https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301188 A disinvested hotel property was held not to fall within the conversion policy for leasehold-to-freehold conversion because the policy applied only to categories expressly covered by its terms. Commercial and mixed land use properties were eligible only where ownership rights had already been conferred, and the petitioner's lease was materially different from the leases ordinarily covered by the scheme in consideration, security deposit and contractual terms. The Delhi HC accepted that the authority could reasonably exclude a distinct class where there was no arbitrariness or illegal discrimination, and the refusal of conversion was upheld as neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. en-us Mon, 25 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Mar 2022 08:32:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301188 A disinvested hotel property was held not to fall within the conversion policy for leasehold-to-freehold conversion because the policy applied only to categories expressly covered by its terms. Commercial and mixed land use properties were eligible only where ownership rights had already been conferred, and the petitioner's lease was materially different from the leases ordinarily covered by the scheme in consideration, security deposit and contractual terms. The Delhi HC accepted that the authority could reasonably exclude a distinct class where there was no arbitrariness or illegal discrimination, and the refusal of conversion was upheld as neither arbitrary nor discriminatory. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 25 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301188