Special Appeal Maintainable If Single Judge's Order Relates To Authority Acting Without Statutory Appellate Jurisdiction: Allahabad High Court Recall Of Witness For Cross-Examination Permissible On Newly Framed Issue Post-Remand Even If Disposal Timeline Is Fixed: Karnataka High Court Litigant Cannot Overcome Law Of Limitation By Shifting Blame On Counsel Through Inconsistent Stands: Madras High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Cross-Cases Cannot Be Clubbed If Co-Accused In Complaint Case Is Absconding & Complainant Delayed Process: Allahabad High Court Preventive Detention Not Warranted If Person Can Be Dealt With Under Ordinary Laws; No Effort To Arrest In Pending Cases: Supreme Court Accused Languishing In Jail For 9 Years Deserves Bail; Right To Speedy Trial Under Article 21 Violated: Supreme Court Election Disputes Must Be Resolved Expeditiously; Long Stays Render Adjudication A Mockery Of Justice: Madras High Court Delhi High Court Suspends LOC, Permits Businessman To Travel Abroad For Healthcare Conferences; Cites Roots In Society & Past Compliance Section 138 NI Act Complaint Not Maintainable By Third Party Who Is Neither Payee Nor Holder In Due Course: Allahabad High Court Writ Petition Cannot Be Dismissed On ‘Forum Non Conveniens’ If Respondent's Office Is Within Court's Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Supreme Court Doubts 'Sajjan Singh' Ruling; Refers To Larger Bench Whether Third Judge Can Re-examine Unanimous Findings Under Section 392 CrPC SARFAESI Sale Vitiated If Balance 75% Bid Amount Is Paid Beyond 15 Days Without Written Extension Agreement: Supreme Court Delhi High Court Can't Refuse Writ Petition Against BSF Dismissal Merely Because Cause Of Action Arose Outside Delhi: Supreme Court Private Rights Must Yield To Public Interest: Andhra Pradesh High Court Directs Removal Of Encroachments On Public Road Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Re-Agitate Factual Disputes Or Seek Re-Hearing On Merits: Allahabad High Court Recovery Under Section 27 Evidence Act Vitiated If Police Already Present At Spot Before Arrival Of Panch Witnesses: Bombay High Court Mere Non-Compliance Or Delay In Procedure Under Section 52A NDPS Act Is An Irregularity, Not An Illegality Entitling Accused To Bail: Calcutta High Court Recovery Of Weapon Used In Commission Of Offence Not A Sine Qua Non For Conviction If Ocular Evidence Is Corroborated: Allahabad High Court Seized Vehicles Shouldn't Be Kept Idle To Rot In Police Stations, Utility Vanishes Due To Stagnation: Karnataka High Court Or 39 CPC | Trial Court Erred In Dismissing Injunction Application Despite Respondent's 'No Objection' To Restraining Share Transfer: Gauhati High Court Issuing NBW Merely For Absence Of Accused Already On Bail Is Improper; Liberty Cannot Be Dealt With Lightly: Orissa High Court 138 NI | Expert Examination Of Disputed Documents Essential For Just Adjudication If Complainant Denies Handwriting & Signatures: Rajasthan High Court Order 41 Rule 27 CPC Cannot Be Invoked To Fill Lacunae In Evidence If Party Voluntarily Closed Evidence In Trial Court: Delhi 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