Supreme Court Dismisses LPG Distributorship Dispute Over Land Ownership Issues
The Supreme Court of India recently delivered a judgment in the case of Jagwant Kaur vs. Union of India & Ors., addressing a dispute concerning the allotment of an LPG distributorship. The case revolved around the eligibility of the selected candidate and the validity of the land ownership requirements under the guidelines issued by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the appeal, upholding the selection of the respondent for the distributorship.
Background of the Case
The Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) invited applications for LPG distributorships in different locations through an advertisement dated January 19, 2013. The selection was conducted through a draw of lots on December 18, 2014, in which the 4th respondent was declared the winner for the location of Balachaur. However, the selection was initially canceled due to instructions from the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas but was later revived by new guidelines issued on December 18, 2015, and subsequently superseded by guidelines on February 25, 2016.
The appellant, Jagwant Kaur, challenged the selection, arguing that the 4th respondent had offered a piece of land that was also claimed by another applicant, making the respondent ineligible under the applicable guidelines. The High Court rejected the appellant’s challenge, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioner, represented by Senior Counsel V. Giri, argued the following:
- The 4th respondent had submitted an application using a piece of land that was also claimed by another applicant.
- According to the guidelines, the land should have been available exclusively to the applicant at the time of submission.
- The 4th respondent later changed the land offered for the distributorship, which was not permissible.
- The affidavit filed by the lessor confirmed that two lease deeds were executed for the same piece of land, which should have disqualified the 4th respondent.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent, represented by Mrinal Kanwar R., countered the petitioner’s claims by stating:
- The land in question was part of a larger property owned by the lessor and his family members.
- Both applicants were granted separate leases for different parcels of land.
- The 4th respondent changed the offered land only due to the lessor’s shifting stance, which created confusion regarding ownership.
- The alternative land offered met all the necessary requirements under the revised guidelines.
Observations of the Supreme Court
The Bench, comprising Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran, examined the key issues and made the following observations:
“The learned Single Judge looking at the specific provision as available in the advertisement, found that the ownership of a land with specific dimensions, within 15 kilometers from the municipal/town/village limits, included both the holders of the title of the property or a lessor having a registered agreement for a minimum of 15 years in the name of the applicant or family member, as on the last date of submission of the application.”
Key Findings
- The land leased by the 4th respondent was a distinct parcel and not the same as that offered by another applicant.
- The Corporation verified that the leases were separate and recorded in revenue registers.
- The affidavits supporting the respondent’s lease were obtained during field verification, in accordance with the guidelines.
- The revised guidelines permitted offering an alternative land in case of ownership disputes, which the respondent complied with.
Final Judgment
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, stating:
“We find absolutely no reason to interfere with the judgments impugned and reject the contentions raised.”
The Court further ruled:
“The alternate land has been offered only in the context of the shifting stance of the lessor; the acceptance of which by the Corporation was possible as per the guidelines, which provided more flexibility in the allotment process.”
Impact of the Judgment
The ruling reinforces the flexibility provided in the LPG distributorship guidelines for addressing land ownership disputes. The judgment clarifies:
- Applicants can offer alternative land if their original land faces ownership conflicts.
- Procedural compliance in field verification and documentation is crucial in distributorship allotments.
- Challenges to selection must be backed by clear evidence of violations rather than speculative claims.
Conclusion
The case of Jagwant Kaur vs. Union of India & Ors. establishes an important precedent in LPG distributorship allocations. By dismissing the appeal, the Supreme Court has upheld the respondent’s selection, reinforcing the role of procedural adherence and flexibility in resolving land-related disputes in government allotments.
Petitioner Name: Jagwant Kaur.Respondent Name: Union of India & Ors..Judgment By: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, Justice K. Vinod Chandran.Place Of Incident: Balachaur, Punjab.Judgment Date: 27-01-2025.
Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!
Download Judgment: jagwant-kaur-vs-union-of-india-&-ors-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-27-01-2025.pdf
Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment
See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Landlord-Tenant Disputes
See all petitions in Specific Performance
See all petitions in Consumer Rights
See all petitions in Judgment by Sudhanshu Dhulia
See all petitions in Judgment by K. Vinod Chandran
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2025
See all petitions in 2025 judgments
See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
