Uttar Pradesh. - The Legal Chamber

Public Trust Doctrine Violated in Hasty Land Allotment :Supreme Court Upholds Land Allotment Cancellation

14Jun

By The Legal ChamberNo Comments

Supreme Court

Public Trust Doctrine Violated in Hasty Land Allotment :Supreme Court Upholds Land Allotment Cancellation

The Supreme Court upheld the cancellation of land allotment by UPSIDC due to the allottee's persistent payment defaults and failure to fulfill contractual obligations. The Court found that UPSIDC had followed the prescribed procedure for cancellation, including issuing multiple notices. The Court also annulled a subsequent allotment of the same land, emphasizing the need for transparent and non-discriminatory allocation of public resources in line with the Public Trust Doctrine Facts Of The Case: Kamla Nehru Memorial Trust (KNMT) applied in March 2003 to purchase 125 acres of land in Uttar Pradesh for floriculture. On September 18, 2003, Uttar Pradesh State Industrial Development Corporation (UPSIDC) allotted the land, conditional upon certain terms, including a payment schedule. KNMT de...

Sand Mining Case: Supreme Court Explains State’s Power to Fix DMF Charges for Minor Minerals

The Supreme Court dismissed appeals challenging demand notices for depositing 10% of the total bid amount with the District Mineral Foundation (DMF). The Court held that Section 9B of the Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act, 1957, is inapplicable to minor minerals due to Section 14. The State Government is empowered under Section 15A to fix the amount payable to the DMF for minor minerals. The Court found the demand consistent with statutory provisions and the 2017 Rules Facts Of The Case: Chandra Bhan Singh, a successful bidder for mining minor minerals (sand), was allotted a tender. In line with the Policy decision dated April 22, 2017, the Appellant was required to deposit an amount of ₹54,12,960/-, representing 10% of the total bid amount of ₹5,41,29,600/-, to the Dis...

From Life Imprisonment to Freedom: Supreme Court Cites “Misreading of Evidence” in Acquittal

The Supreme Court, exercising its appellate jurisdiction under Article 136, set aside the concurrent convictions of the appellants, finding that the Trial Court and High Court had misread and ignored striking features of the prosecution's evidence. The Court highlighted issues with witness credibility, unexplained delays in statements, and unreliable corroborating evidence, concluding that guilt was not proven beyond reasonable doubt Facts Of The Case: In 2011, the wife of PW-1 won the Panchayat Board elections, a position held by Accused No. 1's family for approximately four decades. This led to numerous skirmishes between the two sides in the months following the elections. On the night of November 14, 2012, PW-1's brother (Deceased No. 1), his son (Deceased No. 2), and daughter (PW-9)...