Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.41 seconds)
Jagdish Kumar Lal Thr Lrs vs Govt Of Nct Of Delhi & Ors on 4 January, 2016 cites

Municipal Corporation Of Delhi vs Sadhna Grover & Anr. on 18 March, 2015

11. The challenge of the appellants to the policy dated July 06, 2011 cannot be sustained on the reasons urged. The appellants claim that the policy needs to be struck down for the reason the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No.240/2006 did not direct MCD to frame the policy rather recorded the statement of the counsel. Vide the amendment dated July 06, 2011 the expression "Hon'ble High Court of Delhi passed an order in LPA No.240/2006 titled MCD Vs Sadhna Grover vide which MCD was directed to frame a policy with regard to the Coal Depots. Pursuant to the above said orders of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi..." appearing in para-1 of the Circular No.AO/CL&EC/2011/87 dated 06.07.2011" has been deleted in the policy and thus the challenge on this ground does not survive.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 8 - R S Endlaw - Full Document

M/S Saptagiri Restaurant vs Airports Authority Of India on 18 May, 2015

24. It cannot be lost sight of that the predecessor of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner was but a tehbazari holder. A tehbazari holder is merely a licensee, entitled only to use the land for the purpose licensed and has no right, title or interest in the land. It cannot also be lost sight of that the LPA Nos.542/2015 & connected matters Page 20 of 40 said tehbazari was expressly for running a coal depot. It is not in dispute that the business of running of coal depot came to an end in the year 1995 and beyond which it was not permissible in law to run a coal depot on the said land. In our opinion, the tehbazari of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner thus came to an end in 1995 itself and the respondent No.1/writ petitioner has not pleaded any right in law to continue in use of the said land for other purpose or to get any alternative land. The right of the respondent No.1/writ petitioner could at best be of rehabilitation in accordance with the policy, if any in this regard, as has rightly been observed in the orders aforesaid in this appeal. Reference may also be made to our judgment in Saptagiri Restaurant Vs. Airports Authority of India MANU/DE/2575/2014 where, on a conspectus of case law it was held that owing to Section 64 of Indian Easements Act, 1882, a licencee, if evicted, even though grounds for revocation of licence do not exist, or is forcefully evicted, his only remedy is to recover compensation from grantor and not to resume occupation.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 5 - V Bakhru - Full Document
1