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

1989 Supreme(P&H) 812

PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.M.Punchhi and A.L.Bahri JJ.
Daljit Singh Ahluwalia
Versus
Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No. 3757 of 1989,
Decided On : OCTOBER 4, 1989

The power of the Chairman of the Board to allot flats is limited to supervising the allotment of property to the eligible persons, which is mandatorily required to be made by draw of lots. The Board cannot authorise the Chairman to alter the result of the draw of lots and allot flats to any person on medical grounds.

Headnote:

HARYANA HOUSING BOARD ACT, 1971 - REGULATIONS - ALLOTMENT OF FLATS - PROCEDURE - DRAW OF LOTS - DISCRETIONARY ALLOTMENTS - VALIDITY - INTERPRETATION.

Fact of the Case:

The Chandigarh Housing Board floated a scheme for the construction and allotment of high income group (H.I.G.) flats for retired/retiring employees of the States of Punjab and Haryana and for the Central Government and Union Territory of Chandigarh in Sector 43-B, Chandigarh. Applications were invited for registration of applicants for the allotment of those H.I.G. flats on partial self-financing basis. Both the petitioners and the private respondents submitted applications and after completing formalities and making payments became entitled to have flats.

Finding of the Court:

The court held that the allotment of flats to the private respondents by the Chairman of the Board was illegal and against the Regulations, as the Chairman had no power to alter the result of the draw of lots. The court also held that the Board's decision to authorise the Chairman to allot the ground floor flats which were left unallotted as a result of the draw of lots, to the eligible registered applicants of the scheme, on medical grounds in deserving cases, was a naked usurpation of power and an abject presupposed surrender by the Board.

Issues: 1. Whether the Chairman of the Board had the power to alter the result of the draw of lots and allot flats to the private respondents on medical grounds? 2. Whether the Board's decision to authorise the Chairman to allot the ground floor flats which were left unallotted as a result of the draw of lots, to the eligible registered applicants of the scheme, on medical grounds in deserving cases, was valid?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the Chairman of the Board had no power to alter the result of the draw of lots, as the Regulations only empowered the Committee to supervise the allotment of property to the eligible persons, which was mandatorily required to be made by draw of lots. 2. The court held that the Board's decision to authorise the Chairman to allot the ground floor flats which were left unallotted as a result of the draw of lots, to the eligible registered applicants of the scheme, on medical grounds in deserving cases, was invalid, as it was a naked usurpation of power and an abject presupposed surrender by the Board.

Final Decision: The court allowed the petitions and quashed the allotments made in favour of the private respondents, leaving it open to the Board to allot the ground floor flats, and such other remainder flats, strictly in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 24, which has been interpreted by us in the foregoing part of the judgment, so that all desirous of change have an equal opportunity and equal chance of obtaining a ground floor flat or other flats on any floor thrown in the pool not only in the right spirit of the Regulations but in the spirit of Art.14 of the Constitution.

Judgment

M.M.PUNCHHI, J.

1. These are two Civil Writ Petitions Nos. 3757 and 6696 of 1989 which are being disposed of by a common order. The facts stated in these petitions are almost identical but the questions of law arising therein are indeed identical. This is the reason for writing a common order. D.S. Ahluwalia hereafter referred to as Ahluwalia ), the writ petitioner in the first case and S.P. Karwal (hereafter referred to as Karwal ), the writ petitioner in the second case, are both retired government servants. So are respondents Nos. 2 to 7 in the first petition; also impleaded as respondents Nos. 3 to 8 in the second petition. There are others involved too, who stay in the background. The contesting parties thus can appropriately be called people in the evening of their lives, and being people above 50 or 55 years of age have presumably and naturally some impairment or the other with regard to their body limbs or organs needing attention, care and careful handling for the remaining span of their lives.

2. The Chandigarh Housing Board, the common respondent No. 1 in both petitions, floated a scheme for the construction and allotment of high income group (H.I.G.) flats for retired/retiring employees of the States of Punjab and Haryana and for the Central Government and Union Territory of Chandigarh in Sector 43-B, Chandigarh. Applications were invited for registration of applicants for the allotment of those H.I.G. flats on partial self-financing basis. Both the petitioners and the private respondents submitted applications and after completing formalities and making payments became entitled to have flats.

3. Now the scheme undertaken by the Housing Board provided for construction of 96 dwelling units divided as 32 flats on the ground floor, 32 flats on the first floor and 32 flats on the second floor. Since the flats on the ground floor were likely to be more convenient and extending more amenities having provision for a car park, besides front and back courtyards, its price was slightly higher. The flats had to be allotted to the persons concerned under the Regulations promulgated by the Chandigarh Administration on December 29, 1979, in exercise of the powers conferred by S.74 of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 , as extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh, and with the previous sanction of the Administrator. In Chapter III are the Regulations which provide the procedure for disposal of property which deserves pointed attention at this stage so far as they are relevant for our purpose.

4. All applications by prospective allottees are serially entered in a register and are to be acknowledged to the applicants (Regulations 18, 19 and 20). Incomplete and invalid applications can be rejected (Regulation 21). Regulation 22 prescribes that the Chandigarh Housing Board shall for the purposes of allotment of property under the regulations constitute a committee to be called the Property Allotment Committee consisting of not more than five members of whom one shall be appointed as a Chairman. The applications are scrutinised by the Committee to determine which of the applicants are eligible for allotment. The decision of the Committee is final if not appealed against to the Board under regulation 23. Regulation 24 prescribes that the allotment of property to eligible persons shall be made by draw of lots under the supervision of the Committee or in such other manner as may be determined by the Board. Under Regulation 25 reservation of certain percentage of flats in favour of Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes, Defence/ Ex-Defence Personnel and Pensioners of Defence Forces, Backward. Classes, certain government employees and blind and physically handicapped persons, has been made. But this Regulation has been made flexible under the proviso that if sufficient applications are not forthcoming from any of the reserved categories, the balance of the reserved dwelling flats shall be allotted to the applicants of the genera












Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top