Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Shekhar B. Saraf, Yogendra Kumar Srivastava
Ishan Chaudhary – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Yogendra Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel appearing for the respondents.
2. Present writ petition has been filed, seeking to assail the order dated 4.3.2025 passed by respondent no.4/Territory Manager (Retail) Mathura in terms of which, the petitioners have been found to be ineligible for allotment of Retail-outlet (Petrol Pump) dealership.
3. As per the pleadings in the writ petition, the petitioners applied for allotment of dealership of a Retail-outlet (Petrol Pump), location at Village Nagla Santhal, Tehsil Kheragarh, on Kheragarh to Saipu Road, District Agra, in response to a notification dated 28.6.2023 issued by respondent no.2-Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd.[BPCL]
4. The land which had been offered for the purpose of establishing the retail-outlet was stated to have been obtained by the petitioners on lease executed by one Vijay Singh, being part of Khasra No.177, measuring an area of 1332 sq. meters, situated at Village Nagla, Santhal, Tehsil-Kheragarh, District Agra.
5. The documents uploaded by the petitioners and the information provided by them in the application were evaluated by the Scrutiny Committee of res
The court held that a lease for land with multiple co-owners must be executed by all co-owners to be valid, and a declaration of non-agricultural use does not imply legal partition of the land.
The court emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must adhere to procedural integrity, and any order based on false representations is void.
Eligibility for dealership depends on submitting all co-owners' lease deeds as per Brochure Clause; a preliminary decree is insufficient without a final decree.
Petitioner lacked locus standi to challenge a private lease under the U.P. Revenue Code, as only parties with direct interests may bring such claims.
The court upheld the rejection of the petitioners' application for land declaration due to lack of prior permission, emphasizing the importance of notification dates and authority discretion under th....
The court affirmed that Bhumiswami rights cannot be transferred without proper permissions as mandated by the Land Revenue Code, and the petitioners failed to establish valid occupancy rights.
The revenue court has jurisdiction to grant interim injunctions in partition suits under the U.P. Revenue Code, and construction on joint land does not change its nature as a holding.
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
