• Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952  (27 of 1952) - Multiple directions have been issued by the Administration from time to time and amending statutory Building Bye Laws at some other time - The Administration will be well advised to either amend Building Bye Laws comprehensively or to issue comprehensive directions in respect of permitted use of basement, ground floor, first floor and second floor in the commercial buildings as well as in the residential buildings - The Administration should take into consideration the ever growing need of the residents of the city where there is acute shortage of the residential and commercial property so as to permit use of basement for wider purposes rather than restricting its use only for non-residential habitable use - Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Buildings Rules, 1952.  (178) P.L.R.
  • Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952) - Petitioner submitted Revised Building Plan for modification of the first and second floor said to be in their  possession and its sanction - Co-owner acts in his own right qua his interest but as an agent qua the other co-owner- Respondent to consider sanctioning of the building plans submitted by the petitioners without insisting upon the consent of the other co-owner.  (178) P.L.R. 
  • Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952) - Petitioners cannot seek sanction of building plans in respect of an area which is not governed by Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 as construction in such area is prohibited in terms of Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (1 of 1953). (179) P.L.R.
  • Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952) - Resumption of site shall be the last resort to be taken in a case of an original allottee except when he/she continued to breach the terms and conditions of allotment, Statute or the Rules and Regulations framed thereunder, despite sufficient opportunities - Since the petitioners in the instant case, have adhered to the time schedule given by this Court as a last resort, it appears to us that the resumption of the site would amount to be a very harsh action. (175) P.L.R.
  • Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952) S.   8-A - Resumption - It is difficult to imagine that a party who has invested so much time, effort and money in the property and had completed the construction of the building, would have failed to apply for the occupation certificate - We are conscious of the fact that the respondents' contention is that there are certain unauthorised constructions/structures upon the plot - That by itself would not mean that the occupation certificate was not even applied for - Petitioner shall make an application for an occupation certificate within two weeks from today - The respondents shall respond to the same - In the event of the respondents' deciding not to grant the occupation certificate, they shall furnish reasons for the same and give the petitioner an opportunity of remedying the breaches/defects, if any, within the period stipulated in the Communication. (182) P.L.R.
  • Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952) S. 8 - Resumption - Fact that the allotment was made in the year 1957 and the misuse started in the year 1983 has now completely been stopped - Though according to the rules, no misuser charges are recoverable from the petitioner but it is a fact that the premises has been misused by him - Therefore, impose cost upon the petitioner to the tune of Rs.25,000/-. (173) P.L.R.
  • Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952) S. 8-A - Misuse as guest house - Misuse was stopped - Therefore the possession of the house should not have been taken by respondents only for the reason that the order of resumption has attained finality - We find that depriving the petitioner of her rightful possession of the property is unfair and unjust.     (177) P.L.R.
  • Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952) S. 8-A - Residential Building - Garage portion was being used for tailoring shop - Violation that he had set up a sale counter - This is not a case of major violation with regard to using more than 30% has been made by the petitioner - No notice has been given to the petitioner and further his unit was registered and has not violated any conditions - Respondents, therefore, were not justified in passing the resumption order. (176) P.L.R.
  • Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952) S. 8-A - Resumption - Subsequent events can always be taken into consideration so as to find out whether the misuse is continuing or not - If an occupier is entitled to benefit of the cessation of misuse subsequent to the order of resumption, on the same analogy another act of misuse can always be brought to the notice of the Court to support the order of resumption - Once the act of violations of the statutory Rules and the directions exist, the resumption order cannot be said to be illegal and unjustified in any manner.  (178) P.L.R.
  • Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952) S. 8-A - Resumption - The order of resumption cannot be permitted to stand - Our reasons are that as on now the house is not being put to use either as a guest house or as a paying guest house accommodation - The purpose of resumption as well settled is to ensure that the allottee used the premises for the purpose the site is allotted. (180) P.L.R.
  • Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Building Rules, 1952 - In the light of the statutory Rules and the directions issued by the Chief Administrator in terms of Section 4 of the Act, we may observe that once the Building Rules have been framed, the directions to be issued by the Central Government or the Chief Administrator can supplement the statutory Rules - The directions cannot supplant the statutory Rules - In other words, where the Rules are silent, the Central Government or the Chief Administrator can issue the directions but such directions cannot be in contradiction to the statutory Rules framed - Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (27 of 1952).  (178) P.L.R.