Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.
Laches - Delay of twenty eight years in filing Writ Petition challenging the impugned order passed under Capital of Punjab Act-NO satisfactory explanation was given except that tine Was spent in filing wholly untenable review petitions - Even failure of competeht authority to take steps for execution cannot be a ground for overlooking the delay - Petitioner rightly non-suited for delay - Sat Pal Bhatia v. Estate Officer, Chandigarh, 1998 H.R.R. 209 D.B. Lease - Challenge to power of lease in the absence of any rule in this respect - Section 22 of the Act empowers Central Government to create lease with enhanced rent of its property under the Act - However, Central Government is directed to remove the apprehension of arbitrariness which may arise in the mind of citizen in respect of transfer of property - Ws. Style (Dress Lund) V. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1999 H.R.R. 662 S.C. Mortgage/Attachment - Merely that a property at the time of sale was under a mortgage or under an attachment does not prove that sale of property is not valid - The purchaser of property will step into the shoes of the mortgager - Even attachment of property does not prevent its owner from selling the same - If the property under attachment is sold it will be subject to the rights of the decree holder - Surinder Kaur V. Chandigarh Administration, 2000 H.R.R. 485 Offence - Burden of proving lack of knowledge of commission of offence lies upon the complainant as to why prosecution was launched after 3 years under Section 369 of Criminal Procedure Code - Teht Rani v. State of Haryana, 1994 HRR 228. Permission for sale - There is no provision under the Act which prohibit the sale of property allotted to a person without prior permission of the Allotment Authority - There is no such condition under Act or Rules that original allotment letter should be placed on record before the property is sold nor the permission of the authority is required for sale of property - A coveyance deed duly executed held to be valid - Sztrinder Kota. V. Chandigarh Administration, 2000 H.R.R. 485 Person interested - The term as used in Section 18(1) of the Land Ac- quisition Act includes a local authority as a company for whose benefit land is acquired - Hissar Improvement Trust, Hissar it The President, Tribunal Im- provement Trust, Hissar, 1994 HRR 35 F.B. Plot cancellation - An allottee should be asked to explain the position about making wrong statement before cancellation of plot or forfeiture of the amount - Shrimati Rani Dulari v. Union Territory Chandigarh and others, 1994 HRR 67. Principle of Proportionately - Under this principle Court will see that Legislation and Administration maintain a proper balance between the adverse effect which the Legislation or Administrative order may have on the rights, liber- ties and interest of person having in mind, the purpose which they are intended to serve - The principal has been applied in India very vigorously - Om Kumar's case, 2001 (2) S.C.C. 386 relied - M/s. Teri Oat Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. Y UT Chandigarh, 2004(1) H.R.R. 659 S.C. 9 8 Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 Residential purpose - Use of premises clearly mentioned for residential purpose in the lease deed - Interpretation of it as for "commercial use" is not justified - Keshav Kumar Swamp v. Flowmore Private Limited, 1994 HRR 239 —Restoration of site - Chandigarh Administration before restoration of a S.C. site should be .aleft to take into consideration the fact of any conspiracy being adopted by landlord/lessee to evict the tenants - Adoption of dubious means of eviction should be permitted to prevail - If there is any political or bureaucratic pressure being adopted by landlord, tenant can seek restoration of their tenancy over different portion of the building - MA. Melody House Agencies V. Union Thrritory Administration through its Advisor, 2002 H.R.R. 579 D.B. Resumption - Power of resumption is the last resort for the development authorities - Order of resumption set aside - Devender Kumar v. Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Panchkula, 1994 HRR 131. —Allotted plot already constructed before order of resumption - Order of resumption not justified - Submitting of plan is sufficient - Kehar Singh v. Chief Commissioner, UT Chandigarh, 1994 HRR 84. —Limitation - Request for transfer of the house after 13 years of the date of resumption cannot be accepted - Condonation of delay declined - Major Babu Singh Bains (Reid.) v. Union of India, 1994 HRR 155 D.B. Resumption of house - Residential house being misused as a commercial guest house - Resumption held to be justified - Major Babu Singh Bains (Reid.) v. Union of India, 1994 HRR 155 D.B. Resumption of plot - Petitioner failed to complete construction within stipulated time - Order of resumption without service of notice on petitioner can- not be sustained - Mrs. Saroj Gupta v. State of Haryana, 1993 HRR 223. —Before an extreme step of resumption is taken, the allotee must be af- forded a reasonable opportunity to explain his position - Mere opportunity to file written statement is not sufficient - MA. G.M. Worsted Spinning Mills (P) Ltd. v Haryana Urban Development Authority, 1994 HRR 250 —Resumption should be resorted to in the rarest of the rare cases - Order resuming the site for delayed payment set aside - Mrs. Sita Rani Gupta v. State of Haryana, 1994 HRR 144. Resumption of site - Resumption of site was ordered as the petitioners were selling Karyana goods in the premises allotted for Atta Chakki - Misuser not established as no conveyance deed was issued - Resumption set aside - Ashawani Kumar v. Chandigarh Administration through its Administrator, 1994 HRR 157. Surrender of plot - Deduction of amount - Petitioner had deposited 25% of the price of plot - He purchased the same as the highest bidder on 20.6.1990 - He could not construct the building thereon as necessary amenities were not pro- vided by respondent - Petitioner had to surrender the plot and prayed for refund of deposited amount after deducing 10% of 25% of total price as provided in clause of the agreement - Respondent refunded the balance money after deducting 10% of the total bid money in view of its resolution dated 23.8.1991 - Held, respondent is bound by clause 18 and any amendment or change therein made subsequent to date of auction cannot be applied retrospectively - Judgment delivered in Roshan Lal Jindal's case, 1996 (2) P.L.R. 223 does not lay down correct law and is overruled - Amadeet Singh Randhawa v. Not Area Committee, Mani Majra, 1998 H.R.R. 23 D.B. Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 Tentative piiee - It is absurd to say that full price is tentative price - ,foginder Ptigh khan' ;jam v. State of Punjab, 1994 FIRR 81. Title - It is clear from the language of Section 3 (as it was before the amending Pct No. 17 of 1973) that after the auction sale is complete the title in land or baiiding does not remain with the Government - Jetgdish Chand v State of Punjab, AIR 1992 SC 2587. • Transfer of plot - Petitioner Wanted to transfer the allotted plot with the permission of the Housing Board - Delay in deposit of fee arid other documents not to stand in the way of transfer - Mrs. M Bali v. Housing Board Haryana, Chandigarh, 1994 HRR 88. *****