BABU SINGH BAINS ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 120 · Decided: 11-09-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BABU SINGH BAINS ETC. 
v. 
UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. ETC. 
SEl'TEMBER 11, 1996 
B 
[K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulations) Act, 1952 : Section 
8-A-PresC1ibed in-built procedure of gi,ving an opportunity and right to ad-
duce evidence--Consideration thereof by the Estate Officer before resumption 
C 
and to pass reasoned order which is subject to an appeal before the Chief 
Administrato1~Also subject to judicial review under A1t, 226-Resumption is 
not only in case of non-payment of dues under the sale but also for violations 
of the conditions of the sale, the ntles, regulations and other relevant condi-
tions applicable in that behalf-Hence the provision is not violative of A1t. 
14-Constitution of India, A1t, 14. 
D 
Ram Pwi v. Chief Commissi01te1; Chandigad1, AIR (1982) P&H 301 
and Magan/al Chhagganlal (P) Ltd. v. Municipal C01poration of Greater 
Bombay & Ors., AIR (1974) SC 2009, relied on. 
Jagdish Chand v. State of Punjab, AIR (1972) SC 2587 and Nonhem 
E 
India Caterers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State of Punjab & Anr., AIR (1967) SC 1581, 
referred to. 
F 
G 
Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) (Amendment) Rules, 1979: 
Rule 11-D-Application under the proviso-Making of-Inordinate 
delay of 13 years--Condonation of-Explanation for the delay that the appel-
lant was carrying on litigation but was not properly advised at the appropriate 
stages to avail the remedies-Appellant landed himself in trouble on account 
of his own conducrffigh Coult rightly pointed out that there was no proper 
explanation for the inordinate delay-Hence no inteiference called for. 
Chandigarh Administration v. Johnson Paints, [1996] 3 SCALE 680 
and R.C. Chawla v. State of Haryana & Ors., JT (1996) 1 SC 633, referred 
to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE/ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal 
H No. 12931 of 1996 Etc. 
120 
BABU SINGH BAINS v. U.O.l . 
121 
. From the Judgment and order dated 27.1.93 of the Punjab and A 
Haryana High Court in C.W.P. No. 14183 of 1992. 
M.S. Gujral, S.K. Bagga, Swaraj Kaushal, V.N. Ganpule, Sr. Adv. 
Sarup Singh, Dr. Meera Agarwal, R.C. Mishra, Mahabir Singh, Altamesh 
Rein, Subhash Sharma, M.R. Vij, N.P. Sharma, M.S. Tanuj Bagga, Seeraj 
Bagga, Mrs. S. Bagga, Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, (Ms. Kusum Chaudhary and 
B.K. prasad) Advs. (NP), Ms. Shruti Pandey, Ms. Mukti Sinha, Ms. Indu 
Malhotra, Satish K. Agnihotri, Ashok Singh, Ashok K. Mahajan and 
Mahabir Singh for the appearing parties. 
The following Orders of the Court was delivered : 
C.A. No. 12931/96 @ SLP No. 4559/93 & WP. No. 520/94. 
Application for impleadment is dismissed. 
Leave granted in the special leave petition. 
The City of beauty, Chandigarh, carefully architectured and 
meticulously executed as a modal city in India by famous architect, Shri 
Le. Corbursier; when it was getting desideration compounded by disfigura-
tion of beauty and elegance, statutory regulations 1:tepped in to stamp out 
erosion and to restore its natural environment. These cases are instances 
of blatent misusage of the buildings or plots in the planned structures. 
This appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division 
Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court made on January 27, 1993 in 
C.W.P. No. 14183/92 upholding the order of the Estate Officer who refused 
to condone the delay in making application under Rule 11-D of the 
Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) (Amendment) Rules, 1979 (for 
short, the "Rules"). 
The writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed by 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
the petitioner challenging the validity of Section SA of the Capital of G 
Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act, 1952 (Punjab Act of 1952) (for 
short, the "Act"). 
The facts are long and tendentious. Suffice it to state, in nutshell, that 
the appellant/petitioner having had the allotment of free hold plot in 
residential Sector 21-A, viz., bearing House No. 341 in Street 'D' had H 
!<. 
122 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1996] SUPP. 6 S.C.R. 
A 
constructed a double-storeyed house. He had used it as Blue Star Guest 
House, contrary to the regulations. Consequently, a notice of resumption 
under Section 8 of the Act was given to the appellant/petitioner. After 
following the procedure prescribed thereunder, the resumption order came 
to be passed on October 17, 1977. The revision against that order came to 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
be dismissed on August 28, 1978. Thus the resumption order had become 
final. Subsequently, notice under Sec
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.