Section 164 CrPC Statement Recorded Without Procedural Safeguards Or 'Cooling-Off' Period Not A Valid Confession: Jharkhand High Court Anticipatory Bail Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Investigation Is At A Nascent Stage If Custodial Interrogation Is Not Indispensable: Telangana High Court Actual Pay Drawn During Last 10 Months Must Be Basis For Pension Calculation, Regardless Of Notional Pay In Parent Bank: Punjab & Haryana High Court Limitation For Redemption Of Usufructuary Mortgage Starts Only When Mortgage Money Is Paid Or Tendered: Allahabad High Court Exclusion Of Natural Heir From Will Not A Suspicious Circumstance If Execution Is Duly Proved: Punjab & Haryana High Court Right To Travel Abroad Is A Basic Human Right; Permission Cannot Be Denied Merely Because Visit Is For 'Social Or Celebratory' Purpose: Andhra Pradesh High Court Citizen Cannot Be Externed Merely For Raising Grievances Against Government Decisions: Bombay High Court Lack Of Opportunity To Cross-Examine Partition Commissioner Does Not Vitiate Final Decree; Report Is Part Of Record: Calcutta High Court Section 27 Evidence Act Recoveries Inadmissible If Police Had Prior Knowledge Of Location Before Recording Disclosure: Delhi High Court Foreigners Act | Burden Of Proof To Establish Citizenship Solely On Proceedee, Never Shifts; Prescription For Parkinson's No Proof Of Mental Illness To Explain Testimony Contradictions: Gauhati High Court Trial Court Erred In Abating Suit While Application To Bring Legal Heirs On Record Was Pending: Gujarat High Court Places Of Worship Act 1991 Not A Shield Against Land Acquisition By State For Public Purpose: Allahabad High Court Unregistered Partition Deed Creating New Rights In Immovable Property Inadmissible In Evidence: Himachal Pradesh High Court Illiteracy No Excuse For Filing False Income Tax Returns, Court Must Presume Culpable Mental State Under Section 278E: Jharkhand High Court Trial Court Must Consider Convenience Of Family & Accused's Right To Assist Counsel While Deciding Jail Shifting Applications: J&K High Court Investigation Substantially Complete, Offence Carries Max 7 Years Jail: Karnataka High Court Grants Bail To Police Officers In Corruption Case Buyer's Knowledge Of Title Defect Doesn't Extinguish Statutory Warranty Of Title Unless Sale Deed Specifically Excludes It: Kerala High Court Madras High Court Sets Aside Appointment Of PAs To Judges, Says Relaxation Of Qualifications Via Circular Violates Article 14 BNSS | Mere Allegation Of Calling Deceased To Spot Not Sufficient To Deny Bail To Woman If Charge Sheet Filed: Orissa High Court Amendment To Rectify Property Description In Agreement To Sell Can Be Allowed At Any Stage Of Specific Performance Suit: Delhi High Court NDPS | Confession Before Police Cannot Be Sole Basis For Prosecution: Telangana High Court Grants Bail No Judicial Sanctity For Adulterous Relationships: J&K High Court Refuses To Quash Abduction FIR Involving Married Woman Habitual Offender Accused Of Brutal Murder Of SC Community Member Denied Bail: Kerala High Court Prosecution Fails To Prove Murder Charge As Recovery Witnesses Turn Hostile: Uttarakhand High Court Acquits Man Acquittal In Criminal Case Based On Benefit Of Doubt Does Not Automatically Absolve Employee From Disciplinary Liability: Madhya Pradesh High Court Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes FIR Against Woman For Dressing Pet Dog As Lord Krishna Personal Laws Cannot Be Used As Shield To Commit Gang Rape Under Garb Of Nikah Halala: Allahabad High Court

Land Conversion Claim Leasehold to Freehold Rejected: Policy Inapplicable to Petitioner's Project: SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a recent judgment, the High Court dismissed the plea of a petitioner seeking the conversion of leasehold land to freehold, stating that the policy invoked by the petitioner was not applicable to their project. The court, comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and J.K. Maheshwari, held that the policy, which was formulated for theme parks and amusement parks, could not be extended to the petitioner's project, which did not fall under the category of a theme park or amusement park. The court emphasized that the petitioner's claim lacked legal basis as the original policy and its subsequent amendment did not apply to the subject land or the project.

Supreme court remarked, "The petitioner's assumption that the said policy with its amendment is applicable to its project and the subject land is without any legal basis and the claim of the petitioner turns out to be hollow and baseless."

The court further highlighted that the subject land had been leased to the petitioner for a period of 90 years, and there was no justification to convert the leasehold rights into freehold rights. It was clarified that the policy and its amendment came into existence after the petitioner had already been allotted the land and completed construction, and therefore, they could not be applied retrospectively to override existing legal rights and obligations.

The judgment also addressed the petitioner's reliance on certain letters and communications, noting that they were recommendatory in nature and did not grant freehold rights. The court underlined that the composition of the committee and its recommendations did not automatically constitute a binding decision.

While rejecting the petitioner's claim for conversion from leasehold to freehold, the court clarified that the judgment solely pertained to the conversion prayer and would have no bearing on other pending or future issues between the parties.

Date of Decision: March 17, 2023

BHASIN INFOTECH vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND ANR.

[gview file="https://lawyer-e-news.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/06/17-Mar-2023-Bhasin-Vs-State.pdf"]

Latest Legal News