Remanded

Kaur Chand v. Chief Comissioner

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Jan 2012CWP/15740/1993

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenged an order imposing a penalty under the Chandigarh Lease Hold Rules due to non-payment of installments. The court set aside the impugned order, relying on a Supreme Court judgment regarding liability to pay interest, and directed the respondents to reconsider the matter afresh after receiving a representation from the petitioner.

What did the court decide?

The order imposing penalty dated 13.10.1993 was set aside; respondents directed to pass appropriate orders after considering a fresh representation within one month.

Kaur Chand Vs Chief Comissioner — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 15740 of 1993 Date of decision: 25.1.2012

Kaur Chand

…..Petitioner

vs.

Chief Commissioner, UT, Admn and another

¶7

.......Respondents

¶8

CORAM: -HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

¶9

Present: - Mr. Damandeep Dhir, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶10

Mr. A.P.Setia, Advocate for Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate for respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

¶11

HEMANT GUPTA, J

¶12

Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order dated 13.10.1993 (Annexure P-10) whereby the petitioner was called upon to pay penalty under Rule 12(3) of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Sites and Building Rules, 1973. The said penalty was found payable on account of non payment of installments, ground rent and interest thereon.

¶13

Initially, the present writ petition was admitted, to be heard along with CWP No. 4908 of 1993 but subsequently, it was ordered to be taken up for hearing along with CWP No. 12680 of 1992.

¶14

The aforesaid Writ Petition No. 12680 of 1992, Sanjay Ahuja vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority has

¶15

CWP No. 15740 of 1993

¶16

-2-

¶17

since been decided on 27.4.2009. It has been held that the petitioners are liable to pay interest in view the judgment of Hon'ble the Supreme Court reported as U.T. Chandigarh Administration vs. Amarjeet Singh & ors, 2009(4) SCC 660.

¶18

In view of the aforesaid judgment, the order imposing penalty dated 13.10.1993 (Annexure P-10) is set aside with the direction to respondents to take a fresh decision after considering the representation, if any, to be submitted by the petitioner within one month. Respondents shall pass the appropriate orders after considering the representation filed and in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amarjeet Singh's case (surpa) and in Sanjay Ahuja case (supra).

¶19

Disposed of accordingly.

¶20

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶21

(A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE

¶22

25.1.2012 preeti

Kaur Chand v. Chief Comissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kaur Chand v. Chief Comissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Parveen Ratra Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

M/S Gdpa Fasterners & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kewal Krishan Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Parkash Lal Vs HUDA and Anr.

Sukhraj Singh and Ors. Vs Chd. Housing Board and Anr.

Narinder Kumar Patney and Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.