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

No Need for NOC from Land Owners in Case of Lease Deed: High Court Upholds Candidature for LPG Distributorship

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant ruling, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, led by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal, upheld the selection of respondent No.4 for LPG distributorship at Balachaur, District SBS Nagar, dismissing the petitions filed against the Union of India and others in the cases of CWP-9511-2018 (O&M) and CWP-24497-2019.

Justice Bansal, in his detailed judgment, clarified the nuances of land lease requirements for LPG distributorship applications. The judge observed, "In case of lease deed, there is no concept of seeking NOC from owners of land," thus addressing a key contention of the petitioner, Mr. Ashish Duggal. This pivotal clarification steered the course of the judgment, emphasizing the distinction between the ownership and lease deed scenarios in such applications.

The case revolved around the procedural aspects of the selection process undertaken by Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (Corporation) for the allotment of LPG distributorships. The petitioner challenged the candidature of respondent No.4, asserting procedural deficiencies in the selection process. The primary focus was on the validity of the lease deed and the requirement of notarized affidavits from co-owners of the leased land.

Justice Bansal meticulously examined the clauses of the brochure issued by the Corporation, highlighting, "The respondent No.4 was sole lessee of the offered lease land and she was not required to get 'NOC' from anyone." This observation was central to the dismissal of the petitions, as it affirmed the compliance of respondent No.4 with the brochure requirements set forth in August 2013.

The Court also addressed the issue of the land being mortgaged prior to the lease, noting that there was no restriction in the brochure against executing a lease deed for mortgaged land. In this context, the Court found no reason to invalidate the lease deed or the selection process.

Date of Decision : 20.01.2024

ASHISH DUGGAL VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.     

 

Latest Legal News