9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Validity of the orders of the respondents under section 9 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952. 2. Constitutionality of section 9 of the 1952 Act regarding resumption of property and forfeiture of money paid. 3. Interpretation of sections 8 and 9 of the 1952 Act in relation to Article 14 of the Constitution. 4. Ownership rights of the transferee under section 3 of the 1952 Act. 5. Discriminatory nature of section 9 in providing relief against forfeiture. 6. Unreasonable restriction on property enjoyment by resuming the site for defaults in payments. Analysis: The appellant purchased a site at a public auction but failed to pay the full amount, leading to the Estate Officer resuming the site and forfeiting the paid amount. The appellant appealed, and the Appellate Authority granted time for payment with penalties. Subsequently, the appellant's request for further instalments was rejected, leading to a revision application and a writ petition challenging the constitutionality of section 9 of the 1952 Act. The High Court held that the Government retained ownership until full payment, allowing resumption. However, the Supreme Court disagreed, emphasizing that section 3 of the Act establishes transferee ownership upon payment, refuting the Government's continued ownership claim until full payment. The Court analyzed sections 8 and 9, highlighting the drastic penalties under section 8 for default in payments and the forfeiture powers of the Government under section 9. It noted the absence of relief against forfeiture in section 9, leading to discriminatory enforcement by the Government. The Court found the Act's provisions unreasonably restrictive, violating Articles 14 and 19(1)(f) of the Constitution by allowing resumption and forfeiture without guidance on method selection, leading to potential discrimination in enforcement actions. Ultimately, the Court set aside the High Court's judgment, allowing the appeal. It declared the Government's actions under section 9 unconstitutional, emphasizing the transferee's ownership rights upon payment and the unreasonable restrictions imposed by the Act. The parties were directed to bear their own costs due to the absence of cost orders in the High Court's decision.
|
