DALJIT SINGH AND OTHERS versus UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, U.T. CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

DALJIT SINGH AND OTHERS versus UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH THROUGH ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR, U.T. CHANDIGARH AND ANOTHER

Surrender of site after taking possession attracts 5% penalty under Rule 7-A(2); however, demand for additional penalty after 2 years and 6 months from acceptance of surrender is arbitrary and violates doctrine of fairness in state action, so such demand should be quashed.

Parties
Appellants: Daljit Singh and others; Respondents: Union Territory Chandigarh through its Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and another
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
09 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Writ Petition by High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Allotment and Surrender of Government Property, Imposition and Fairness of Penalties, Interpretation of Chandigarh (sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960
Property Law Administrative Law Allotment and Surrender of Government Property Imposition and Fairness of Penalties Interpretation of Chandigarh (sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daljit Singh and others

Appellants

Union Territory Chandigarh through its Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh and another

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Dismissal of Writ Petition by High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 7-A(1) or Rule 7-A(2) of Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) Rules, 1960 applies to surrender of site after possession is taken
  2. 2 Legality of penalty demand raised after acceptance of surrender
  3. 3 Entitlement to withdraw request for surrender and fairness in state action

Ratio Decidendi

Surrender of site after taking possession attracts 5% penalty under Rule 7-A(2); however, demand for additional penalty after 2 years and 6 months from acceptance of surrender is arbitrary and violates doctrine of fairness in state action, so such demand should be quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Demand for additional penalty vide notices dated 5.11.2007 and 26.12.2007 quashed
  • Parties left to bear their own costs