Karnataka HC Notices Sri Lankan Judge's Rights Plea
07 Mar 2026
Karnataka Proposes Social Media Ban for Under-16s
07 Mar 2026
Justice Dharmadhikari Sworn In as 55th Madras HC Chief Justice
07 Mar 2026
Punjab HC Acquits Ram Rahim in Journalist Murder
07 Mar 2026
Appellate Courts Can Rely on Unexhibited Public Documents Produced by Plaintiff: Gujarat High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Under Section 100 CPC
07 Mar 2026
Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
SINDHU SHARMA
Bansi Lal Gupta – Appellant
Versus
State of J&K – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
1. The petitioner seeks quashing of order No.VC/742-50/PS dated 21.09.2006, issued by respondent No. 2, whereby, the allotment of petitioner’s land in Khasra No. 62, measuring 6 kanals and 13 marlas situated at village Deeli, Tehsil and District Jammu, has been cancelled.
2. The Jammu Development Authority allotted land measuring 6 kanals and 13 marlas bearing Khasra No. 62 in village Deeli, Tehsil and District Jammu to the petitioner vide order No. JDA/DLH/647 dated 11.12.2002. Pursuant to the said order dated 11.12.2002, the petitioner deposited the cost of total land determined at the rate of Rs. 1 lac per kanal i.e. Rs. 6,65,000/-before the Authority, which was duly accepted vide receipt dated 11.12.2022. Thereafter, the petitioner remained in continuous possession of the allotted land and has also made improvements on the same.
3. The allotment of land made in favour of the petitioner was cancelled by the Jammu Development Authority in view of the decision of the Board of Directors as the plots/commercial sites were allotted by the then Vice Chairman Shri Mohd. Aslam Qureshi, withou
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the cancellation of an allotment without affording the affected party an opportunity of being heard constitutes a violation of the principles ....
Conditions for land allotment under rehabilitation laws must be reasonable and not arbitrary, especially when they affect the fundamental rights of displaced persons.
The principle of natural justice, which requires affording a reasonable opportunity to present one's case, was central to the court's decision.
The cancellation of land allotment was invalid as the respondents failed to follow due process and were estopped from questioning the allotment after five years of acquiescence.
The court upheld the validity of agricultural allotment made in 1975-76, emphasizing that findings of fact by authorities require no interference unless proven perverse.
A person who has put up construction despite restrain order, cannot claim any equity.
Nawabkhan Abbaskhan v. State of Gujarat (1974) 2 SCC 121
-
Read summaryState of U.P vs. Sudhir Kumar Singh
-
Read summary
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.