Limitation Act | Litigant Cannot Be Punished For Court's Own Docket Load: J&K High Court Illicit Affair Alone Cannot Make a Man Guilty of Abetting Suicide: Supreme Court Quashes Charge Under Section 306 IPC Landlord Cannot Be Punished for Slowness of Courts: Supreme Court on Bonafide Need in Eviction Suits Expect States To Enact Laws Regulating Unlicensed Money Lenders Charging Exorbitant Interest Contrary To 'Damdupat': Supreme Court Accused Who Skips Lok Adalat After Seeking It, Then Cries 'Prejudice', Cannot Claim Apprehension of Denial of Justice: Madras High Court Refuse To Transfer Case IO Cannot Act Without Prior Sanction: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail, Flags Procedural Lapse in Religious Conversion Case Electricity Board Strictly Liable For Unprotected Transformer, 7-Year-Old Cannot Be Guilty Of Contributory Negligence: Allahabad High Court POCSO Conviction Can't Stand For Offence Not Charged: Delhi High Court Member of Unlawful Assembly Cannot Escape Conviction By Claiming He Only Carried a Lathi and Struck No One: Allahabad High Court Jurisdiction Cannot Be Founded On Casual Or Incidental Facts If Not Have A Direct Nexus With The Lis: : Delhi High Court Clause Stating Disputes "Can" Be Settled By Arbitration Is Not A Binding Arbitration Agreement: Supreme Court State Cannot Plead Helplessness Against Sand Mafia; Supreme Court Warns Of Paramilitary Deployment, Complete Mining Ban In MP & Rajasthan Authority Cannot Withdraw Subsidy Citing Non-Compliance When It Ignored Repeated Requests For Inspection: Supreme Court Out-of-State SC/ST/OBC Candidates Cannot Claim Rajasthan's Reservation Benefits in NEET PG Counselling: Rajasthan High Court Supreme Court Upholds Haryana's Regularisation Of Qualified Ad Hoc Staff As 'One-Time Measure', Strikes Down Futuristic Cut-Offs

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