( 1 ) APPLICATION for impleadment is dismissed.

( 2 ) LEAVE granted in the special leave petition.

( 3 ) THE City of beauty, Chandigarh, carefully architectured and meticulosuly executed as a modal city in India by famous architect, Shri Le. Corbursier when it was getting desideration compounded by disfiguration of beauty and elegance, statutory regulations stepped in to stamp out erosion and to restore its natural environment. These cases are instances of blatent misusage of the buildings or plots in the planned structures

( 4 ) THIS appeal by special leave arises from the order of the Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court made on 27/01/1993 in C. W. P. No. 14183/92 upholding the order of the Estate Officer who refused to condone the delay in making application under Rule 11-D of the Chandigarh (Sale of Sites and Buildings) (Amendment) Rules, 1979 (for short. the "rules" ).

( 5 ) THE writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution was filed by the petitioner challenging the validity of Section 8a of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (Punjab Act of 1952) (for short, the "act" ).

( 6 ) THE facts are long and tendentious. Suffice it to state, in nutshell, that the appellant/petitioner having had the allotment of free hold plot in residential Sector 21 -A, viz. , bearing House No. 341 in Street d had constructed a double-storeyed house. He had used it as Blue Star Guest House, contrary to the regulations. Consequently, a notice of resumption under Section 8 of the Act was given to the appellant/petitioner. After following the procedure prescribed thereunder, the resumption order came to be passed on 17/10/1977. The revision against that order came to be dismissed on August 28, 1978. Thus the resumption order had become final. Subsequently, notice under Section 5 of the Public Premises Act was issued to the appellant/petitioner for taking possession of the land. Those proceedings also ultimately culminated in the judgment of this Court made in C. A. No. 3102/8 1/03/1992. Therein, this Court had given an opportunity to the appellant/petitioner to argue afresh on merits of resumption but he could not point out any invalidity in the resumption order. Accordingly, the resumption was upheld. Even on the ground of eviction also this Court had upheld the order on merits thus :

"learned counsel for the appellant was unable to point out any infirmity whatsoever of order passed by the Estate Officer under the Eviction Act. In view of the circumstances, we find no force in this appeal and it is accordingly dismissed. "

( 7 ) HOWEVER, one years time was given to the appellant/petitioner to vacate the premises subject to his giving an undertaking. Since he had not filed the undertaking within the prescribed time, it is not in dispute, possession was taken. Thus the resumption order as well as order of eviction became final and conclusive against the appellant/petitioner. His right, title and interest in the said property stood divested and the Chandigarh Administration became owner thereof. The appellant/petitioner then filed an application on 6/04/1992 and Apr 9/04/1992 under Rule 11-D of the Rules. The Estate Officer dismissed the petition giving elaborate reasons in support thereof. The High Court in the impugned order there under has pointed out that the appellant/petitioner has not given any satisfactory explanation for the delay of 13 Years in filing the application and no fault could be found with the order passed by the Estate Officer. Thus this appeal by special leave and the writ petition.

( 8 ) WHEN the matter came up for hearing before a Bench of two learned Judges, by order dated 14/02/1995 reference was made to a three Judge Bench to consider the validity of Section 8a of the Act and the question of resumption since it has got a vital bearing on the right to property held by a defaulter. Thus these cases have come up before this Bench.

( 9 ) IT has been very strenuously argued by Shri Swar