Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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