Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Substituted by Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Amendment Act 17 of 1973 pita]. OF Punjab (Development nil(' t‘v,6-61I.7,..• ,-7.., . __,., _ ein .lachta v. HarYalla Urban Development Authority and Another, 1994 -..Ailotment to oustees - The plicy of allotment to oustees cannot have a 135 D.B. 64e-d1ve effect - Any executive order can be applied only prospectively - : e Sififian Aneja v. State of Havana, 1994 HRR 156, DA 4re , '4:nernative allotnimit - A Welfare State is ekpeete4to.,,aLa.„.„ 10t, alternative •- tite" ft:1' ouStees - Prayog Raj Sharma v. State of irarYana, I 111 18 D Amenities - Encroachment - It is the duty of Administration to iprovide '113. neeessary amenities such as roads, water•supply, street lights, drataage and sew- erage with other public utility services to the allottees before demanding groUnd .- , rent, and interest on delayed instalments of the premium unless they are provided rfedessary amenities - For a proper enjoyment of right of property it is essential that the property should be free from encroachment and should be easily acces- sible to the allottees - Payment can be claimed from them only when allottees are able to exercise the right to enjoy the property - There should be no obstruction in the way of allottees to reach the allotted sites and administration is under an obligation to remove any encroachment on the sites - Shanti Kunj Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. v. UT Administration, Chandigarh, 2001 H.R.R. 347 D.B. ' —Petitioner asserted that there was lack of amenities in the area - Nec- essary amenities including sewerage line, water pipe line, parking roads, street lights and parking lights had already been provided in the area - This fact re- mained uncontroverted - Even petitioner had leased portion of building to British Library - As regard the question of laying the metalled road it is prudent for the Administration to provide kachha road in the first instance and the metalled road after the completion of building to avoid damage by heavy vehicle bringing con- struction material - Petitioner's prayer for issuance of the mandamus dismissed - Global Airways & Resorts Ltd. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2001 HRR —There is nothing in the Act or Rules from which it can be inferred that 430 D.B. U.T. Administration is under an implied obligation that sites should be put to auc- tion after full developments of sites - Where it was made clear to the petitioners, in terms of clause 20 of letter of allotment, that Government was not responsible for levelling the uneven sites and petitioners having entered into the possession of sites raising multistoreyed buildings now it can not be accepted that possession of sites was not transfered to them - Sukhpal Singh Kang v. Chandigarh Admin- istration, 1999 H.R.R. 114 D.B. Award of interest - High Court granted stay order against enhancement of rent by Chandigarh Administration - Writ Petition dismissed - Charging of inter- est on amount of arrears of rent for the period when stay order was in force was challenged - There is no illegality in charging interest of the said amount for this period - However, rate of interest is reduced from 18% P.A. to 15% P.A. - The Administration cannot be equated with private commercial establishment in this respect - Rate of interest should be fixed fairly by the Authorities - M/s. Style (Dress Land) v. Union Territory, Choadigarh, 1999 1-1.R.R. 662 S.C. Cancellation of allotment - Delay in payment of Instalment - Cancella- tion of allotment of plot without any notice to the allottee is illegal - Ved Parkash v. The Administration and others, 1994 HRR 220. 6 Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 Contract - A contract can be enforced only if it is in accordance with the mandatory provisions of law and not in any other way - No relaxation can be provided in the absence of a mandatory provision to that effect - Union Territory Chandigarh v. Managing Society, Gosivami, G.D.S.D.C., 1996 FIRR 160 S.C. = 1996 (1)AD (SC) 311. Discrimination - Consentee/non-consentee - Reduction in area of allot- ment of Industrial plots on account of excluding the area, reserved as Forest land - Smaller plots had to be carved out by authorities - Some appellants gave their consent for smaller plots - Consentee and non- consentee form different class - Consentee deserve more favour than non-consentee - Consentee cannot be forced to pay price of plot prevailing on date o f al lotment of smaller plot - But this favour cannot. be done with non-consentee - Similarly those applicants who were neither petitioner nor respondents in proceedings before High Court but were invited for discussion during pendency of petition before the Supreme Court they cannot be granted any relief as they have slept over their rights - Necessary directions is- sued to Chandigarh Administration regarding charging of price, delivery of pos- session and condition of allotment with necessary modifications - Hira Tikkoo Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2004(2) HRR 152 S.C. Encroachment - Unauthorised market set up by Rehriwalas near the house of the petitioner - Respondent directed to remove Rehris within 15 days - Gian Chard Maliajan p. Rehri Market Union and others, 1994 HRR 134 D.B. Enhanced price - Allotment - Enhanced price was demanded alleging that amount received from the allottee was not sufficient for costs of external devel- opment - Demand is unjustified - D. S. Laungia and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1994 HRR 175. —Respondent State delayed the issuance of allotment letter to petitioner - Demand of enhanced price is not justified - .Balraj Kapuria and others v. State of Punjab and others, 1994 HRR 212. Enhancement of rent - Chandigarh Administration enhanced the rent of leased shop on the basis of assessment made by Engineering Department- En- hancement of rent not open to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness or discrimi- nation - Court can set aside an executive order of if is against principles of natural justice or based on irreverent or extraneous reasons - Court cannot substitute its own decision - Ws. Style (Dress Land) y Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1999 H.R.R. 662 S.C. Fixation of price - An industrial plot was allotted to petitioner in 1979 - Allotment order was upheld in L.P.A. on such condition as the Union Territory may enforce including the prices prevailing on the day - Rates were revised after ten days of this decision and price was fixed under revised rate - There, is no illegality in fixation of price by the Administration - &Older Kumar Gupta v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2002 H.R.R. 274 ,Excessive price - Once the appellant had accepted to pay the enhanced price of plot - They cannot say the price is unjustified - Puran Anand and others it The State of Haryana and others, 1994 HRR 94 D.B. Forfeiture - Petitioner failed to deposit the amount as stipulated, rather wanted to sell the plot for profit - Forfeiture of 10% price and cancellation of lease justified - Sada Sachdeva v. Estate Officer, U. T Chandigarh and others, 1994 HRR 79 D.B. Capital of Punjab (Development and 'Regulation) Act, 1' Instalment - Reduction in period of- Reduction of period from 10 years to 8 years in payment of instalments of allotted houses is riot jtisti lied - Period cannot be reduced - Krishan Lal and others v. Housing Board. Haryana, 1994 HRR