(1.) A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 16.11.2010 made the following reference for adjudication by a Full Bench:-
(2.) THE petitioners, as indicated by the reference order, assail Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (in short, 'the 1952 Act'), it being ultra vires the Constitution of India after the deletion of Rule 11-D of the Chandigarh (Sales of Sites & Building) Rules, 1960 (in short, 'the 1960 Rules') w.e.f. 31.01.2007. They also assail the deletion of Rule 11-D and seek directions for re-transfer of the resumed sites in their favour on the premise that the aforestated Rule was in force when they applied for re-transfer of such sites.
(3.) PLOT No.317, Industrial Area, Phase-I, Chandigarh was allotted to the petitioner's father late Harbans Singh on 17.07.1961. The industrial plot was found to have been misused for residential purposes and was resumed on 15.11.1979 after hearing the allottee and giving an opportunity to produce evidence. The allottee's appeal and revision were also dismissed on 11.04.1984 and 17.08.1989, respectively and he did not challenge these orders till he unfortunately passed away on 04.04.1993. The petitioner who inherited the estate of his father as per registered Will dated 30.03.1993, challenged these orders in CWP No.3783 of 2007 which was dismissed on 13.03.2007. It appears that the petitioner never applied for re-allotment of the resumed site under Rule 11-D of the 1960 Rules before 31.01.2007. The first application for re-allotment was submitted by the petitioner on 26.09.2007 (Annexure P4) which was rejected by a self-speaking order dated 25.06.2008 (Annexure P5) primarily on the plea that Rule 11-D was non-existent w.e.f. 31.01.2007. The petitioner now asserts that Section 8-A of the 1952 Act is unconstitutional especially after deletion of Rule 11-D. Alternatively, the petitioner claims that the resumed property be re-allotted to him. CWP No.167 of 2010 (Meharawal Khewaji Trust, Faridkot v. Chandigarh Admn. & Ors.)