Controlled resumption power and discretionary reallotment remedy upheld as safeguarded tools for planned urban regulation.

Section 8A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 is described as a controlled resumption power aimed at protecting Chandigarh's planned development, ecology, sanitation and beauty. The provision is presented as valid because it is accompanied by notice, opportunity to show cause, consideration of the explanation, recorded reasons, and appellate and revisional remedies, making the power discretionary and not unguided or arbitrary. Rule 11-D is explained as only an enabling, discretionary reallotment remedy; once resumption becomes final, no vested right to reallotment survives, and an unexplained 13-year delay was treated as insufficient. The prior final decision also bars re-agitation of the same challenge.

---

---

Issues: Whether Section 8A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 is unconstitutional for want of guidelines and for conferring arbitrary power of resumption in cases of misuse of property; and whether the refusal to condone the long delay in seeking relief under Rule 11-D of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) (Amendment) Rules, 1979 called for interference.

Analysis: Section 8A was enacted to cure the defect noticed in the earlier provision and to protect the planned development, regulation, ecology, sanitation, and beauty of Chandigarh. The provision does not create an unguided or unstructured power: it requires notice, opportunity to show cause, consideration of the explanation, recording of reasons, and provides further appellate and revisional remedies. The power of resumption is discretionary and enabling, not mandatory, and its exercise is controlled by the statutory purpose and safeguards. In that setting, the provision is a reasonable restriction and is not arbitrary merely because lesser penal measures may also exist. As to Rule 11-D, the right created by it is only an enabling, discretionary remedy. A former allottee whose resumption has become final has no vested right to reallotment, and the explanation for a delay of 13 years was rightly found insufficient. The prior final decision of the Court also barred re-agitation of the same challenge.

Conclusion: Section 8A is valid and not violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The refusal to condone delay under Rule 11-D does not warrant interference.

Final Conclusion: The principal appeal and writ petition fail, while the connected matters are disposed of according to the same governing principles, with limited time-bound relief granted in the misuser cases where so directed.

Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power of resumption is valid if it is confined by the object of the Act and accompanied by procedural safeguards, reasons, and appellate review; a discretionary reallotment remedy does not revive a vested right after final resumption.

---