List of Current Affairs

Source: Allahabad High Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Allahabad High Court in the matter of Allama Zamir Naqvi Alias Tahir In Fir Zameen Naqvi Alias Tahir v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Lko. And Another, has held that the provision related to anticipatory bail amended by the Criminal Procedure Code (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2018 is also applicable on offences committed before 2018.

Background

• The applicant in this case was seeking anticipatory bail for a case registered in 2014.
• The anticipatory bail of the applicant has been rejected by the Sessions court on the grounds that Section 438 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) 1973 was not applicable to him.
• The Code of Criminal Procedure (UP Amendment) Act, 2018 was notified in 2019.
  • The ‘Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Amendment Act’ states that Section 438 of the CrPC, regarding the provision of anticipatory bail, was omitted by the Code of Criminal Procedure (UP Amendment) Act, 1976.

Court’s Observation

• The Allahabad HC held that “Amendment Act cannot be restricted in its operation to offences committed subsequent to enactment of Act, 2019 and it will be available to all the persons ‘apprehending arrest’ after enactment of the Amendment Act, 2018, even if the offence was committed prior to enactment of the Amendment Act, 2018.’

Code of Criminal Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amendment) Act, 2018

• Section 438 of CrPC granting anticipatory bail was omitted in UP through of Criminal Procedure (Uttar Pradesh Amendment Act), 1976.
• There were several requests for its revival.
• The 3^rd report of the State of Law Commission in 2009 recommended restoration of Section 438.
• The bill was passed on 31^st August 2018 and received assent of president on 1st June 2019.
• Only Allahabad HC and the Supreme Court were allowed to grant anticipatory bail earlier.
• However, after the Amendment Act of 2018, Court of Sessions also got power to grant bail under Section 438 CrPC.
• Section 438 allows the accused or any person who has a reasonable apprehension of being arrested to apply for anticipatory bail though it is not absolute right

Source: Supreme Court

Why in News?

Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Munishamappa v. N. Rama Reddy and others, was hearing the legality of an agreement to sell under Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966.

Background

• As per the order of SC, the appellant and the respondents entered into an agreement to sell, in which the property in question was to be sold.
• The consideration for sale of that property in question was paid and possession of the property in question was also handed over to the appellant.
• However, due to the prohibition on the registration of the sale deed, it was stipulated that the sale deed would be executed once this restriction was lifted.
• The prohibition on the sale was due to a bar contained in Section 5 of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966.

Court’s Observation

• The SC held that “The Agreement to sell is not a conveyance; it does not transfer ownership rights or confers any title”.
• The SC further said that the Agreement to Sell cannot be said to be barred under Section 5 of the Fragmentation Act 1966.

Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966

• The preamble of the Act states that this is an Act to provide for the prevention of fragmentation of agricultural holdings and for their consolidation.
• The Act extends to the whole of the State of Karnataka.
• It came into force on 2^nd February 1967.
• It has 48 Sections divided into 6 Chapters and 1 Schedule.

Legal Provision

Section 5 of the Karnataka Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act, 1966: Sale, Lease, etc:

(1)

(a) No person shall sell any fragment in respect of which a notice has been given under sub-section (2) of Section 4, except in accordance with the provisions of clause (b).

(b) Subject to the provisions of Sections 39 and 80 of the Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1961, whenever a fragment is proposed to be sold, the owner thereof shall sell it to the owner of a contiguous survey number or recognised sub-division of a survey number (hereinafter referred to as the contiguous owner). If the fragment cannot be so sold to the contiguous owner, for any reason, the owner of the fragment shall intimate in the prescribed form, the reasons therefore along with an affidavit in support thereof to the Tahsildar and also send copies of such intimation and affidavit to the Sub-registrar, in the prescribed manner and may thereafter sell such fragment to any other person.

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force or in any instrument or agreement, no such fragment shall be leased to any person other than a person cultivating any land, which is contiguous to the fragment.

(3) No such fragment shall be sub-divided or partitioned.