [Satyadev Tripathi v. State of U.P.,2018 SCC OnLine All 1813, order dated 03-10-2018]

Case BriefsHigh Courts

Calcutta High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of Asha Arora, J. dismissed a revisional application filed by the petitioner assailing the order of the learned Additional District Judge who reversed the order of the learned Civil Judge granting a decree of pre-emption in favour of the petitioner.

The petitioner filed a case under Section 8 of West Bengal Land Reforms Act 1995, for pre-emption in respect of land which was transferred in favour of the opposite party (OP) by the predecessor-in-interest under a registered sale deed. Petitioner sought pre-emption of the land in question on the ground of adjoining ownership. The application for pre-emption was contested by the OP contending that the petitioner had waived his right, if any, by becoming an attesting witness to the above-mentioned registered sale deed. The application for pre-emption was allowed by the trial court. However, the Additional District Judge reversed the order of the trial court. Aggrieved thus, the petitioner was before the High Court in revision.

The High Court perused the record and found that the petitioner was indeed the attesting witness in the registered deed of sale of the land in question in favour of the OP. The Court relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Jagad Bandhu Chatterjee v. Nilima Rani, (1969) 3 SCC 445, wherein it was held, under the Indian law neither consideration nor an agreement would be necessary to constitute waiver. A waiver amounts nothing more than an intention not to insist upon the right. The acquiescence in the sale by any positive act amounting to relinquishment of pre-emptive right have the effect of forfeiture of such a right. The High Court was of the opinion that by being an attesting witness to the sale deed, the petitioner by his act and conduct acquiesced to the sale of land sought to be pre-empted. Such an act impliedly amounted to relinquishment of pre-emptive rights and thus the petitioner had waived his right. In such circumstances, the High Court found no irregularity with the order impugned. Therefore, the revision was dismissed. [Tusar Kanti Basu Chowdhury v. Nil Kamal Basu Chowdhury,2018 SCC OnLine Cal 3433, decided on 08-06-2018]