Relief for property owners in city

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 6

In a major relief to property owners, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today made it clear that coercive steps would not be taken on the basis of a rule that imposed monthly misuse charges of Rs 500 per sq ft.

The direction by the Bench of Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal and Justice Ramendra Jain came after senior counsel Vikas Bahl contended, among other things, that the misuse charges were disproportionate to the gravity of the offence.

The development took place on a petition filed by Sanjeev Gandhi against the Chandigarh Administration and other respondents through counsel Puneet Gupta. He contended that the UT Finance Secretary brought in the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007, which were applicable to new allotment alone.

The Rules were amended vide the Chandigarh Estate (Amendment) Rules, 2009, making the 2007 Rules applicable to sites allotted prior to its enactment with retrospective effect.

Gupta argued that the same was against the well-established principles of law as the delegated power granted to the Finance Secretary under Section 22 of the 1952 Act did not give power to make rules applicable with retrospective effect.

Gupta further argued that Rule 10(iii) of the 2007 Rules imposed penalty at the rate of Rs 500 per sq ft per month in case of misuse and building violations. It also permitted the sealing of the building, “which was contrary to the provisions contained in the 1952 Act and the 1952 Rules”

Referring to the judgment in the case of Dheera Singh versus the Chandigarh Administration and other respondents, Gupta asserted that the High Court  categorically ruled that Section 22(1) of the 1952 Act empowered the Central Government to make Rules “for carrying out the purposes” of the 1952 Act. “If one looks into sub-Section (2) of Section 22, there should be no difficulty in understanding that the power to determine the nature and extent of penalties for varied violations under the Act was neither intended nor was delegated by the Legislature to the Executive”, he insisted. The counsel also contended that Section 22 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 did not empower the Central Government to frame the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007, to the allotments already made”.