Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952

The Supreme Court examined appeals by the Chandigarh Housing Board challenging orders of the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission which directed the Board to refund earnest money and interest to members of co‑operative housing societies. The Court held that the society members are the ultimate beneficiaries …

The plaintiff, Tilak Raj Bakshi, claimed that his brother (the first defendant) violated a family settlement by selling his one‑third share of a Chandigarh house to a stranger (the second defendant) without obtaining the written concurrence of the other brothers and without offering the share to the plaintiff as requir…

The appellant, M/s. Teri Oat Estates, purchased a lease‑hold site in Chandigarh and constructed a six‑storey building but failed to pay the instalments and ground rent on time, leading the Estate Officer to invoke Section 8‑A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and cancel the lease with forf…

The appellants, shop‑keepers leasing commercial premises in Chandigarh, challenged a steep increase in rent from Rs.2,671 to Rs.14,000 per month, arguing that the Union Territory lacked jurisdiction because the Central Government had not framed rules under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952. T…

The case concerned the allotment of industrial plots in Chandigarh under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 and the 1973 Lease‑Hold Rules. Of 339 shortlisted allottees, 254 could not be given possession because much of the land was declared a reserved forest and fell within a restricted zone u…

The Estate Officer of Chandigarh cancelled the allotment of a six‑acre campus site to Esys Information Technologies Pvt. Ltd. after discovering that the company had transferred a major portion of its shares to Esys Global Holdings, Dubai, and subsequently to Teledata Informatics Ltd., without obtaining the permission r…

The Chandigarh Administrator sold a 99‑year leasehold booth site to Manjit Kumar Gulati and others in 1989, requiring 25% premium upfront and the balance in three installments. The allottees failed to pay the remaining 75%, were served a show‑cause notice, given multiple opportunities to clear dues, and their lease was…

The Resident’s Welfare Association filed a public‑interest litigation alleging that developers in Phase‑I of Chandigarh were converting single‑dwelling units into three separate apartments by selling fractional shares and executing MoUs, thereby breaching the statutory prohibition on fragmentation. The High Court held …

The respondents, allottees of leasehold plots in Chandigarh, sought conversion of their sites to freehold by paying the conversion fee fixed under the 1996 Rules. The District Consumer Forum, State and National Consumer Commissions ordered the Estate Officer to convert the plots, treating the fee as a service charge an…