Employees Cannot Pick Favourable Terms and Reject the Rest: Bombay High Court Upholds SIDBI’s Cut-Off Date for Pension to CPF Optees Rules of the Game Were Never Changed: Delhi High Court Upholds CSIR’s Power to Prescribe Minimum Threshold in CASE-2023 Resignation Does Not Forfeit Earned Pension: Calcutta High Court Declares Company Superannuation Benefit as ‘Wages’ Under Law Fraud Vitiates Everything—Stranger Can File Independent Suit Against Compromise Decree: Bombay High Court Refuses to Reject 49-Year-Old Challenge at Threshold Mere Long Possession By One Co-Owner Does Not Destroy The Co-Ownership Right Of The Other: Madras High Court State Cannot Hide Behind An Illegal Undertaking: Punjab & Haryana High Court Questions Denial Of Retrospective Regularization Article 21-A Cannot Be Held Hostage to Transfer Preferences: Allahabad High Court Upholds Teacher Redeployment to Enforce Pupil–Teacher Ratio Arbitrator Cannot Rewrite Contract Or Travel Beyond Pleadings: Punjab & Haryana High Court Quashes ₹5.18 Crore Award Director’ in GeM Clause 29 Does Not Mean ‘Independent Director’: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Technical Disqualification Section 25(3) Is Sacrosanct – Removal of a Trademark Cannot Rest on a Defective Notice: Delhi High Court Not Every Broken Promise Is Rape: Delhi High Court Draws Clear Line Between ‘Suspicion’ and ‘Grave Suspicion’ in False Promise to Marry Case Section 37 Is Not A Second Appeal On Merits: Delhi High Court Refuses To Re-Appreciate Evidence In Challenge To Arbitral Award Recovery After Retirement Is Clearly Impermissible: Bombay High Court Shields Retired Teacher From ₹2.80 Lakh Salary Recovery Paying Tax Does Not Legalise Illegality: Bombay High Court Refuses to Shield Alleged Unauthorized Structure Beneficial Pension Scheme Cannot Be Defeated By Cut-Off Dates: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs EPFO To Follow Sunil Kumar B. Guidelines On Higher Pension Claims Equity Aids the Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Over Their Rights: Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Revive 36-Year-Old Pay Parity Claim Students Cannot Be Penalised For Legislative Invalidity: Supreme Court Protects Degrees Granted Before 2005 Yash Pal Verdict Restructuring Without Fulfilment of Conditions Cannot Defeat Insolvency: Supreme Court Reaffirms Default as the Sole Trigger Under Section 7 IBC Section 100-A CPC Slams The Door On Intra-Court Appeals In RERA Matters”: Allahabad High Court Declares Special Appeal Not Maintainable Mental Distance Between ‘May Be’ and ‘Must Be’ Is Long: Patna High Court Acquits Six in Murder Case Built on Broken Chain of Circumstances Where Corruption Takes Roots, Rule of Law Is Replaced by Rule of Transaction: Punjab & Haryana High Court Denies Bail to DIG Harcharan Singh Bhullar Mere Voter List and Corrected SSC Certificate Cannot Prove Paternity: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects 21-Year-Old Bid for DNA Test in Partition Appeal Section 147 NI Act Makes Offence Compoundable At Any Stage: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Concurrent Convictions in Cheque Bounce Case After Settlement Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court Once a Document Is Admitted in Evidence, Its Stamp Defect Cannot Be Reopened: Madras 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