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>Court affirms Acts' application to motor market, conversion charges part of sale/lease terms. Petitioners can seek building use conversion.</h1> <h3>Gurcharan Singh, Manju Chikarsal, Satinder Kumar Khera Versus Union Territory Chandigarh & others</h3> The court upheld the applicability of the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act, 1952 and the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 to the ... - Issues Involved:1. Applicability of the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act, 1952 to the area of motor market of the notified area committee.2. Legality of conversion charges claimed by the Administration for change of use of the flat portion to office or commercial purposes.3. Whether conversion charges fall under the provision of amenity u/s 7 of the Act and if such provisions suffer from excessive delegated legislation.Summary:Issue 1: Applicability of the ActThe court held that following the notification dated 27.07.1994, both the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act, 1952 (the Act) and the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 (Municipal Corporation Act) apply to the motor market area of the notified area committee. The Municipal Corporation Act's Section 424A ensures that the provisions of the Act continue to govern the development and regulation of Chandigarh.Issue 2: Legality of Conversion ChargesThe court ruled that the conversion charges claimed by the Administration are not levied u/s 7 of the Act but are part of the terms of sale or lease u/s 3 and the user restrictions u/s 4 & 5 of the Act. The Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Building) Rules, 1960 and the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973, which restrict the use of the site or building, support this. Therefore, the conversion fee is a condition precedent for the 'change of use' as contemplated under Rule 9 of the 1960 Rules or Rule 17 of the 1973 Rules.Issue 3: Conversion Charges as AmenityThe court found that conversion charges do not fall under the provision of amenity u/s 7 of the Act. The term 'amenity' includes services like roads, water-supply, street lighting, drainage, etc., and does not cover charges for allowing the change of use from residential to commercial. The court dismissed the argument that the conversion fee is an amenity chargeable u/s 7 and rejected the contention of excessive delegated legislation since the fee is claimed under Sections 3, 4 & 5 of the Act and related rules.Conclusion:The court dismissed the writ petitions, upholding the Administration's claim to conversion charges and confirming the applicability of the Act to the motor market area. The petitioners were granted liberty to seek conversion of the use of buildings per the scheme framed under the Act.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
