TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether section 9 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, empowering resumption of the site and forfeiture of amounts paid on default in payment of instalments or breach of conditions, was unconstitutional as violative of Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution of India.
Analysis: The statute created a charge on the property for the unpaid consideration and separately provided remedies for recovery of dues, including penalty and recovery as arrears of land revenue under section 8. The power under section 9 to resume the site and forfeit the money paid was held to be drastic, unguided, and lacking any statutory indication as to when one remedy would be chosen over another. The provision also denied relief against forfeiture, although ordinary law afforded such relief, and the existence of multiple remedies without guidance created scope for unequal treatment. In these circumstances, the provision was found to impose an unreasonable restriction on the enjoyment of property.
Conclusion: Section 9 was unconstitutional and could not be used to forfeit the amounts paid or resume the site; the appeal succeeded.
Ratio Decidendi: A statutory power to resume property and forfeit payments, when accompanied by a secured charge and recovery remedies but left unguided and arbitrary in its selection and operation, is hit by Articles 14 and 19(1)(f).
TaxTMI 
