Resumption of property: SC upholds HC direction to UT

If Chandigarh has to change the amount of penalty to be levied for any violation and resumption of property,the court had ordered that it (UT) can only do so by amending the Act and not by merely amending certain rules in the Act.

Making it clear that resumption (taking possession) of property has to “be the last resort”,the court had ruled that the Estate Officer would not henceforth initiate resumption proceedings unless the “wrongdoer has been penalised to the maximum”.

In a judgment having far-reaching consequences,the court had ruled that “every such action (levy of penalty or demolition of encroachments) shall have to be expressly disclosed in the show-cause notice for initiating resumption proceedings”. If not complied with the directions,the court had observed that “the non-compliance whereof shall vitiate the resumption proceedings besides other consequences”.

The 103-page judgment read “The Executive in this case has failed to live up to the expectations of the residents as instead of approaching the Ministry concerned with a concrete proposal on data-based information for onward consideration of the Legislature to rejuvenate the Capital of Punjab (Development & Regulation) Act,1952 and make it more vibrant,it has gone for ad hoc solutions.”

Expressing surprise,the court had noted that “strangely,the amount of penalty or fine (on account of violation) fixed by the Legislature in the year 1952 has not been got revised even after the expiry of 60 years”.

However,the court had made it clear that the 1952 Act has “become neither obsolete nor redundant and it shall continue to operate until repealed expressly or by implication by the competent Legislature”.

Noting that determining the extent of penalty is the exclusive domain of the legislature,the High Court had held that for the past 60 years,the Chandigarh Administration has been changing the amount of penalty by simply amending the rules.