Lack Of Boundaries In Sale Deed Not Fatal To Title If Plot Number & Parent Title Are Sufficiently Identifiable: Calcutta High Court Terror Perception Of Underworld Justifies Delay In Invoking MCOCA; Purely Civil Disputes Can Metamorphose Into Criminal Offence: Bombay High Court Identical Wills Executed By Spouses On Same Day Not Necessarily 'Mutual Wills' Restricting Power Of Alienation: Delhi High Court Written Notice Not Mandatory For Revoking Permission Under Section 41 Presidency Small Cause Courts Act: Gujarat High Court Wife Cannot Maintain Complaint Against Husband Under Senior Citizens Act; Not Intended For Spousal Disputes: Karnataka High Court Mere Presence At Scene Or Facilitation Without Intent To Aid Crime Does Not Amount To Abetment: Delhi High Court Offences Under IT Act Punishable With 3 Years Imprisonment Are Bailable Under Section 77B: Kerala High Court Grants Pre-Arrest Bail In KCA Data Theft Case Premature Release Can't Be Denied Citing Section 435 CrPC If Sentence Under Central Act Is Already Served: Madras High Court Suppression Of Higher Qualification To Secure Job Reserved For Lower Education Is Foundational Fraud, Sympathy Has No Role: Supreme Court MBBS Admissions | Candidate Using NIOS Marks To Meet 50% Eligibility Cannot Claim State Govt School Quota: Orissa High Court High Court Cannot Exercise Article 227 Power To Strike Off Plaint When Remedy Under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Exists: Madras High Court Section 69 IEA | Onus On Propounder To Lead Secondary Evidence & Remove Suspicious Circumstances If Attesting Witnesses Are Dead: Telangana 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