Saurav Mittal vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. And 2 Others on 3 December, 2015
The distinction as suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents, in our view, does not relate to the ratio of the decision aforesaid. A transaction made by division of a parcel of land, with sale of the two portions to different persons and another transaction by division of parcel of land where only one portion is sold and another is retained by the original owner, practically stand at the same footings so far consideration of the respondents is concerned; and the ratio of Babita Jaiswal's case would equally apply. In other words, whether separate portions of land are sold to two different persons or whether one portion is retained by the original owner while selling the other, the effect, for the purpose of consideration of respondents, is the same. The question whether such different owners of different portions could be held to be co-owners for the purpose of "capability to provide land & infrastructure" for award of outlet dealership, has been decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court against the respondent Oil Company while holding that the other person cannot be treated as co-owner of the applicant's portion of plot.