Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.69 seconds)
Bal Kishan Chhabra vs Union Of India (Uoi) [Along With 20092, ... on 30 January, 2006 cites

Union Of India (Uoi) vs Vinay Kumar Agarwal on 7 January, 2005

1. The question that has arisen in these petitions is whether the Land & Development Office (L&DO) is competent to reject the Petitioners' applications for conversion of their leasehold properties to freehold. This assault has not been raised for the first time and a number of decisions have already been pronounced by Single Benches and also the Division Bench of this Court. These decisions have reviewed the Policy publicised by the L&DO itself. The paradox is that the lower staff of that Department resolutely refuse to implement the Policy of the highest echelons of the Government. The other dimension is the Respondent's repeated refusal to abide by Judgments of the High Court; it is no defense that a Special Leave Petition has been filed, since their Lordships have declined to interdict the operation of the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Union of India v. Vinay Kumar Agarwal .
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 15 - S R Bhat - Full Document

U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad vs Jainul Islam & Abr on 21 January, 1998

24. If one sees the power of the appellant in the perspective explained above, it would be apparent that there is no rationale why a person who has suffered re-entry should be denied the facility of conversion of his property from leasehold into freehold, whereas a General Power of Attorney holder or even a Lesser who sells the property, (when there is no authority to do so) can nevertheless be relieved of the rigors of such determination/re-entry of lease, and be permitted to enjoy the benefit of conversion into freehold. We are conscious of the fact that the respondent has not attacked clause 18.1. We therefore cannot say that the condition is arbitrary or unreasonable. However, while construing the provisions of a policy, the court is bound to give it a reasonable, and non-arbitrary interpretation. It is settled that when confronted with two interpretations, one which leads to the action becoming Unconstitutional, and the other which, even while furthering the object of the measure, saves it the court must adopt the latter (U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Jainul Islam and Maharashtra SRTC Vs. State of Maharashtra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 59 - Cited by 108 - S C Agrawal - Full Document

Maharashtra State Road Transport ... vs State Of Maharashtra & Ors on 4 March, 2003

24. If one sees the power of the appellant in the perspective explained above, it would be apparent that there is no rationale why a person who has suffered re-entry should be denied the facility of conversion of his property from leasehold into freehold, whereas a General Power of Attorney holder or even a Lesser who sells the property, (when there is no authority to do so) can nevertheless be relieved of the rigors of such determination/re-entry of lease, and be permitted to enjoy the benefit of conversion into freehold. We are conscious of the fact that the respondent has not attacked clause 18.1. We therefore cannot say that the condition is arbitrary or unreasonable. However, while construing the provisions of a policy, the court is bound to give it a reasonable, and non-arbitrary interpretation. It is settled that when confronted with two interpretations, one which leads to the action becoming Unconstitutional, and the other which, even while furthering the object of the measure, saves it the court must adopt the latter (U.P. Avas Evam Vikas Parishad Vs. Jainul Islam and Maharashtra SRTC Vs. State of Maharashtra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 24 - Cited by 33 - P V Reddi - Full Document
1