SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2000 Supreme(SC) 1669

Supreme Court Of India
NARINDER KAUR MAKOL
Versus
CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD
Decided on ; October 19, 2000

Headnote:

Constitution of India, Article 136-Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979, Regulation 6(1) - Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971, Section 74 - " residential plot or house" - Review Petition-The Regulation stated that the allotment can be made only to such person who or whose wife/husband dependants did not own on freehold or leasehold or hire-purchase basis "a residential plot or house in the Union Territory etc- Supreme Court that the words "a residential plot or house" include a flat constructed for residential purposes on the 2nd or 3rd floor of a shop on the ground floor- The principle of purposeful interpretation was adopted - Notice of the fact that the concessional scheme was not intended to benefit more than one member of the family, was also taken- Contention that the petitioner's counsel did not argue properly and that the relevant documents were not considered, not accepted- Review Petition dismissed[Para 2]

( 1 ) THE case turned upon the interpretation of Regulation 6 (1) of the chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) regulations, 1979 framed under Section 74 of the Haryana Housing Board act, 1971.

( 2 ) THE Regulation stated that the allotment can be made only to such person who or whose wife/husband or any of his/her dependants does not own on freehold or leasehold or hire-purchase basis "a residential plot or house in the Union Territory etc. " This Court, after referring to the allotment order, the Administrators letter dated 9-7-1993 in favour of the petitioner and the earlier conveyance deed dated 30-9-1981 in favour of the petitioners husband came to the conclusion that the words "a residential plot or house" include a flat constructed for residential purposes on the 2nd or 3rd floor of a shop on the ground floor. The principle of purposeful interpretation was adopted and further taking notice of the fact that the concessional scheme is not intended to benefit more than one member of the family aforesaid. The matter was argued by counsel on both sides on more than one occasion and we cannot accept that the petitioners counsel did not argue properly nor that the relevant documents were not considered.

( 3 ) THERE are no merits in the review petition. It is accordingly dismissed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

SupremeToday

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top