IMPORTANT POINT
Where respondent opted out of domicile or residence for 3 years for the domicile criteria, he cannot fall back on residence for 3 years for an allotment of the flat by the appellant Housing Board.

Headnote:(i) Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenaments) Regulations 1976-Regulations 2(15) and 6(1) and 6(2)-Eligibility of allotment-Domicile or Resident for 3 years of U.T. of Chandigarh -Respondent claiming to be domicile but being unable to prove it fall back on residence criteria-Appellant Housing Board cancelled allotment but High Court set it aside-Whether High Court was right? (No).
       Held : The respondent in Col. 12 stated yes , meaning thereby that he is a domicile of U.T. of Chandigarh. Whereas Col. 13 was left blank. In the affidavit/ declaration, at the foot of the application form at column no. (iii), the respondent did not state as to since when he was a bona fide resident of U.T. of Chandigarh. On the other hand, he ticked col. (iv) indicating that he was a domicile of U.T. of Chandigarh. The aforesaid application form, as filled in by the respondent shows that he was claiming to be eligible for allotment of flat on the basis that he was a domicile of U.T. of Chandigarh. The Board repeatedly asked the respondent to furnish the certificate to the effect that he was a domicile of U.T. of Chandigaih which he failed to furnish. The only allegation made by him was that he has applied to the competent authority/Sub-Divisional Magistrate for issue of domicile certificate, but the same was not issued to him and, therefore, he relied upon the residential certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The respondent having unequivocally claimed to be a domicile of U.T. of Chandigarh for satisfying the eligibility criteria, it was not open to him to fall back on the second eligibility criteria of being a bonafide resident of Chandigarh for last more than three years. The High Court fell in error in overlooking this aspect of the matter while setting aside the order passed by the Board canceling the allotment of the flat in favour of the respondent. We, therefore, find that the view taken by the High Court was erroneous. (Para 5)
       Held finally : We have already noticed that the respondent had applied for allotment of flat on the premise that he being a domicile of U.T. of Chandigarh, is eligible to apply for allotment of the flat and he failed to furnish such a certificate to the Board. The respondent did not apply for allotment under the eligibility criteria of being a bonafide resident of U.T. of Chandigarh for the last three years and, therefore, the respondent was not eligible for allotment of the flat and the Board, therefore, was justified in canceling the allotment of flat in his favour. The High Court fell in error in holding that in view of Dr. Pradeep Jain s case, the respondent being citizen of India is a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh. For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the view that this appeal deserves to succeed. (Paras 9 & 10)
       (ii) Meaning of the expression "domicile" of U.T. of Chandigarh-Technical sense-Constitution of India -Art. 5-Popular or loose sense-Regulation 6 of Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenaments) Regulations, 1976 -Whether uses expression in technical sense or in loose or popular sense-It uses popular meaning i.e. domicile of person means his permanent home in Chandigarh or he being there for years with intention to live permanently or indefinitely. (Para 8)
       (iii) Eligibility Criteria-Domicile of U.T. of Chadigarh-Respondent applied but the same not issued-Cancellation of allotment-Direction by Apex Court to consider it within one month-If Domicile certificate is issued the appellant-Board shall reconsider the allotment. (Para 11)

JUDGMENT

V.N. Khare, J.-The appellant herein, the Chandigarh Housing Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board ) is constituted and established under the provisions of the Haryana Housing Board Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) as extended to the Union territory of Chandigarh. One of the functions, amongst others, assigned to the Board is to develop land and construct houses and flats and sell out them under a scheme to the general public. The Board in exercise of the power conferred by Section 74 of the Act has made Regulations known as "Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenaments) Regulations, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations). In the year 1986, the Board floated a housing scheme for general public, for allotment of category I, II and III flats. The eligibility conditions as per terms and conditions laid down in the brochure were that the applicant should be either a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh or should have been a bona fide resident of Union Territory of Chandigarh for a period of at least 3 years on the date of submitting the application. On 3.3.87, the respondent herein, submitted an application to the Board for allotment of category I flat. It is alleged that in the said application form, the respondent did not furnish any information against the relevant column No. 13 regarding his being a bona fide resident of Chandigarh and his period of stay in Chandigarh. It is also alleged that in the sworn application form, the respondent did not state since when he was a bona fide resident of Chandigarh. However, in column No. 12 of the application form, the respondent stated that he is a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh. It is further alleged that on 20.10.1989 the Board on the premise that the respondent was a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh allotted a second floor in the category I flats. Subsequently, on 1.7.91, the Board asked the respondent to submit the domicile certificate or any other proof in that regard. In response to the said letter, the respondent, on 24.7.91 submitted a residential certificate dated 18.7.91. It is not disputed that the respondent did not furnish the certificate to the effect that he is a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh and, therefore, the Board, on 30.9.91 again asked the respondent to furnish the particulars to determine his eligibility for the allotment of a flat. The respondent, in response to the said letter furnished documents i.e. copy of certificate showing his having passed 10 + 2 examination from St. Columbus School, New Delhi in 1982, copy of possession certificate dated 20.10.74 of an Industrial Plot No. 182/14, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh allotted to M/s. Freezking Industries Pvt Ltd. wherein the respondent claimed to have shares and also various income tax assessment orders beginning for the financial years 1986-87 to 1990-91. It further appears that the Board was still not satisfied with the eligibility of the respondent for allotment of the flat and, therefore, the Board on 17.11.92 again wrote to the respondent to furnish further information and documents to satisfy his eligibility with regard to his residence. The respondent, in response to the said letter did not furnish any document to prove that he is a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh. Under such circumstances, the Board on 17.11.93 issued a show cause notice to the respondent calling upon him as to why the allotment of flat in his favour be not cancelled as he failed to satisfy the eligibility condition of being a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh. In between time, on 25.9.96, the respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Punjab & Haryana High Court for direction to the appellant Board to take a decision within three months about the handing over the possession of the flat in question to him. The High Court issued a direction as prayed for, and in compliance

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

2002 Supreme(SC) 21

IMPORTANT POINT Where respondent opted out of domicile or residence for 3 years for the domicile criteria, he cannot fall back on residence for 3 years for an allotment of the flat by the appellant Housing Board.

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis

IMPORTANT POINT
Where respondent opted out of domicile or residence for 3 years for the domicile criteria, he cannot fall back on residence for 3 years for an allotment of the flat by the appellant Housing Board.