CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka 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