BAL KISHAN CHHABRA – Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA – Respondent
( 1 ) THE question that has arisen in these petitions is whether the land and Development Office (Landdo) 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 Landdo 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 defence 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 Vs. Vinay Kumar Agarwal, 116 (2005) DLT 322.
( 2 ) THE salient features of the policy of conversion of property from leasehold into freehold are to be found in the Brochure of that very name published in June, 2003 by the Government of India, Ministry of Urban development and Poverty All
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.