Back
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, MANISH KUMAR
Prem Prakash Yadav – Appellant
Versus
Union of India Thru Secy. Min. of Urban Planning and Development – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for parties.
2. Petitioner, a practicing advocate claims himself to be a tenant of House No. 23, Stanley Road, Allahabad (new number being 85) built upon Nazul land bearing Nazul Plot No. 22 AA situated at Civil Station, Allahabad. The said plot was registered under the name of Smt. Chandrakala Devi. On 16.06.2001, approval was granted for conversion of the said Nazul Land into freehold in favour of legal heirs of late Smt. Chandrakala Devi. A sale deed was executed by legal heirs of Late Smt. Chandrakala Devi on 18.08.2001 in favour of respondent Nos. 8 to 10. By the present petition, petitioner is praying for the quashing of a government policy decision dated 26.02.2014 whereby approval was given to revise rates for conversion of Nazul property into freeholds and change in Nazul policy. He is also challenging Clause 10 of Notification dated 04.03.2014. A prayer for quashing of deed dated 07.07.2001 whereby in pursuance of order dated 16.06.2001, a sale deed was executed by the State in favour of legal heirs of Late Smt. Chandrakala Devi. A prayer seeking mandamus commanding the respondents to not interfere in petitioner's possession over House No
The principle of forum conveniens requires that parties should adhere to their initial choice of forum when multiple related petitions are pending, to avoid judicial inefficiency and inconvenience.
The doctrine of forum conveniens applies in determining the appropriate forum for hearing a dispute, considering the convenience and hardship faced by the parties involved.
Point of law: In matters relating to transfer of a case from one district to another, it is to be noticed that if the case is pending before a Court which is within the specified area of Oudh only in....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of forum conveniens in determining the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitu....
The Courts at Patiala did not have jurisdiction to entertain the suit of the respondent as the suit property/res is situated in Gurugram. The agreement in question is a forged and fabricated document....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
