https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763015 A writ court should not interfere with cancellation and resumption of an allotment where the original allottees remained in default, were given repeated opportunities and due notice, and still failed to clear auction dues. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's Article 226 intervention was unwarranted because the statutory orders had been passed after due process and the challenge was belated. It also held that an alleged tenant had no locus standi to contest the resumption without proving a legally enforceable tenancy or other cognizable interest, and no separate notice was required to be served on it. The cancellation and resumption orders were restored. en-us Tue, 10 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 12 Dec 2024 08:55:55 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763015 A writ court should not interfere with cancellation and resumption of an allotment where the original allottees remained in default, were given repeated opportunities and due notice, and still failed to clear auction dues. The Supreme Court held that the High Court's Article 226 intervention was unwarranted because the statutory orders had been passed after due process and the challenge was belated. It also held that an alleged tenant had no locus standi to contest the resumption without proving a legally enforceable tenancy or other cognizable interest, and no separate notice was required to be served on it. The cancellation and resumption orders were restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 10 Dec 2024 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=763015