Section 7

Amendment status not verified — confirm the current text below against the official source.

Levy of fee or tax for amenities. - (1) For the purpose of providing, maintaining or continuing any amenity at Chandigarh the ' [Central Government] may levy such fees or taxes as it may consider necessary (which shall be in addition to any fee or tax for the time being leviable under any other law) in respect of any site or building on the transferee or occupier thereof. (2) If the '[Celral Government] considers it necessary or expedient so to do having regard to- e fact that the transferee or occupier is a religious or chari- table institution or that he does not enjoy the amenity for which any fee or tax is levied, the '[Central Government] may, by general or special order, exempt wholly or partly any class of such transferees or occupiers from the payment of fees or taxes levied under sub-section (1). COMMENTARY Valuation — Conversion charges — Conversion charges fixed in 2003 and 2004 were not in perpetuity — Charges fixed by Scheme, 2005 are dynamic and not static — These charges are not fixed for ever but they change from time to time particularly these are ratable to the time when person applies for conversion of property — In the present case, appellant was fully aware that Rs. 20,000/- per sq. yds had to be paid as conversion charges — But he remained silent for 2 and half years as no objection against the charges was raised —Now, at this stage, he cannot be allowed to raise any objection at such a belated stage—Appeal dismissed - 2014(2) Haryana Law Reporter 227 D.B. *** I. Subs. by Punjab Re-organisation (Chd.) (Adaptation of Laws) Order, 1968 for "State Government". 12 Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 resumption of the site or building, or both, as the case may be, and forfeiture of the whole or any part of the money, if any, paid in respect thereof which in no case shall exceed ten per cent of the total amount of the consideration money, interest and other dues payable in respect of the sale of the site or building or both should not be lade. '2) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the transferee in purst.ance of a no, ce under sub-section (1) and any evidence he may produce in suppOrt of the same and after giving him a reasonable, opportunity of being heard i; the matter, the Estate Officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order resuming the site or building or both, as the case may be, so sold and direct- ing the forfeiture as provided in sub-section (1), of the whole or any part of the money paid in respect of such sale.] COMMENTARY Allotment - Forfeiture - Respodents allottee had surundered plot before installments became payable - Appellate authority ordered that forfeiture of 10% of premimum was unfair - Only 2% of premimum could be forfeited without charging any interest and ground rent as the Administration had not delivered possession of plot - Impugned order cannot be interfered in writ proceeding - Assistant Estate Officer, Chandigarh Administration v. Smt. Anita Arora, 2001 H.R.R. 241 Allotment - Promissory estoppel - Applicant/allottees paid 25% of the total price - Possession delivered and buildings were constructed after obtaining sanction of Plan - Huge amount was spent on raising construction of building - Authorities, subsequently cannot baelcout from their promise duly made for hold- ing of property by al lottees - Rule of promissory estoppel held applicable in the case - Geeta Devi v. Chandigarh Administration, 1999 H.R.R. 154 Allotment -Allottee defaulting in payment of instalments -Administration is empowered to resume the site -2000 HRR 515 D.B. 2000(2) PLJ 417 Allotment - School authorities has no statutory right to compel the Administration for allotment of site for school - Sant Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1999 HRR 55 D.B. Allotment of plot by auction - Conditional offer - Petitioner offered to purchase a plot by auction - 25% of the amount was deposited - Allotment Authority alloted the plot subject to decision of writ petition regarding the said plot which fact was not disclosed at the time of auction - Offer made by authority as a counter offer was rejected by petitioner - Authrities are bound to refund the deposited amount as conditional offer was rejected by the petitioner - Petitioner held entitled to 12% p.a. interest on the deposited amount - Ram Phal v. State of Haryana, 2001 HRR 251 D.B. Allotment of plots - Revised policy of industrial sites for the establishment of printing presses called into question in writ petition - View of High Court that nothing illegal in revised policy adopted by Chandigarh Administration as appel- lants did not acquire right to get bigger sites in industrial area - Revised policy does not suffer from any act of arbitrariness wherein classifying appellants as a separate group or in considering them for allotment of smaller sites - Paradise Printers and others v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 1988 HRR 409. Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 13 —Discretion - The revised policy for allotment of industrial site for estab- lishment of Printing Presses was challenged - Appellant formed a separate class - Revised policy for allotment of smaller sites does not suffer from any act of arbitrariness -No discrimination was found to be established in the case - Paradise Printer v. Union Territory Chandigarh, 1988 HRR 409. —Construction - No objection Certificate - The petitioner sought Per- mission from the U.T. Administration for constructing a room on the garage - No objection Certificate from the adjoir flg neighbourhood could not be produced as the neighbour refused to give his consent - Held, it would he highly unequitable to require the petitioner to submit a No Objection Certificate which is being denied to him by a recalcitrant neighbour - The Administration directed to consider the applications for construction without the said certificate - Shri Stthhash Chander Kapoor v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1993 HRR 201. —The object of the no objection certificate is not to condone the viola- tions of the Act - It is issued for the purposes of facilitating the transfer - Sohan Singh v. Estate Officer, 1978 P.L.R. 235. Allotment of public place -Allotment of roadside land for liquor vendees by Chandigarh Administration is illegal and against public interest - 2012(2) Haryana Law Reporter 70 D.B. Allotment of second booth —Allotment of one booth to the widow of deceased allottee made as per provisions of scheme of allotment — Prayer for allotment for son of deceased rightly rejected by the Estate Officer — 2013(1 ) Haryana Law Reporter 331 D.B. Amenities - Plea of non provision of necessary amenities not acceptable when four storeyed building has been raised on the site - 1999 HRR 211 D.B. Arbitrariness - The plea that rent of other similarly situated properties was not revised, cannot be said to be an act of arbitrariness - 1998 HRR 193 D.B. Arbitrary order — Re-allotment - Natural justice — Rejection of an application for re-allotment of booth under Rule 21-A of Chandigarh Rules, 1973 arbitrarily is unjustified -2000 HRR 837 D.B. Booth and Shop- A shop is a building or a room for retail sale of some commodity - The word "booth" also means a small shop of simple construction - The user of a booth for Halwai shop or a tea-stall is for a commercial purpose only - 1968 Current Law Journal 877. Building violations —Removal of building violation only after tenant had agreed during pendency of proceedings — Resumption quashed - 2009(1: Haryana Law Reporter 122 D.B. Cancellation of allotment —Petitioner challenged the order of cancellatior of allotment before lower appellate authority with a prayer of stay of orde during pendency of appeal — But no stay was granted — Hence writ petition - Lower Appellate Authority committed an error by refusing to grant interim relic — Lower Appellate Authority directed to decide the matter after hearing th parties on merits — Relief of stay granted to the petitioner till final decision b 14 Capital of Punjab (De‘elopinent and Regulation) Act, 1952 lower appellate authority — Matter remanded for fresh decision and stay will continue till the final decision - Surinder Kumar Gupta v. Union Territory Chandigarh, 2014(1) Haryana Law Reporter 292 D.B. Cancellation of allotment —Allottee failed to deposit balance installment despite on several extensions of time — Order of cancellation of allotted plot justified —2013(l) Haryana Law Reporter 395 D.B. Cancellation of allotment — Violation of terms — Misuse of site - Petitioner violated terms of allotment repeatedly despite warning — Cancellation of allotment upheld —2016(2) Har. LR 582 Cancellation of lease — Construction - Extension fee — Resumption of site or cancellation of lease is the last resort to deprive a person of his property — Cancellation of house on ground of delay in construction set aside — Extension fee deposited within extended period —2012(1) Haryana Law Reporter 189 Cancellation of lease - Restoration of appeal against order of D.B. cancellation of lease ordered - Dismissal of appeal without notice to appellant is illegal - 2002 HRR 588 Cancellation of lease - Application for restoration of appeal was al- lowed - But on the same date, appeal was disposed of without any notice to petitioner or his counsel -Nor any intimation was given about disposal of appeal - Impugned order liable to be set aside - Ejectment proceedings subsequently instituted under Public Premises Act, also quashed - Gillon Industries v. Chandigarh Administration, 2006 (Suppl.) FIRR 206 Cancellation of plot - Blanket order - Where a public authority passed a blanked order cancelling the allotment of plot, the order held to be unsustain- able - Baldhir Kaur v. State of Punjab, 1988 (4) P.L.R. 649. Change of user - The premises in dispute were leased out to the tenant for his residence - He started running a printing press in the name of a Firm solely owned by himself- Conversion of building from residential to non-residential one in violation of provision of Capital of Punjab Act, 1952 is illegal - Tenant held liable to eviction for conversion of building unauthorisedly - Even the plea of consent of landlord against the statute, cannot help the tenant - Shri Rai Chand Jain v. Miss Chandra Kanta Khosla, 1991 HRR 1 S.C. Change of user - Landlord's house resumed on account of change of user by tenant who started a Guest House therein - Act of misuser being beyond control of landlord, resumption set aside -2003 HRR 882 Change of user — Residential/commercial area — Petitioner's contention is that Chandigarh Administration has permitted to open business centres in residential area including Doctors, Architects, barber and photographers etc. In similar way, banks also should be allowed to open bank in residential area— Held, if contention of the petitioner is accepted, it would be permitting violations of policies and rules of the Administration which cannot be allowed — Petition dismissed - Punjab & Sind Bank y Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2014(1) Haryana Law Reporter 307 D.B. Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 15 —Provision of Section 8-A and Rule 11 -D are meant to ensure that the property is used for the purpose for which it has been given to the person - A residential property should be used for the purpose of residential only and if it is misused in any other way there is a violation of the condition of sale - Property can be lost by way of resumption - The provisions are not violative of Articles 14, 19 & 21 - Dr. A.P. Samaria v. Union of India, 1996 HRR 504 D.B. —Both the courts below had concurrently decrced the suit of the plaintiff/ respondent restraining the defendant from carrying on bu, mess of running a school/ college on the 1st and 2nd floor of the demised S.0 .0. - No evidence was produced to prove the acquiescence on the part of the landlord - Admittedly original tenant had taken the premises on lease for residence in 1966 when he was a clerk - He retired in 1975 and started a school in the premises - Thus there is no question of acquiescence for permitting running of school by landlord - Appeal, being without any merit stands dismissed - MA. Ram Gopal Banarsi Dass's case AIR 1986 P & H 52 distinguished - Sat Pal Verma v. Smt. Paranijit Kaur Kang, 1997 H.R.R. 235 Charitable purpose — Charitable purpose cannot be served where use of land is only for commercial benefit of a person or Institute — Cancellation of allotment made in the name of Law Institute justified —2015(1) HLR 190 S.C. Commercial use of residential site - Proceedings of resumption of site initiated due to use of residential site for commercial use by tenant—Proceedings unnecessarily prolonged due to political pressure of tenant— Role of Adminis- tration not satisfactory — Petition allowed with cost of Rs. 25,000 - Bahadur Singh v. Chandigarh Administration, Chandigarh, 2010(1) Haryana Law Reporter 637 Composition fee — Non completion of construction - Constructior work could not be completed due to illegal act of petitioner's son not in gooc terms with him — Revised plan was submitted —Administration is directed tc sanction revised plan by charging composition fee — Resumption set aside 2013(2) Haryana Law Reporter 501 D.B. Compoundable violations Forfeiture - Violation of provisions o Punjab Capital Act - Forfeiture of 10% price justified - Order of resumption i compoundable - Vidya Sagar v. The Union Territory Adrninistration, Chandigarl 1998 HRR 59 Compoundable violations - Forfeiture of 10% price and penalty fc misuse of such construction held to be justified - However, resumption of sit held to be compoundable under rules - 1998 HRR 68 Condition of allotment - Delay in instalment of lease amount cannot t condoned merely for non-providing amenities in the area - 1999 HRR 211 D.1 Constitutionality - Increase of rent in /erms of contract under Capital ( Punjab Act, 1952 - Act of Administration is not unconstitutional - 1998 HR 193 D.B. Constitutionality - Scope -Natural justice - Before invoking S. 8-Al resumption of site and building it is incumbent on Estate Officer to give a noti 16 Capital of Punjab (INnetopinnt am! Regulation) Act, 1952 in writing pointing out default on part of transferee - Such transferee must be provided an opportunity to show cause as to why proposed action be not taken against him - Even the person in occupation of premises should be provided an opportunity of hearing - Adequate safeguard have been provided by S. 8-A and Estate Officer is expected to pass a speaking order - Dr A.P. Sanwaria v. Union of India, 1996 HRR 504 D.B. Constitutional validity - Pending proceedings - The petitioner chal- lenged the constitutional validity of Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab Act, 1952 - It was stated by the petitioner that an appeal in resect of the same subject matter was pending before the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh - Under the circumstances it is not desirable to decide the matter of constitutionality of Section 8-A of the Act - Operation of impugned order stayed till the final decision of the pending appeal - Sint. Kanta Devi Kashyap v. Chandigarh Administration, 1994 HRR 565 D.B. Construction in periphery areas — Construction without permission —No construction can be raised without permission of Chandigarh Admstration in the villages governed by the provisions of Chandigarh Periphery Control Act, 1952 — 2015(2) HLR 472 D.B. Conversion charges — Opportunity - Order of resumption for conversion of godown into a shop passed without hearing the tenant who had offered to pay conversion charges —Order of resumption passed without hearing tenant set aside -2011(2) Haryana Law Reporter 156 Default in payment - Resumption of site —Allottee failed to pay 75% balance amount of booth site allotted by the respondent —Resumption of site rightly ordered as payment was not made despite providing of 20 opportunities for payment —2013(1) Haryana Law Reporter 408 D.B. Development Scheme - Where a scheme under the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 was not implemented for a period of 5 years, it was held that the scheme had lapsed - Indian Oil Corporation v. Municipality of Thanesar, 1989 (5) Punjab Legal Reports and Statute 490. Directions — Chandigarh Administration cannot be allowed to permit any one to grab public land by making allotment at a throughway price —2015(1) HLR 190 S.C. Discremination - Question of discremination would arise only if the order in favour of another person passed by allotment authority is legally valid and (ii) the case of writ petitioner was similar in material respects to the other case but the other person had not been accorded the same treatment - Where no such finding was given by the H.C. its order held to be erroneous by the apex court - Chandigarh Administration v. Jagjit Singh, 1995 IIRR 165 SC AIR 1995 SC 705. Discrimination —Precedents —Plea of discrimination should be based upon legal and positive consideration — It does not strengthen the plea of the petitioner that an illegal benefit was availed by many defaulters for a pretty long period - Consistency in administration ofjustice which creates confidence in the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 17 system can never be achieved without respect to rule of finality — Refusal to 9 make re-allotment by Chandigarh Administration after rules of re-allotment were deleted is not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution — Petition dismissed - d Hari Pal v. Chandigarh Administration, 2014(2) Haryana Law Reporter e Dismissal of writ petition in limine - Speaking order - Res judicata - A ; 544 D.B. writ petition filed against the order of resumption of site for insurer was dismissed in limine - A detailed speaking order was passed after hearing contention of the petitioner - A review application against the sal A order was also rejected - It was pleaded that the order having been passed in limine does not bar the present petition on the principle of resjudicata - The contention has no force - Once a speaking and detailed order is passed, though in limine, the same would bar subsequent petition on the same cause of action - Petition dismissed - Sant Singh v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1999 H.R.R. 55 D.B. Enhancement of rent - Administrator is competent to enhance the rent of leased property under Punjab Capital Act - Lessee cannot run away from the terms of agreement - 1998 HRR 184 D.B. Extension fee —No policy for charging extension fee was in force when construction was raised by the petitioner allottee — Resumption of site for non- payment of extension fee set aside - 2013(2) Haryana Law Reporter 434 D.B. Extension fees - The original owner of the house is duly occupying the house in question for a number of years - As per order passed by the Admin- istrator U.T. Chandigarh the extension fees was calculated upto date - In the facts of the case when the house was duly occupied by its owner there is no need for the petitioner to obtain a fresh occupation certificate or to pay exten- sion fees - Punjab National Bank v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2000 Forfeiture - Penalties - Once the order of resumption of site is set aside H.R.R. 383 D.B. by the Administration Authorities, the order of forfeiture of 10% of the premium also become in-operative - Petitioner could not be asked to pay this amount - Once the lease is restored, the order of forfeiture could not stand - Amount of Rs. 35,287/- paid by the petitioner ordered to be refunded forthwith - M's. Goyal and Company v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1992 HRR 368. Forfeiture and resumption - Relief of forfeiture cannot be granted merely on the ground that order of resumption has been set aside - Where resumption was set aside, restoring the site alongwith the building but forfeiture was allowed to stand, denial of relief of forfeiture was allowed to stand - Ratio of M/s. Goyal and Company's case 1992 HRR 368 could be applied only when order of resumption has been set aside on merits - Navdeep Kaur Sandhu v. The Advisor to the Administrator; U. T, Chandigarh, 1995 HRR 170 Increase in rent - Chandigarh Administration increased rent of S.C.O.'s from Rs. 2,671/-to Rs, 15.824/- after expiq of lease - Increase being in terms of contract not arbitrary and unconstitutional - 1998 HRR 193 D.B. Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 19 Last resort — Resumption- Stopping of misuse - Misuse of site had ceased to exist when revision petition was filed — Resumption of site should be adopted a last resort - Resumption of site set aside —2015(2) HLR 110 D.B. Last resort - Petitioner found in possession of site in question and having an Adhaar Card of this site — Resumption of site being last resort is liable to be set aside — 2015(1) HLR 420 (D.B. Last resort —During pendency of petition, misuse of house had already been stopped —Resumption of site f-hould be the last resort— Order of resumption set aside - Dr. Jotinder Kaur v. Advisor to the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh, 2015(1) Haryana Law Reporter 74 Lease - It was held in Indian Oil Corporation v. Union Territory, AIR 1975 P & H 307 that power to grant lease includes the power to cancel the lease as well. Lease cancellation - Instalments due not paid despite repeated demand - Cancellation of lease justified - 1999 HRR 211 D.B. License for Rehri shop - Petitioner applied for grant of license to run a rehri shop in sector 23 of Chandigarh which was denied by the Administrator without solid reasons —Father of the petitioner was running the shop since 1971 and he died on 19.12.2001 —Order ofAdministrator suffers from legal infirmities and irregularities who should not have adopted policy of pick and choose in such matter — Respondent is directed to re-decide the matter in the light of observations under the order — Petition allowed - Santosh Rani v Chandigarh Administration, 2012(2) Haryana Law Reporter 560 Liquor vends — Allotment of roadside land for liquor vendees by Chandigarh Administration is illegal and against public interest - 2012(2) Haryana Law Reporter 70 D.B. Misuse — Petitioner stopped misuse of site during pendency of proceedings — Order of resumption set aside—It is settle that resumption of site is the last resort — 2015(1) HLR 509 D.B. Misuse beyond control —Misuse of 1st and 2nd floor of SCF by tenant in violation of lease agreement which was beyond control of petitioner— Misuse no more at present-Resumption order quashed -2014(2) HLR 294 D.B. Misuse of house - Misuse of house had ceased to exist with an undertaking not to continue such activities in future — Order of cancellation of lease set aside — 2016(1) Har. LR 563 D.B. Misuse of shop — Rented shop cannot be resumed merely that tenant refused to vacate it even after allotment of other shop unless misuse thereof is proved — Order of resumption set aside — 2015(1) HLR 83 D.B. Misuser - Resumption - Site in dispute was resumed by Estate Officer for misuse of site - Resumption order under challenge - During the pendency of writ petition petitioner gave a written undertaking that he would not use the premises except for the purpose which is permissible under law - Held, resumption order in view of said undertaking will not be given effect to -Amount of forfeiture will be deposited by petitioner along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum 18 Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 Increased price of plot — Once full price of plot has been paid by the allottee, Chandigarh Administration cannot demand share in increased price of plot —Nor condition of 10 years for sale can be imposed on allottees — 2015(1) HLR 475 D.B. Instalment - Interest - Petitioner who had purchased a shop-cuin-office in an auction had paid 25% price on the spot - 2 instalments were paid in time but there was default in payment of 3rd instalments - Estate Officer ordered resumption and forfeiture of 10% auction money but this order was modified in revision and plot was restored - Order of restoration is justified - Delay in payment made in accordance with the order of Chief Administrator, in revision, was due to the reason that the amount of draft was not got encashed by the authorities,' for which the petitioner cannot be penalised for payment of interest - Plot ordered to be restored without any forfeiture and respondents were directed to refund the excess amount of interest, if charged, from the petitioner - Shri Kulwant Rai v. Union of India, 1994 HRR 83. Interest - Petitioners were given option to pay balance of 75% of lease money with 7% interest in 3 equated instalments - Petitioners failed to pay instalments on due dates - Rule amended raising the interest from 7% to 12% w.e.f. 15.12.1979 - Petitioners were charged interest @ 7% till 15.12.1979 but were charged at 12% per annum for the subsequent period - Provisins of amended Rules would fully apply to the case of the petitioner - Navdeep Kaur Sandlzu v The Advisor to the Administrator, U T, Chandigarh, 1995 HRR 170 Interest - Estate Officer held to be justified in charging interest on sum payable for use of unauthorised construction - 1998 HRR 68 Interpretation — Relief — Relief denied to petitioner by a wrong interpretation ofjudgement of lion'ble Apex Court— Relief of allotment upheld — 2017(1) Han LR 479 D.B. Irregularities - Allotment obtained by appellants from DD A by fraud - Plots were of larger size than.the extent to which they were entitled to according the criteria fixed for allotment - DDA sought retaking of one of the plots by ordering cancellation thereof -Appellant not entitled to retain the plot - Inaction on the part of DDA to take action in compliance of Order of S.C. to examine • the irregularities in allotment is no ground to uphold the allotment especially when allotment was not cancelled even by H.C. -Appeal dismissed - Shori Lal and Sons v. Delhi Development Authority, 1996 HRR 175 S.C. = 1995 (3) SCC 320. Irregularity repetition — If irregularity is made in one case the same cannot become a precedent —2013(1) Haryana Law Reporter 331 D.B. Last resort — It is settled law that resumption is a last resort —Resumption set aside subject to payment of conversion fee by tenant petitioner — 2015(1) HLR 460 D.B. Last resort — It is settled law that resumption of site is the last resort — Petitioner had stopped misuse of site — Order of resumption set aside —2015(1) MLR 485 D.B. 20 Capital of Punjab (Do-elopment and Regulation) Act, 1952 - Order of resumption can be revised if there is any violations of undertaking in future - Chhaju Ram v. Union of India, 1999 H.R.R. 3 D.B. Mis-user - Residential building being misused for running a school - Resumption of site justified - 1999 HRR 55 D.B. Mis-user - Misuser of premises stopped by tenant/landlord - Resumption of site not sustainable -2001 HRR 254 D.B. Mis-user - Tenant of allottee using building in contravention of terms of allotment - Held liable to eviction- I.J. Gandhi v. The Estate Officer, Chandigarh, 2000 HRR 565 D.B. Mis-user charges — Misuse of site by tenant in violation of lease agreement which was beyond control of landlord — Order of resumption for misuse of site set aside — Misuse charges can be recovered from landlord - 2014(2) HLR 294 D.B. Mutation - Right of hearing - Resumption order passed without impleadment of petitioner in whose favour a sale deed has been executed — Mere absence of mutation does not affect the right of hearing of petitioner - 2011(2) Haryana Law Reporter 515 Natural justice - Resumption of site without notice to its occupant is illegal -2001 HRR 254 D.B. No objection certificate - The object of the "No objection certificate" is not to condone the violations of the Act or the Rules and as such, it cannot have such any fact by implication - Sohan Singh v. Estate Officer, 1978 P.L.R. Non-payment of instalments —Resumption - Resumption of site is a 235 matter of last resort - As amount with interest cost and ground rent was paid by allottee - Order of reswnption set aside - 2006(1) HRR 554 D.B. Notice - Order of resumption without notice to tenant for alleged misuser not to be passed without notice to landlord as well as tenants -2001 HRR 254 D.B. Notice - Resumption of site without prior notice is illegal - Even a tenant must be served with notice - International Publishers (M/s.) v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2006 (Suppl.) HRR 274 D.B. Occupation certificate- Plot was resumed on false ground that petitioner had failed to get occupation certificate in time — Order being illegal set aside — Case remanded for fresh decision —2016(1) Hat LR 357 D.B. Opportunity - Misuser - Petitioner's allottee let out her property to a tenant in bona fide manner - Tenant allegedly started misusing the tenanted property for running a Guest House in violation of terms of allotment - Estate Officer passed exparte order against allottee ignoring the principles of natural justice - There is merit in the contention of petitioner - Case remanded to Estate Officer for fresh decision - Petition allowed - Shama Sachdeva v. Advisor to the Administrator; 2001 HRR 21 D.B. Opportunity to tenant —Before taking step to resume a site tenant must be afforded an opportunity of hearing — 2015(1) I-ILR 460 D.B. Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 21 P.I.L. Petitioner approached the High Court to safeguard public interest and having no personal interest involved —PIL is maintainable in the interest of general public as running of liquor vends on roadside will add to be more congestion - 2012(2) Haryana Law Reporter 70 D.B. Penalty — Resumption of site - Residential building being misused as guest house - Penalty at Rs. 3,003/- per year imposed on the owner - 1998 Penalty - Interest - Petition,r failed to pay lease amount for the period HRR 55 1977 to 1991 amounting to Rs. 2,02,500/- towards ground rent - A 100% penalty was imposed on the outstanding amount of ground rent which was ordered to be recovered as arrears of land revenue - Present petition was filed against the impugned order alleging that the penalty is excessive - There is no illegality in the impugned order as the petitioner had flouted the valid and legal orders of the administration with impunity - Petition dismissed with cost of Rs. 5,000- Batra Finance Pvt. Ltd. v. Chandigarh Administra- tion, 1996 HRR 128 DB. Power of resumption - Forfeiture - Allotment - Authorities can take recourse to Section 8-A of the Act where allottee has dishonest intention or ill motive in not making the payment of balance instalments - But if the default is not wilful or dishonest but due to a situation beyond allottee's control, re- sumption of site would not be proper - Sympathy or sentiment will not deter the statutory authority from passing an order of resumption if there is violation of legal right - Resumption of site depends on fact to fact of each and every case - Teri Oat Estates Pvt. Ltd. v. UT Chandigarh, 2004(1) H.R.R. 659 Public building - A Petrol Pump in a zoning plan of the Capital of S.C. Chandigarh does not fall within the definition of Public Building - Public utility service excludes from its purview a petrol pump and a service station - Daya Sarup v. State of Punjab, AIR 1964 Punjab 533. Public purpose -Acquisition - State cannot be prevented from acquiring a land under constructed house on mere allegation of pick and choose unless mala fide is shown on its parts — 2007(1) HRR 303 D.B. Removal of violations— Revised plan — Petitioner agreed to remove all non compoundable violations and to submit revised building plan of SCF — Order of resumption set aside subject to compliance of necessary directions — 2015(1) HLR 451 D.B. Res judicata - Petition dismissed in limine by a detailed and speaking order - Second petition on the same cause of action is barred - 1999 HRR 55 D.B. Resumption - Resumption of site was resumed by Chandigarh Administra- tion alleging construction raised in violation of building bye-laws - Most of the violations are removed - Violation can be compounded or rectified - Order of resumption quashed - B.N. Kataria v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2002 H.R.R. 240 D.B. 22 Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 Resumption - Violation - Tenanted premises was resumed by Administration - Landlord was permitted to remove the violation about which tenant had no knowledge - Landlord sought tenant's eviction on the ground that he had made material changes in the demised premises - Tenant challenged the order of resumption by and large k.n the grounds taken by landlord at the time of order of resumption - Tenant Should have been permitted to comply with the condition as permitted to landlord - Prem Kumar v. Chandigarh Administration, 2002 H.R.R. 66 Resumption — Last resort — Petitioner adhered to the time schedule and complied with the order of Court relating to construction on site — It is well settled that resumption of site is the last resort and if the allotted has not violated any rule or regulations, Allotment Authorities should hesitate from taking such step — Respondent directed not to take harsh action of resumption — Petition allowed - Kalyan Singh v. Estate Officer, Chandigarh, 2014(2) Haryana Law Reporter 555 D.B. Resumption - Drastic measures - Power of resumption of site or build- ing under the Act should be used sparingly by authorities - Such measure is a drastic one and should be invoked only when there is flagrant violation of condition of sale - When misuser of property is not by owner but by a lessee being beyond control of the owner - Restoration of resumed site or building can be made to the owner of property - Dr. A.P. Sanwaria v. Union of India, 1996 HRR 504 D.B. Resumption - Order of resumption is an extreme step - Should be passed only as a last resort - 2001 HRR 254 D.B. Resumption — It is settled law that power of resumption is a weapon of last resort - 2009(1) Haryana Law Reporter 122 D.B. Resumption — Petitioner continued violating of rules by constructing of Govt. land — Resumption of site justified —2013(1) Haryana Law Reporter 49 D.B. Resumption — Misuse - Once misuse of house has stopped, order of resumption cannot be permitted to stand — Petition allowed —2016(1) Har. LR 217 D.B. Resumption—Rented shop cannot be resumed merely that tenant refused to vacate it even after allotment of other shop unless misuse thereof is proved— Order of resumption set aside — 2015(1) HLR 83 D.B. Resumption and Eviction - Landlord filed ejectment application against respondent-tenant - Respondent raised preliminary objection that since the demised building had already been resumed by Administration, the petition for ejectment was not maintainable - The objection has no merit - Removal of misuser of premises was beyond control of landlord - He was unable to remove this cause of misuser even during extended period as it was not within his control - Specified time for removal of misuser can be again extended in the circumstances of the case - Preliminary objection repelled - Babu Singh Bain 's case 1998 H.R.R. 511 SC distinguished - Dr AmrikSingh Chathav Bishanber Dass, 2000 H.R.R. 28 Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 23 Resumption as last resort - Petitioner could not raise construction on allotted site in time due to reasons beyond his control — Order of resumption should be last resort —Order of resumption set aside -2010(2) Haryana Law Reporter 191 Resumption of building - A structure was raised by tenant in violation of provisions of th Capital Act - Notice for resumption of building was served upon landlord by the Administration - Tenant held liable for eviction irrespective of the fact whether building has been impaired or not within the meaning of S. 13 (2) (iii) of East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act - Durga Seed. Farm's case, 1995 HRR 304 S.C. distinguished - United Engineers v. Nirmal Bhasin, 2005(1) HRR 85 Resumption of plot —Respondent allottee failed to complete construction on allotted plot within a long period of 5 years — Resumption of site held to be justified —2013(1) Haryana Law Reporter 428 D.B. Resumption of plot - The petitioner had failed to pay the amounts due as per the terms of allotment - The Estate Officer validly passed the order oi resumption of plot and forfeiture - It was merely as a measure of concession tha the said order was set aside by the revisional authority subject to the petitione paying the outstanding due and an amount equal to the forfeiture imposed by th( Estate Officer - Order of forfeiture has clearly to be held valid and legal - Peti tioner whose penalty was waived cannot claim that order of forfeiture also shoul( be set aside - Relief declined - Ashok Kumar v. Union of India, 1993 HRI 640 Resumption of plot - Petitioner allottee was not provided any opporttuit of hearing before a resumption order was passed by the Advisor, U.T. Chandigar - Order of resumption cannot be sustained Even a finding on a point not take in the show cause is illegal and without jurisdiction - Harnam Singh v. Unio Territory, 1994 HRR 426 D.B. = 1994 PLJ 294. Resumption of plot - The building in dispute, had already been constructe when the order of resumption was passed by the authorities - Requirement law stand fulfilled by the allottee petitioner - There is no justification for orderir the resumption of plot - Submitting of a revised plan is sufficient to meet ti requirement of law - Order of resumption set aside - In other words, supposir a person had got sanctioned a plan for a double storey house but he complet only one storey and can get occupation certificate just by submitting revisr plan for the single storey; in that eventuality the site should not be resumer Kehar Singh v. The Chief Commissioner, U. T Chandigarh, 1994 HRR 8 Resumption of site — Purchaser of plot let out the premises to banl Directed to apply for change of trade in terms of notification issued in this beh( otherwise plot may be resumed - I.J. Gandhi v. Estate Officer, Chandigat 2000 HRR 565 D.B. Resumption of site —Allottee owner did not deposit conversion fee jt to facilitate tenant's eviction — Tenant tried to pay the amount and order resumption set aside —2015(1) HLR460 D.B. 24 Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 Resumption of site —Lessee was to complete building within prescribed period of three years from the date of allotment—He could not complete con- struction within this period — Subsequently, plot was resumed by the Authority — Impugned Order cannot be sustained on the following grounds :- (i) Allottee spent Rs. 51 crores and had obtained a loan of Rs. 45 crores for completion of building, which proves bona fide intention of the allottee. (ii) Authority took 4 1/2 years in sanctioning the revised plan. (iii)Authority has discretionary powers to grant exemption under the Rules. (iv) All the dues had already been paid by the allottee relating to the plot. (v) Under section 8A of the Act, resumption of plot is not a mandatory provision for breach of conditions. (vi) Allottee was given only a period of 111/2 months whereas under Rule 16 of 1973 the limit is 3 years. (vii) Allottee had paid R. 3.90 crores as extension fee. (viii) As huge structure has already been raised, power of resumption ought not to be exercised though alternative power of penalizing the allottee can be exercised - M/s. James Hotel Ltd. v. Union Territory Chandigarh, 2010(2) Haryana Law Reporter 84 D.B. Resumption of site — Last resort — Before passing an order of resumption it is obligatory on the part of Estate Officer that the wrong doer has been penalized under relevant rules including Rule 15 framed under section 22 of the Punjab Act, 1952— Every action of defaulter should be explained in the show cause notice It is also bounden duty of the appellate authority to reverse the order of resumption of site if it comes to the conclusion that order has been passed by the authority below in disregard of the legal provisions of law — If mischief to section 8A has been done, the order should be quashed — The Appellate Authority is expected to perform its plenary duty to 'confirm', 'vary' or 'reverse' the order - Dheera Singh v. UT Chandigarh Admn., 2013(1) Haryana Law Reporter 57 F.B. Resumption of site - Petitioner delayed payment of instalments of his plot, inspite of demand notice - Resumption of plot ordered - Held, extreme step of resumption of plot held to be in contravention of the Act - Resumption of site due to delay in payment of instalment cannot be sustained- Impugned order set aside to that extent - 1989(2) PLR 668 followed - AIR 1991 SC 1453 distinguished - Jaswant Singh v. Chandigarh Administration, 1993 HRR 355 D.B. Resumption of site - Petitioner allottee found to be sincere in complying with terms and conditions of allotment - He invested huge amount on construction of site - Entire premium amount including ground rent paid by petitioner on demand of authorities - Order of resumption of site was passed due to delay in payment of instalment - Owners of property cannot be deprived of their property Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 25 by passing harsh order of resumption unless default committed by allottee is intentional and consistent - Impugned order being bad in law cannot be sustained - Petitioner allowed - Brij Bhushan Sharma v. Estate Officer, U.T Chandigarh, 2000 H.R.R. 768 Resumption of site -Notice issued to appellant/allottee to pay the amount due in respect of allotment of plot - Payment made including amount of interest and penalty - Resumption order for non payment of instalment deserves to be quashed - Allotment rdered to be regularised - Jasbir Kaur v. UT. Chandigarh, 1999 HRR 463 S.C. Resumption of site - Rate of interest -Appellant failed to pay instalments qua the allotted plot on account of her bad financial position - Resumption order was set aside by Appellate Authority restoring the site to appellant - At the same time Appellate Authority imposed regular interest at the rate of 7% and penal interest at the rate of 18% on the delayed payment - In appeal the Hon'ble Supreme Court reduced the interest at the rate of 7% and 11% respectively - Appeal allowed to that extent - Surinder Kaur v. Govt. of Punjab, 1999 H.R.R. 63 S.C. Resumption of site - Leave to appeal - Eviction of allottee and sub- lettee was ordered by Estate Officer and upheld upto High Court for subletting and misuse of booth - The High Court and the Court below came to the conclusion that there was no violation of rules of natural justice - Sub-lettee entering through back door illegally and performing "Akhand Path" - Case of trespass stands established - Allottee appearing to defend his case at very late stage and leasing the same - Equitable ground for grant of leave pleaded - No leave can be granted on equitable grounds - Petition dismissed - Ishar Singh v. District and Session Judge, 1999 HRR 170 S.C. Resumption of site - Order of resumption of site passed by competent authority-Appeal as well as revision also dismissed - Petitioner after order of resumption cannot be allowed to raise construction on the resumed site. However having regard to the fact that petitioner has spent substantial money on con- struction, he is allowed to retain the possession and to apply for reallotment under Rules to the Administrator by paying prevailing market price - Sat Pal Bhatia v. Estate Officer, Chandigarh, 1998 H.R.R. 209 D.B. Resumption of site - It is settled law that power of resumption of site should not be resorted to illegality - But Court cannot over look the matter where haves of the Society try to grab public property by hook or by crook - Gain of individuals is a direct loss to the public exchequer - Court must not show compassion towards those who want to enjoy public property without fulfilling their duty - Devinder Singh Pannu v. Chandigarh Administration, 1998 H.R.R. 93 D.B. Resumption of site - Provisions of Section 8-A of the Act 1952 or Rule 12(3) of Rules, 1973 laying down procedure of resumption of site do not offend provisions of Constitution on the ground that these provisions amount to depriving 26 Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 a person of his right to property - A lessee whose site has been resumed for violation of legal provisions of the Act or Rules is not left without any remedy - He may approach the Administration for retransfer of site under Rule 21-A of the Rules - Devinder Singh Pannu v. Chandigarh Administration, 1998 H.R.R. 93 D.B. Resumption of site - Owner allottee not making full payment of the site in dispute- Title remains with the Government till full payment is made along with interest Site can be resumed for non payment of instalment within time - During the pendency of resumption of site no person can be inducted as a tenant by the owner / allottee - Al/s. Sadhu Ram Krishan Kumar v. Union Territory Administration Chandigarh, 1992 HRR 598 D.B. Resumption of site - Premises resumed by Estate Officer - As long as the order of resumption is not final owner of the premises is entitled, to recover the rent from the tenant - Landlord held entitled to receive the rent from the tenant despite resumption of premises - Vidya Sagar v. Punjab State Ware- Housing Corporation, 2002 H.R.R. 548 Resumption of site - Natural justice - Lot of difference between con- tents of show cause notice and facts reported in inspection report - Order of resumption not based on contents of show cause notice - Violation of cardinal principles of natural justice apparently established in the case - Order of resumption passed by authorities below cannot be sustained - However, Administration is not precluded from initiating fresh action if show cause notice for violation is duly served and facts are proved against the petitioner - Sh. KN.T Nair v. Chandigarh Administration through its Advisor, 2002 H.R.R. 586 Resumption of site - It is settled law that power of resumption of site should be sparingly used - Recourse to this provision of law should be taken as a last resort - Each case has to be viewed separately - No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard - In the present case Estate Officer had levied interest at the rate of 12%, 15% and 24% per annum for different periods which in now subject of writ petition pending before the High Court - Appellant paid the entire amount which was due and ready to pay the balance of Rs. 13 Lacs - They paid the entire ground rent and also penalty was paid for non-payment of balance amount - Conduct of appellant is deprecated for not making the payment in time - But instead of upholding the order of resumption, appellant is directed to deposit a further sum of Rs. 15 Lacs with the Estate Officer within 10 days - M/s. Teri Oat Estates (Pvt.) Ltd. V. UT Chandigarh, 2004(1) H.R.R. 659 S.C. Resumption of site - Initially the building in dispute was given on rent to Haryana Government for residence when it started using it as an office - The petitioner had taken immediate steps to get the misuser stopped, and ultimately succeeded in evicting the tenant - Ground for resumption on the ground of vio- lation of the provisions of the Act, does not exist and more - Resumption order set aside - Smt. Dhanvvant Kaur. v. Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration, 1992 HRR 602. Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 27 Resumption of site - The petitioner was allotted a plot in the year 1970 - He could not construct the Hotel in the allotted site measuring 13,198.77 square yards though he had paid 25% of the total price of Rs. 13,40,000/- amounting to Rs. 3,35,000/- only - The Estate Officer vide his order, ordered resumption of site but the petitioner sought extension of time by filirig review application before the Chief Commissioner who on the ground of mercy petition granted extension of time for construction of the Hotel on the allotted site - The order of Estate Officer resuming the site is ustified as there was no power of review with the Chief Commissioner - Order of resumption passed by Estate Officer upheld - Maharani Deepinder Kaur Burdwan v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1996 HRR 495 D.B. • Resumption of site - Misuser - Special Leave Petition filed by appellant against the order of resumption was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file application under Rule 11-D of Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rule 1960 - As the order of resumption had become final the Estate Officer can look into the propriety of order of resumption only from the stand of point of Rule 11- D of Rules 1960- Appellant pleaded for the first time that most of the premises has been used for authorised purposes and misuser pertained to front portion of the show room which was let out to tenants •- Estate Officer was directed to examine the correct position and to grant proportionate relief in accordance with substantive evidence produced by appellant - Jyotsna Kohli v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2004(2) HRR 472 S.C. Resumption of site - Retransfer - For the purpose of computing the value for transfer of site under Rule 11-D of Chandigarh Rules, 1960 the value should be assessed with reference to the date on which application for retransfer was filed - In the case in hand the appellant/applicant was pursuing litigation bona fide to put an end to misuser of site - Estate Officer was directed to treat the application under Rule 11-D as having been filed in the year 1992 instead of year 1996 in the peculiar circumstances of the case - Jyotsna Kohli v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2004(2) HRR 472 S.C. Resumption of tenement - Change of user - Tenement was to be used for "fruit and vegetable" which is being used as "Jewellery Shop" - It cannot be said that the subject booth has been mis-used by the allottee in view of the latest policy of Chandigarh Administration notified on 22.01.1993 about change of trade subject to payment of certain charges - Petition allowed - Shri Ram Avtar v. Chandigah Administration, 2008(2) HR 599 Retrospective effect - Validity of provision - Section 8-A of the Act was inserted with retrospective effect from 1966 - Validity of this Section was challenged - Rule 11 D gives discretionary powers to Estate Officer but he cannot reject an application arbitrarily and cannot pass orders without giving reasons - Resumption under Section 8-A can be ordered not only for nor payment of rent but also for violation of conditions and rules made in this regarc - There is no ground to declare Section 8-A as violative of Article 14 - This as 28 Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 enabling clause only - Validity of Sec. 8-A upheld - Order of High Court maintained - Babu Singh Bains etc. v. Union of India, 1996 HRR 511 S.C. Review — A quasi judicial Tribunal has no power to review its order unless it is conferred with such power by statutory provisions —2013(1) Haryana Law Reporter 395 D.B. Show cause notice — Unauthorised construction — Petitioner raised illegal construction within four walls —It was not possible for authorities to know the date of construction or its completion—Validity of show cause notice upheld — 2017(1) Har. LR 237 D.B. Tenant's error - Landlord cannot be penalised by passing order of resumption for error of misuser of tenant - 2001 HRR 254 D.B. Transfer of plot - Where a person had purchased the plot for consider- ation and applied to the authority for the registration of the transfer in his name it was held that the registration cannot be refused by the Estate Officer or the Chief Administrator merely on the ground that the proper affidavit undertaking the liability of the said plot is not filed by the transferee - Gian Singh v. State of Punjab, 1969 P.L.R. 531. Undertaking - Allottee's tenant giving undertaking before Court to vacate the building to comply with terms of allotment - Held liable to vacate the premises - 2000 HRR 565 D.B. Violation by Corporation - Where the Municipal corporation had placed restrictions on constructing more than one storey but it had constructed itself a four storeyed building on similar land, it was held that the action ofthe Corporation placing restriction on other owners could not be sustained - Shukan Kumar v. Municipal Committee Ludhiana, 1989 (5) Punjab Legal Reports and Statutes