Judgment

RAY, J. - This appeal is by certificate from the judgment dated 21 February, 1966 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

2. The appellant at a public auction held by the Estate Officer, Capital Project, Chandigarh on 21 December, 1958 purchased site No. 43 in the Grain Market, Chandigarh. The purchase price was Rs. 94,000. 25% of the sale price was payable at the fall of the hammer. The balance sum with interest was payable in three equal instalments of Rs. 25.615 each. The appellant paid Rs. 23,500 being 25% of the sale price at the fall of the hammer. The appellant paid a further sum of Rs. 21,992 towards the first instalment. A sum of Rs. 3623 was outstanding on the first instalment. The appellant made inprovements on the site. The appellant raised construction thereon at his own expense. He invested about Rs. 1,50,000 in the shape of building and machinery. The appellant could not pay Rs. 3,623 being the balance of the first instalment and the second and the third instalments amounting to Rs. 25,615 each.

3. The appellant asked for instalments because the appellant was in financial difficulty. Eventually, the Estate Officer on 2 January, 1962 resumed the site and forfeited the amount of Rs. 42,728.01 paid by the appellant. The order of resumption and forfeiture was made by the Estate Officer (Capital Project), Chandigarh in exercise of powers under Section 9 of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 referred to as the 1952 Act.

4. The appellant filed an appeal under Section 10 of the 1952 Act. The appellant s appeal was accepted by the Appellate Authority, the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh. The appellant was given time for the payment of instalments with interest at the rate of 4 1/2% per annum and a penalty of 10 per cent of the amount in arrears was ordered to be paid within 30 days from the date of the Appellate order. The conveyance deed in respect of the site was also to be executed immediately.

5. The appellant thereafter made a representation to the Chief Minister a asked for further instalments and prayed that steps be not taken to resume the site. The appellant s representation was rejected.

6. The appellant then filed a revision application before the Financial Commissioner. On 14 September, 1964 the Financial Commissioner rejected the revision application. The ground was that the appellant had filed a first revision application. The second application was therefore not competent. It may be stated here that Section 10 aforesaid provides an appeal to the Chief Administrator against the order of the Estate Officer. Section 10 also states that a revision application can be presented before the State Government against the order of the Chief Administrator.

7. The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court. The appellant challenged the validity of the orders of the respondents. The grounds for challenge were these. First, S. 9 of the 1952 Act which provides for the resumption of property by the Estate Officer is ultra vires and unconstitutional. Secondly, Section 9 provides for resumption of property and forfeiture of money paid which are unconstitutional and reasonable restrictions on the right to hold property Thirdly, the power conferred on the Estate Officer to take action under Section 9 for resumption is unregulated and arbitrary.

8. In the High Court it was contended that the appellant became owner of the site, and, therefore, no resumption of the site could be taken by proceeding under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction of Rent Recovery) Act, 1959. Secondly, it was contended that Section 9 of the 1952 Act violated Article 14 inasmuch as Sections 8 and 9 of the 1952 Act provide for the same matter and there is no indication as to when action will be taken under either of the sections. It was also said that the sections offended Article 14 of the Constitution by reason of unregulated conferment of power.

9. The High Court held that title would pass only w