Monetary Claims in Matrimonial Disputes Cannot Survive Without Evidence: Kerala High Court Rejects ₹1.24 Crore Claim for Lack of Proof Oral Partition Can Defeat Coparcenary Claims, But Not Statutory Succession: Madras High Court Draws Sharp Line Between Section 6 And Section 8 Substantial Compliance with Section 83 Is Sufficient—Election Petition Not to Be Dismissed on Hypertechnical Grounds: Orissa High Court Oral Family Arrangement Can’t Be Rewritten By Daughters, But Father’s Share Still Opens To Succession: Madras High Court Rebalances Coparcenary Rights Section 173(8) of CrPC | Power to Order Further Investigation Exists—But Not to Dictate How It Should Be Done: Rajasthan High Court Constitution Does Not Envisage a Choice Between Environmental Protection and Rule of Law: Supreme Court Lays Down Due Process Framework for Eviction from Assam Reserved Forests Coercion Is Not Always Physical — Within Families, Subservience To Elder's Authority May Constitute Undue Influence: Supreme Court Order 7 Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Alleging Fraud in Family Partition Cannot be Rejected at Threshold; ‘Conciliation Award’ Requires Strict Statutory Compliance: Supreme Court Execution Court Cannot Decide Validity of Partition Deed:  Supreme Court Clarifies Jurisdictional Divide Between Civil and Execution Courts Constructive Res Judicata Cannot Defeat Explicit Liberty to Sue: Supreme Court Upholds Right to Challenge Family Partition Deed Despite Earlier Proceedings Photocopy Is Not Proof – PoA Must Be Proven Before Property Can Be Sold: Supreme Court Holds Sale Deeds Void for Want of Valid Power of Attorney Serious Charges Alone Cannot Justify Indefinite Custody: Supreme Court Grants Bail in Pune Crash Conspiracy Case Final Decree in Partition Suit Must Be Fully Stamped to Be Executable: Calcutta High Court Grants Liberty to Decree Holder to Cure Defect Issuance of Cheque by Accused Voluntarily on Behalf of Brother Attracts Liability Under Section 138 NI Act: Delhi High Court Section 23 Protects Trust, Not Technicalities: Karnataka High Court Annuls Gift by 84-Year-Old Father Misquoting IPC Sections Doesn’t Vitiate Chargesheet: Kerala High Court Section 187(2) BNSS | Absence of Accused While Granting Extension to File Challan Vitiates Order: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Default Bail in NDPS Case" Reports Prepared During Criminal Proceedings Not Per Se Admissible In Consumer Proceedings Unless Duly Proved In Accordance Consumer Protection Act: NCDRC Declaration of Account as Fraud Without Supplying Basis of Allegation Violates Audi Alteram Partem: Calcutta High Court Quashes Article 22(2) | Detention Without Magistrate’s Authority Beyond 24 Hours Is Constitutional Breach: Delhi High Court Grants Bail in MCOCA Case Service Tax on Individual Advocate? Not When Notifications Say ‘Nil’: Bombay High Court Quashes Demand and Bank Lien Plea That Property Belongs Exclusively To One Spouse Despite Joint Title Is Barred Under Section 4 Benami Transactions Act: Madras High Court

Transfer of Government of India's rights in running markets as a sole low or licensee -SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


A show cause notice dated 11.3.2004 was issued to respondent no.1 alleging sub-letting and unauthorised construction in a stall located at Baba Kharag Singh Marg, New Delhi. A reply was filed that the shop was allotted to Smt. Maheshi Dhoundiyal and the same was sublet in the year 1999 to the occupant. The occupant relied upon the Circular dated 25.7.1996 as well as the policy adopted by the Government in pursuance of the Cabinet decision dated 31.8.2000.Smt. Maheshi Dhoundiyal transferred the shop in favour of the occupant in the year 2000 and therefore, the occupant claimed ownership of this property. An order of eviction was passed by the Estate Office, Directorate of Estates, New Delhi on 15.12.2005, ordering eviction of the allottee from whom the occupant had purchased the stall in question. An intra-court appeal filed by the Council was dismissed on 6.4.2009 vide the impugned order. The said order was challenged by the occupant before the Writ Court. The learned Single Bench allowed the two writ petitions holding that merely because market in question has fallen into the lap of New Delhi Municipal Council does not mean it can be treated differently from other markets managed by it. Apex court held that there was a clear stipulation in the license deed executed by the predecessor of the occupant that she shall not induct any partner or sublet the premises. But in utter violation of the terms of the license, firstly, the partnership was executed and within two months, it was dissolved. Further, the public notice dated 6.8.2001 would not be applicable in respect of Baba Kharag Singh Marg market. Such license deed was executed after the office order dated 25.7.1996.The transfer of markets from the Directorate of Estates and Central Public Works Department to the Delhi City Council has been completed. The policy of transfer of allotments of the Council is to be made 60 days before the expiry of the present license. The transfer is also to be allowed in the cases of partnership, transfer, mutation in favor of the legal heirs on merits. The rights of Government of India in administering the markets as a lessor or licensee alone was transferred and not the land or the building thereon. The regularization/restoration of allotment of shops in para 3 was in terms of the policy of the Union and not that of Council. Revenue generated from the transfer of markets has to be deposited in a separate corpus of funds to be utilized only for the purpose of development of markets. Eviction order upheld – appeal allowed.

SEPTEMBER 27, 2021

NEW DELHI MUNICIPAL COUNCIL VERSUS GANGA DEVI & ANR.

Latest Legal News