(I) [Subject to the provisions of this section, the Central Government may] sell, lease or otherwise transfer, whether by auction, allotment or otherwise, any land or building belonging to the Government in Chandigarh on such terms and conditions as it may subject to any rules that may be made under this Act, think fit to impose.
I. Substituted by Punjab Re-organisation (Chd.) (Adaptation or I,aws) Order, 1968 for "State Government".
2. Substituted by Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Amendment Act 17 of 1973 Capital of Punjab (flzvelopment and Regulation) Act, 1952 4 Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952
(2) The consideration money for any transfer under sub-section (1) shall be paid to the '[Central Government] in such manner and in such instalments and at such rate of interest as may be prescribed.
2[(3) Notwithstanding,anyth i rig Contatried in any other law for the time being in force, until the entire e6ii,sidara:tieti Inonby togeflidr amount, if any, dtie, to the dentrat•Governmcht On account, of the ti:40:dr Of any site or building, or both, under gtibsectiOitti,) is paid, stiltsiteoititiiftiitig,et both, as the case may be, shall Confititie, fdliefoliA to the Central Government.]
e (WiliVN -0111Y Allotment - Petitioner a,S memberStpciety depOsited 10% but was not • allowed to deposit 25% amount on aceouiit of adverse reportof SerOning,Cornmittee - The Committee decided to exclude 'name of petitioner Fi-Om. 61igible members without hearing him - Order of exclusion of name of petitioner not legally justified - Respondent directed to consider allotment of flat to petitioner -Revision allowed - Surinder Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 2003 H.R.R. 617 —Payment of interest - Appellant al lottec was allotted a site for which he paid 1/4th price of plot though enjoying site for a decade - He started earning rental income from constructed building complex - Interest @24% was levied on al lottee due to delayed payment in accordance with amended rule - Levy of 24% interest is legally valid in the circumstances of the case - However, appellant is granted time to make payment of balance of interest amount - S.M.S. Sandhu v.
'Chandigarh Administration, 2003 H.R.R. 355 S.C.
Allotment of plot - An oustee is entitled to allotment of a plot at a reserve riejparticularity when persons of the same category have been given the plots - •Mst. Bachni v. Gurcharan Singh and others, 1994 HRR 55.
' —An applicant for allotment of plot should not be allowed to suffer due to bureaucratic inefficiency - Phula Singh v The State of Punjab and another, 1994 HRR 56.
—A letter seeking mere clarification cannot be treated as a letter of refusal of:allotment - -Major Pritam Singh v State of Haryana and others, 1994 HRR „ f15.
—Petitioner's allotment was cancelled as he had requested for allotment of bigger plot - Cancellation of plot is illegal - Major Pritam Singh v State of Haryana and others, 1994 HRR 75.
—Petitioner paid full price of the plot - Held entitled to allotment of plot without payment of enhanced price - Joginder Singh Khcmijaon v. State of Punjab and another, 1994 HRR 81.
—Cancellation - Delay in payment by the al lottee was that the amount of draft was not got encashed by the authorities - Al lottee not to be penalised - Shri Kulwant Rai v. Union of India and others, 1994 HRR 83 D.B.
, —The condition of appointment of S.D.O. (Civil) as Chairman of Dharan. sliala Trust cannot be imposed - Trust held entitled to allotment of plot - Sint.
KriSima Sethi Memorial Charitable Trust, Chandigarh v. State of Haryana, 1994 1-IRR 86.
—Petitioner denied opportunity of extension of time for construction in accordance with the policy decision - Resumption set aside - flajinder L Substituted by Punjab Re-organisation (Chd.) (Adaptation of Laws) Order, 1968 for "State Government".
2. 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 sewerage 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 accessible 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 - Necessary amenities including sewerage line, water pipe line, parking roads, street lights and parking lights had already been provided in the area - This fact remained 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 construction 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 auction 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 Administration, 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 interest 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 - Cancellation 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 allotment 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 issued to Chandigarh Administration regarding charging of price, delivery of possession 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 development - 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- Enhancement of rent not open to challenge on the ground of arbitrariness or discrimination - 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
207. 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 Acquisition Act includes a local authority as a company for whose benefit land is acquired - Hissar Improvement Trust, Hissar it The President, Tribunal Improvement 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, liberties 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 cannot be sustained - Mrs. Saroj Gupta v. State of Haryana, 1993 HRR 223.
—Before an extreme step of resumption is taken, the allotee must be afforded 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 provided 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. *****