TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Supreme Court Affirms Property Misuse Actions</h1> <h3>BABU SINGH BAINS Versus U.O.I.</h3> BABU SINGH BAINS Versus U.O.I. - 1997 AIR 116 SC, 1996 (6) Suppl. SCR 120, 1996 (6) SCC 565, 1996 (9) JT 371, 1996 (7) SCALE 548 Issues Involved:1. Validity of Section 8A of the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act, 1952.2. Legality of the resumption order and eviction proceedings.3. Application under Rule 11-D of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) (Amendment) Rules, 1979.4. Misuse of residential premises for non-residential purposes.Summary:1. Validity of Section 8A of the Act:The appellant challenged the validity of Section 8A of the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act, 1952, arguing that it should only be invoked for non-payment of dues and not for misuse of property. The court upheld the validity of Section 8A, stating that it was introduced to address the misuse of property and maintain the planned development of Chandigarh. The court referenced the Full Bench decision in Ram Puri Vs. Chief Commissioner, Chandigarh, which held that Section 8A is a reasonable restriction and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution.2. Legality of the Resumption Order and Eviction Proceedings:The appellant had used a residential property for non-residential purposes, leading to a resumption order u/s 8 of the Act. The resumption order was upheld by the High Court and subsequently by the Supreme Court in C.A. No. 3102/81. The appellant's revision petition was dismissed, and the resumption order became final. The court found no infirmity in the resumption and eviction orders, stating that the appellant failed to point out any invalidity in the resumption order.3. Application under Rule 11-D of the Rules:The appellant filed an application u/r 11-D of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) (Amendment) Rules, 1979, seeking re-transfer of the resumed property. The Estate Officer dismissed the application due to a delay of 13 years, and the High Court upheld this decision. The court noted that Rule 11-D provides discretionary power to the Estate Officer and does not confer any right to the former allottee for reallotment. The court found no error in the refusal to condone the delay.4. Misuse of Residential Premises for Non-Residential Purposes:Several appeals involved the misuse of residential premises for non-residential purposes, such as running a nursing home or shop. The court upheld the actions taken by the authorities to resume the properties but granted the appellants six months to stop the misuse. The appellants were required to give undertakings to the Estate Officer and pay reasonable penalties for misuse. If the misuse continued, the Estate Officer was authorized to resume the properties without further proceedings.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals and writ petitions, upholding the validity of Section 8A, the legality of the resumption and eviction orders, and the discretionary power of the Estate Officer under Rule 11-D. The court granted the appellants time to rectify the misuse of residential properties and imposed penalties for non-compliance.
TaxTMI 