Premium

Supreme Court stays Delhi HC order directing GMR Group chief to vacate Rs 100-crore farmhouse

The 3.8-acre property in Delhi leased by the GMR Group, which operates DIAL, was being used by the CMD as his residence.

The Collegium also recommended that Justice Soumen Sen of the Calcutta High Court be appointed as the Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court, and that Justice M Sundar, the senior-most judge of the Madras High Court, be appointed as the Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court.The Collegium also recommended that Justice Soumen Sen of the Calcutta High Court be appointed as the Chief Justice of the Meghalaya High Court, and that Justice M Sundar, the senior-most judge of the Madras High Court, be appointed as the Chief Justice of the Manipur High Court. (Express File)

The Supreme Court Wednesday stayed the Delhi High Court order which directed the chairman and managing director (CMD) of GMR Group and the Delhi International Airport Ltd (DIAL) to vacate a property worth over Rs 100 crore in Pushpanjali Farms in Bijwasan.

Issuing notice on DIAL’s appeal, a bench of Justices Aravind Kumar and N V Anjaria said that the September 1 order of the High Court will remain on hold in the interim.

The 3.8-acre property leased by the GMR Group, which operates DIAL, was being used by the CMD as his residence.

Story continues below this ad

The Delhi High Court order came on a plea by Onkar Infotech, which has now purchased the property. The erstwhile owner of the property — Indus Sor Urja Private Limited — had executed a lease deed in April 2020 in favour of GMR Group and DIAL. But Onkar Infotech became the new lessor after purchasing it.

However, the lease deed with DIAL and the GMR Group was unregistered, which the HC factored in while ordering their eviction.

While the defendant parties were paying a rent of Rs 39.67 lakh per month (along with applicable GST) at the time of execution of the lease deed, the current rent stood at a sum of Rs 45.62 lakh per month (along with applicable GST).

DIAL and the GMR Group had argued that the Pushpanjali property, being agricultural land, required no objection certificate (NOC) or permission from the authorities concerned under the Delhi Lands (Restrictions on Transfer) Act, 1972, and the Delhi Land Reforms Act, 1954, for the registration of the lease deed. It was also their case that such NOC or permission could not be taken owing to the pandemic at the time.

Story continues below this ad

The High Court, however, ruled that the Delhi Land Reforms Act will not apply in the property’s case because “once the land is admittedly not being used for any agricultural/horticultural purposes and the land in question is an identified piece of land, it will automatically come outside the ambit of the Act”.

The Supreme Court will hear the matter next on October 29.

Stay updated with the latest - Click here to follow us on Instagram

Latest Comment
Post Comment
Read Comments
Advertisement
Advertisement
Loading Taboola...
Advertisement