M.M.PUNCHHI, J.

1. In Amrit Sagar Kashyap V/s. Chief Commr., U.T. Chandigarh, (1980) 82 Pun LR 441, a Division Bench of this Court (the judgement of which was prepared by me and concurred by D.S. Tewatia, J.) had the occasion to interpret S.8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (for short the Act) and in particular the meaning of the words "resume" and "resumption" occurring prominently therein. The view thus taken came to be doubted very often necessitating its re-examination by a Full Bench, on these two matters being referred to it, being Civil Writ Petitions Nos.2830 of 1970 and 1149 of 1979, which await disposal at our end. Amusingly it has again fallen to my share to prepare the judgement, be it a case of reorientation or refurbishing the earlier view or one of substitution or reversal. A fresh look on the subject becomes essential uninhibited of the view taken by the Division Bench.

2. A small legislative history would not be out of place. The town of Chandigarh, where the seat of this Court is established, found its way on the geographical map as a capital of the then State of Punjab, towards realisation of a dream of its people, who had lost their capital in the wake of the partition of the country. It was incidentally the first planned city of free India which ultimately came to be called - "The City Beautiful." To ensure its proper planning and regulate its development as a State measure, the Punjab Legislature enacted the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (Punjab Act No. XXVII of 1952) which was a substitute to the earlier statute, the President s Act No. V of 1952 which was thereby repealed.

3. Certain broad features of the said Act may be noticed. The Government under S.3 of the Act had power to sell by auction allotment or otherwise any land or building. The consideration money was to be paid in such a manner as the Government may prescribe. The unpaid portion of the consideration money was to be first charge on the site or building. The transferee except with the previous permission in writing of the Estate Officer was prohibited to sell, mortgage or otherwise transfer any right, title or interest in the site or building until the amount which was a first charge had been paid in full. S.8 of the Act permitted the Government to proceed against the transferee to realise the amount due on consideration money or on instalment or any other due as an arrear of land revenue. Section 8 further provided for imposition of penalty for default in payment of money and the recovery of the same as an arrear of land revenue. Besides this provision providing statutory security for the unpaid portion of the consideration money etc., Sec.9 of the Act gave power to the Estate Officer to cause resumption of the site or building sold under S.3 in the case of non-payment of consideration money, or any instalment thereof, or in the case of breach of any other condition of such transfer, or breach of any Rules made under the Act. Section 9 further gave the power to the Estate Officer that he could in his discretion forfeit the whole or any part of the money, if any, paid in respect of the transfer of any site or building under S.3.

4. The vires of Section 9 of the Act came to be questioned in Letters Patent Appeal No.218 of 1965 (Jagdish Chand Radhey Shyam V/s. State of Punjab) decided by a Division Bench of this Court on 21-2-1966. In that case, the then petitioner had purchased a commercial site on instalments and being permitted to assume possession thereon had raised a construction and installed machinery therein. On his defalcation to make timely payments of instalments, the site was resumed and the sum paid towards consideration money was forfeited. The appellate order, which was left uninterfered with in revision, allowed the resumption to be set aside subject to payment of arrears with interest, penalty to the extent of ten per cent of the amount in arrears in cash, a