Matrimonial Law – Visitation Rights – Minor Children – Section 26 Hindu Marriage Act – Welfare of Child – Paramount Consideration – Husband filed application for visitation rights to meet two daughters aged 10 and 5 years and a son aged 3 years during pendency of divorce proceedings – Trial court rejected application based on interaction with the elder child – Impugned order granted liberty to petitioner to file fresh application after six months – Held: Serious matrimonial disputes cannot lead to deprivation of love and affection of both parents; welfare of child is of paramount consideration – Court must ensure child is not under influence of a parent before acting on the child's opinion – Revision petition disposed of with modification [Paras 9–11].

Interim Order – Telephonic/Video Contact – Restoration – Direction dated 11.09.2025 permitting petitioner/father to interact with children telephonically/by video call once a week was not complied with by respondent/wife – High Court found no justification for vacating the said interim order – Held: Interim order dated 11.09.2025 shall remain in force pending disposal of any fresh application for visitation rights that may be filed by petitioner [Para 10].

Fresh Application – Liberty – Trial Court Directions – Petitioner at liberty to file fresh application for visitation rights as per impugned order – Trial court directed to dispose of any such application on its own merits without being influenced by observations in the impugned order, within two months from date of filing, as expeditiously as possible [Para 11].

Decision: Revision petition disposed of with modification – Interim order dated 11.09.2025 to remain in force – Liberty to petitioner to file fresh application for visitation rights – No costs – All pending applications closed.

Land Acquisition – National Highways Act, 1956 – Post-Vesting Purchaser – West Bengal Estates Acquisition Act, 1953 – Petitioner purchased Plot No. 2576 by registered deed dated 25.11.2020 and sought mutation in his name – Plot No. 2575 admitted to be raiyati land and compensation assessed accordingly – Plot No. 2576 vested in the State under Section 4(1) of the 1953 Act by virtue of notification dated 16.08.1954 published in the Calcutta Gazette on 11.11.1954, with vesting taking effect from 15.04.1955 – Notification under Section 3A(1) of the 1956 Act dated 26.06.2020 initially included Plot No. 2576 as private raiyati land on the basis of then-existing records – Subsequently the B.L. & L.R.O. corrected the record of rights and recorded the plot under khatian no. 1 as vested land – Petitioner's prayer for correction of records rejected on 13.04.2022 and no appeal preferred – Held: A person who purchases land subsequent to a notification under Section 4(1) of the 1953 Act is not competent to challenge the validity of acquisition proceedings on any ground and the post-vesting sale deed does not confer any title upon him – Post-vesting alienation does not bind the State or the beneficiary – Petitioner being a post-vesting purchaser cannot seek quashing of eviction notices or claim compensation – At best petitioner may claim compensation on the basis of his vendor's title – Steps taken by the vendor for retaining land or for compensation not found on record [Paras 11–13, 18–19].

National Highways Act, 1956 – Correction of Notification – Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 – The 1956 Act does not provide for correction of notification issued under Section 3A after publication of declaration under Section 3D – However, the power to issue a notification under a Central Act includes the power to add to, amend, vary or rescind such notification under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 – NHAI at liberty to take recourse to the said provision, if so advised [Paras 15–17].

Writ Jurisdiction – Article 226 – Disputed Question of Fact – Claim to independent tenancy right acquired after date of vesting under the State of West Bengal involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be adjudicated in writ jurisdiction – Petitioner at liberty to approach the appropriate civil forum for declaration of such right [Para 18].

Decision: Writ petition WPA 1942 of 2023 dismissed – Connected applications CAN 2 of 2025 and CAN 3 of 2025 disposed of – No order as to costs.

Civil Law - Adverse Possession – Co-sharers – Possession Deemed on Behalf of All – Ouster Essential – Plaintiffs claimed to have perfected title by adverse possession over joint unpartitioned agricultural land measuring 359 kanal 3 marlas against defendant co-sharers – Held: Possession of one co-sharer shall be deemed to be possession on behalf of all co-sharers – In order to claim adverse possession against a co-sharer, the claimant must plead and prove exclusive possession to the exclusion of other co-sharers – Mere length of possession does not give title to the co-sharer in possession – There can be no adverse possession by one co-sharer against others until there is ouster or exclusion, and mutation in revenue record does not amount to ouster unless there is a clear denial of the title of other co-sharers [Paras 13–17, 19–20].

Adverse Possession – Essential Requirements – Pleadings and Proof – A party claiming adverse possession must plead and prove: (a) the date on which possession became hostile; (b) that possession was to the exclusion of the true owner; (c) that the factum of possession was known to the true owner; and (d) that possession was open, continuous and undisturbed for the statutory period – Possession however long cannot be adverse without the requisite animus possidendi – There is no equity in favour of one who pleads adverse possession as it seeks to defeat the rights of the true owner [Para 18].

Adverse Possession as Sword – Overruling of Earlier View – Historical Note – The High Court had earlier dismissed the second appeal in 2014 holding that adverse possession can only be used as a shield and not as a sword, relying on Gurudwara Sahib v. Gram Panchayat Village Sirthala – The Supreme Court set aside that order in 2022 holding that the three-Judge Bench decision in Ravinder Kaur Grewal v. Manjit Kaur had overruled the said judgment and that a suit for declaration of title based on adverse possession is maintainable – The matter was restored to the High Court for consideration on other aspects [Paras 10–11].

Decision: Second appeal dismissed – Plaintiffs failed to plead and prove when possession became hostile or that possession was to the exclusion of defendant co-sharers – No merit found in the claim of title by prescription – Pending miscellaneous applications disposed of.

Civil Procedure – Impleadment of Party – Necessary Party – Privity of Contract – Tenants of Kamla Bhuvan filed writ petition seeking direction to comply with Regulation 33(7)(A) of DCPR-2034 for redevelopment – Sought impleadment of M/s. BS Lifespace as respondent on the ground that the new developer had actively participated in redevelopment activities and had received consent-cum-declarations from 62 tenants – Landlords (Respondent Nos. 3 to 5) opposed impleadment, stating no contract existed with the new developer – Held: Petitioners have no right to implead a party having no privity of contract with the landlords; impleadment would only enlarge and complicate the issues – Application dismissed with costs [Paras 4–8].

Abuse of Process of Court – Pressure Tactic – Coercion – No binding contract between M/s. BS Lifespace and existing landlords – Application found to be a back-door entry by the proposed respondent through the guise of an impleadment application – Court observed that the application was prima facie moved and financed by the proposed respondent to crystalize an unenforceable right against the landlords and original developers – Held: Courts cannot be used as tools to coerce or pressurize parties; such abuse of process cannot be countenanced – Application dismissed with costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- payable to Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa's Advocate Academy and Research Center within two weeks [Paras 5–8].

Tenants' Rights – Redevelopment – Settled Law – Court noted that rights of tenants in redevelopment matters are well-settled and elucidated in Chandralok People Welfare Association v. State of Maharashtra and Anandrao G. Pawar v. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai – However, impleadment of a party with no contractual nexus with the landlord cannot be permitted under the guise of protecting tenant interests [Para 4.2].

Decision: Interim Application dismissed – Costs of Rs. 5,00,000/- imposed, payable to BCMG's Advocate Academy and Research Center – Writ Petition listed for compliance on 15/06/2026.

Criminal Law – Section 332 IPC – Voluntarily Causing Hurt to Public Servant – Section 504 IPC – Intentional Insult – Appellant Devanand entered the cabin of the informant (Dr. Pankaj Jawale, Chief Officer, Municipal Council, Osmanabad, belonging to Mahar caste) on 15.05.2007 and questioned him regarding non-issuance of a death certificate, hurled abuses questioning his competence and the absence of police protection, and assaulted him on the right side of his face and nose causing bleeding — Appellant Sunil @ Pintu and co-accused Anna Rochkari thereafter entered and participated in abusing and assaulting the informant — Accused by force compelled the informant to sign a death certificate, a job work bill and two blank cheques — Informant's evidence corroborated by medical evidence of P.W.9 Dr. Mustafa Palla who found bleeding from the right nostril and abrasion on the dorsum of right hand with injury age within 24 hours — Most other witnesses turned hostile or did not support the prosecution — Trial court acquitted all accused under Section 3(1)(x) of the SC/ST Atrocities Act and Section 506 read with Section 34 IPC but convicted under Sections 332 and 504 IPC — Held: Essential ingredients of Section 332 IPC (voluntarily causing hurt to a public servant discharging lawful duty with intent to obstruct) and Section 504 IPC (intentional insult and provocation) proved beyond reasonable doubt from the consistent oral evidence of the informant and corroborating medical evidence — Conviction and sentence upheld — Prosecution case proved even though eye witnesses did not support, as quality of evidence of informant and treating doctor sufficient [Paras 9–15, 18].

Sentence – Quantum – Hearing on Sentence – Procedural Irregularity – Appellant Devanand argued that he was not heard on the point of quantum of sentence as he was away for a marriage ceremony and returned after recess — Trial court in its sentencing observations made erroneous reference to other pending cases against him which resulted in acquittal due to hostile witnesses — Held: Such erroneous observations are not a ground for acquittal or reduction of sentence as the basis of conviction is the reliable oral and medical evidence of P.W.1 and P.W.9 and not the antecedents — No evidence that appellant was present in court after recess — One year's simple imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 332 IPC and three months rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 5,000/- under Section 504 IPC awarded to Devanand is just and proper — Fine of Rs. 15,000/- in default simple imprisonment for six months awarded to Sunil @ Pintu under Section 332 IPC is also just and proper — No interference warranted [Paras 14–17].

Decision: Both criminal appeals dismissed – Conviction and sentence of Devanand s/o Sahebrao Rochkari under Sections 332 and 504 IPC and of Sunil @ Pintu s/o Sambhaji Rochkari under Section 332 IPC upheld – Bail bonds and sureties of both appellants discharged from liability – Conviction warrant to be issued against appellant Devanand s/o Sahebrao Rochkari.

Civil Law – Declaration of Title – Burden of Proof – Plaintiff Must Succeed on Own Title – Plaintiff claimed ownership of Ac. 0.48 cents as part of a larger extent of Ac. 8.12 cents purchased under a registered sale deed dated 28.07.1956, alleging encroachment by Defendant No. 1 during leveling operations in 1983-84 after purchase of adjoining land – Trial Court dismissed the suit – On appeal, held: In a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession, the entire burden lies on the plaintiff to establish clear and cogent title; weakness of the defendant's case cannot be a ground for granting relief – Plaintiff failed to discharge this burden – Appeal dismissed [Paras 16–28].

Evidence – Advocate Commissioner – Localization of Land – P.W.2/Advocate Commissioner failed to localize the disputed schedule land with reference to title deeds of both parties as directed in the warrant – Could not satisfactorily explain how he arrived at the extent mentioned in his report – Trial Court rightly ignored the evidence of P.W.2; finding affirmed on appeal [Para 22].

Boundary Dispute – 'Kattava' – Earlier Sale Deed Prevails – Sale deed of defendant's vendor under Ex.B-1 dated 1948 is earlier than plaintiff's sale deed under Ex.A-1 dated 1956 – Earlier sale deed recited the disputed 'Kattava' as a joint boundary belonging to both vendors – Plaintiff and her predecessors never objected to the right of defendant's vendor in the 'Kattava' from 1948 onwards – Boundaries in the earlier registered sale deed prevail – Measurements taken after defendant's purchase were conducted in the presence of plaintiff's son/P.W.1, who raised no objection – Held: Evidence fails to establish plaintiff's title over the disputed 'Kattava'/plaint schedule property [Paras 21, 25].

Competency of Witness – Section 118, Indian Evidence Act – Plaintiff was aged about 81 years at time of filing suit; her son deposed as P.W.1 on her behalf – Competency of P.W.1 was not challenged by the respondents – Held: P.W.1's evidence is admissible, but the same is not convincing enough to establish plaintiff's title [Para 24].

Decision: Appeal suit dismissed – Each party to bear their own costs – Miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.

Land Acquisition – Requisition Without Subsequent Acquisition – West Bengal Land (Requisition and Acquisition) Act, 1948 – Petitioner's land (RS Plot Nos. 452, 453, 527, 513 and 513/3862 totalling 29 decimals, Mouza Bural, PS Sabong, Paschim Medinipur) requisitioned under Section 3(1) of the 1948 Act in LA Case No. 255 of 1975–76 – Possession delivered to Requiring Body on 22.02.1978 – No notification under Section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act ever published – No award passed – No compensation paid – Held: In the absence of issuance of notice under Section 4(1a) of the 1948 Act, vesting under Section 4(2) never occurred – 1948 Act, being a temporary statute, expired by efflux of time on 31.03.1997 – With the expiry of the statute, requisition also came to an end – No notice under Section 9(3A) or Section 9(3B) of the 1894 Act was ever served during the lifetime of the 1894 Act – After repeal of the 1894 Act with effect from 01.01.2014, no further notice under Section 9(3A) could be issued – State possessing land forcibly and without authority of law – Petitioner entitled to fair compensation under the 2013 Act [Paras 37–59, 71–73].

Constitutional Law – Article 300A – Right to Property – Deprivation Without Authority of Law – No person can be deprived of property save by authority of law – Utilisation of private land for a permanent public purpose without initiating valid acquisition proceedings and without payment of compensation is violative of Article 300A – State, as a welfare State governed by rule of law, cannot arrogate to itself a status beyond what is provided by the Constitution – State cannot claim adverse possession over land of its own citizens – Held: Petitioner entitled to be compensated for deprivation of property without legal sanction [Paras 15, 57, 59, 73].

Delay and Laches – Land Acquisition – Distinction from Service Jurisprudence – State objected to maintainability of writ petition on ground of inordinate delay, possession having been taken in 1978–79 – Held: Doctrine of delay and laches cannot be invoked to defeat a land loser's claim for compensation where possession was taken without due process of law – Cause of action in such cases is continuous – Where the State deprives a citizen of property without sanction of law, shocks the judicial conscience, and no third-party interest is involved, delay cannot be a bar – Decisions in U.P. Jal Nigam and Rabindra Nath Bose, being cases of service jurisprudence, distinguished and held inapplicable – Discretion exercised in favour of petitioner to promote substantial justice [Paras 14–35].

Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 – Applicability – Section 24 – State contended that the 2013 Act cannot apply retrospectively to acquisition initiated and possession taken under the 1948 Act and not the 1894 Act – Held: Section 24 of the 2013 Act is a saving section and saves acquisition proceedings from lapsing only to the extent indicated therein – Since no acquisition proceeding under the 1894 Act was ever initiated and no notice under Section 9(3A) was served during the lifetime of the 1894 Act, the only recourse available is initiation of acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act – Respondent authorities directed to initiate and complete acquisition proceedings including payment of compensation within four months [Paras 61–74].

Decision: Writ petition allowed – Respondent authorities directed to initiate proceedings for acquisition of petitioner's land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and to complete entire proceedings including payment of compensation within four months from receipt of a server copy of this order.

Criminal Law – Murder – Section 302/149 IPC – Unlawful Assembly – Common Object – Six accused appellants armed with rifles, axes, spears and knives arrived at the residence of deceased Pushpraj alias Pushpendra on the night of 01.07.2007 at 10:00 PM, threatened him for pursuing a case against appellant Krishna Pal, dragged him out and mercilessly assaulted him with the blunt sides of deadly weapons – Deceased died within seven hours of sustaining injuries due to shock and haemorrhage – Post-mortem revealed fractures of both humerus bones, left elbow joint, right tibia, 5th and 6th ribs, torn right lung, right pleura and trachea filled with clotted blood – Trial court convicted all six accused under Section 302/149, Section 323/149, Section 148 IPC and Section 7 Criminal Law Amendment Act and sentenced them to life imprisonment – Conviction and sentence upheld on appeal – Held: Prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent and credible testimony of two injured eyewitnesses P.W.1 (informant-brother of deceased) and P.W.2 (widow of deceased) — injuries corroborated by medical and FSL evidence — accused arrived in a premeditated manner with common object of murdering deceased to send a message to the village — all members of unlawful assembly liable [Paras 38–54, 67–72].

Evidence – Appreciation of Oral Evidence – Injured Witnesses – P.W.1 and P.W.2 extensively cross-examined on multiple dates spread over several months — minor discrepancies bound to arise but do not shake the core of the prosecution story — date, time, place and manner of incident remained consistent throughout — evidence of injured witness entitled to great weight and should not be discarded without cogent and compelling reasons — no major contradictions or inconsistencies established — prosecution case proved from testimony of two injured witnesses whose presence at the scene of occurrence is guaranteed by their own injuries [Paras 35–47, 52–54, 63–65].

Evidence – Non-Examination of Witnesses – Adverse Inference – Injured Bitti Bai (mother of deceased), Ashok and Jagdish (brothers of deceased) not examined as prosecution witnesses — plea raised that material witnesses withheld and adverse inference should be drawn — Held: Law requires quality and not quantity of witnesses — prosecution not bound to examine all cited witnesses — conviction can rest on solitary reliable witness — adverse inference under Section 114 of the Evidence Act can be drawn only in extraordinary circumstances where material witness deliberately withheld — non-examination of other injured or eyewitnesses not fatal when two injured witnesses have been extensively cross-examined and found credible — question answered accordingly [Paras 55–65].

Criminal Law – Murder vs. Culpable Homicide Not Amounting to Murder – Section 300 vs. Section 304 IPC – Appellants argued conviction liable to be converted to Section 304 IPC as there was no sharp cut or punctured wound on the body of the deceased despite accused being armed with sharp weapons — Held: Deceased and other injured were assaulted with the blunt sides of rifles, axes and spears, not the sharp edges — such manner of attack consistent with prosecution case — accused mercilessly fractured multiple bones and caused injuries sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death — premeditated arrival with deadly weapons negates sudden quarrel or grave provocation — no single blow — all five exceptions to Section 300 IPC inapplicable — case falls squarely within Clause thirdly of Section 300 IPC — not a case of culpable homicide not amounting to murder [Paras 66–70].

Decision: All five criminal appeals dismissed — Judgment and sentence dated 11.03.2011 of Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 1, Jhansi affirmed — Appellant Krishan Pal alias Lala to serve remaining sentence — Appellants Rishi Pal, Raghunath alias Batauli, Ranjeet, Bahadur and Udham Singh alias Matauli on bail directed to surrender forthwith before the Court concerned — Coercive action to be taken on failure to surrender — Pending applications including bail applications disposed of.

Code of Civil Procedure 1908 - Order 41 Rule 33 - Appellate Power - Scope of Relief - Relief beyond pleadings - First Appellate Court granted 1/18th share and joint possession to plaintiff despite no suit for partition being filed and no such specific relief being sought in pleadings - Held - Appellate court traveled beyond the scope of the suit and foundational pleadings - Power under Order 41 Rule 33 cannot be exercised to grant relief not found in pleadings or to determine shares in absence of a partition suit and necessary co-sharers - [Paras 53-62]

Specific Relief Act 1963 - Section 34 - Declaration of Title - Burden of Proof - Strength of Plaintiff Case - Plaintiff sought declaration of title based on 1990 sale deed but failed to prove the genealogy of the recorded tenant or the factum of previous partition - Held - In a suit for declaration of title and possession the plaintiff must succeed on the strength of his own title - Weakness in the case set up by defendants or lacunae in defendant title is not a ground to grant relief to the plaintiff - [Paras 65-71 84]

Indian Evidence Act 1872 - Section 114 - Presumption of Genuineness - Registered Documents - Plaintiff witness PW3 identified the signatures and execution of the defendant 1961 sale deed Exhibit C - Plaintiff alleged the vendor and purchaser were fictitious persons - Held - Testimony of plaintiff own witness falsified the allegation of fictitious execution - There is a legal presumption that a registered document is validly executed and the onus is on the person challenging it to rebut the presumption - [Paras 78-81]

Chotanagpur Tenancy Act 1908 - Section 84 - Record of Rights - Title vs Possession - 1964 Survey Settlement Khatian - Held - Revenue records do not confer title and do not have presumptive value on title - They only enable the person in whose favour mutation is recorded to pay land revenue - Finding of the appellate court that vendor title was doubtful based solely on revenue entries is perverse and unsustainable - [Paras 74-76 85]

Decision: Appeal allowed – Judgment and decree of the First Appellate Court set aside – Dismissal of the suit by the Trial Court restored.