Back
2014 Supreme(P&H) 1615
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Hemant Gupta and Hari Pal Verma, JJ.
Dinesh Kumar and others - Petitioners
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others - Respondents
CWP No. 2317 of 2014
Decided On : 22.12.2014.
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sanjiv Patial, Advocate.
For the Respondent Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 6:Sanjeev Sharma, Senior Advocate, with Jaivir Chandail, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 2:Vishal Sodhi, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that while the voter list and biometric survey are important for determining eligibility for allotment of flats under a rehabilitation scheme, the reliance on the voter list alone without proof of residence in other documents is not justified. The court emphasized the need for alternative evidence of residence under any statute to establish the genuineness of the claim of the slum dwellers.
Headnote:
Rehabilitation Scheme - Allotment of Tenements - Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006 - [REHABILITATION SCHEME] - [Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006] - [3, 4, 6, 7] - The court discussed the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006 and its provisions, including the definition of 'Recognised Resident', eligibility and mode of allotment, and the conditions for allotment of a flat. The court highlighted the importance of voter list and biometric survey in determining eligibility for allotment and emphasized the need for corroborative documents of residence under any statute. The court also addressed the issue of finger print impressions and directed the Administration to consider alternative evidence for establishing the identity of the applicant.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners sought quashing of a notification requiring the claim for allotment of tenements to be supported by a voter identity card in the voter list of 2004 to 2008. The dispute arose in the context of the rehabilitation process for slum dwellers in Chandigarh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the reliance on the voter list was to corroborate the biometric survey and ensure the genuine residence of the slum dwellers. It held that the conditions of the Scheme, including the voter list requirement, were not arbitrary and were aimed at advancing the public cause of resettling genuine residents. However, the court directed the Administration to consider alternative documents of residence under any statute and not restrict the proof of residence to the voter list alone.
Issues: The issues involved the eligibility criteria for allotment of flats under the rehabilitation scheme, the reliance on voter list and biometric survey, and the need for corroborative documents of residence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court established that while the voter list and biometric survey were important for determining eligibility, the reliance on the voter list alone without proof of residence in other documents was not justified. It emphasized the need for alternative evidence of residence under any statute and directed the Administration to consider such documents for establishing the genuineness of the claim of the slum dwellers.
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the court directed the Administration to consider documents towards proof of residence issued under any statute, in addition to the voter list, for the allotment of flats. It also ruled that the absence or poor quality of finger print impressions should not deprive the slum dwellers of the allotment, provided the Administration establishes the identity of the applicant through alternative evidence.
Hemant Gupta, J.
This order shall dispose of the aforementioned writ petition as well as the writ petitions, mentioned at the foot of the order, raising identical questions relating to the allotment of tenements as a part of rehabilitation process of the slum dwellers. However, for the facility of reference, the facts are taken from the aforementioned writ petition.
2. The petitioners have sought quashing of notification dated 09.11.2009 (Annexure P-2), whereby the claim for allotment of tenements to the bona fide residents of notified colonies have been asked to be supported by voter identity card in the voter list of either of the years 2004 to 2008. The petitioners have sought quashing of the decision of the Administration in rejecting the claim of the petitioners in the absence of names in the voter list in the relevant years.
3. As per facts on record, there were 18 slum colonies in Chandigarh. In January 2004, the Administration conducted a door-to-door 2 survey of the said colonies, which revealed that 21076 families are residing in such colonies. Later in the year 2005, re-verification was conducted in two largest colonies i.e. Colony No.4 and Colony No.5, which revealed that there was increase of 12.5% in population in these two colonies in a period of about 1 year. Thus, it was estimated that there were about 23183 families residing in the slums of the city.
4. In February, 2006, the Administration decided to conduct Biometric survey in the aforesaid 18 colonies jointly with Haryana State Electronics Development Corporation Ltd. (HARTRON), a Haryana Government Undertaking and Estate Office, UT, Chandigarh. The process of Bio-metric survey was communicated to the Deputy Commissioner, UT, Chandigarh on 02.03.2006 by HARTRON. Annexure - A in the said communication deals with the process of conducting of survey, whereas Annexure - B deals with the schedule of conducting of survey in respect of 17 colonies. One 'Janta Colony' was inadvertently missed out, which was added by the HARTRON later on. The said colony was also surveyed. The Bio-metric survey in respect of 18 colonies spread over approximately 198.5 acres was carried out by thirty teams in a phased manner. The process of Biometric survey was started on 03.03.2006 and accomplished on 31.03.2006. Second round of Bio-metric survey was also carried out to cover the left out cases, which was concluded before 31.03.2006. Such survey revealed that 23689 jhuggies were in existence in 18 colonies, whereas 181 jhuggies were found to be locked even after repeated visits. The final figure arrived at the conclusion of the Bio-metric survey was 23689.
5. The Chandigarh Administration has framed various schemes with a view to rehabilitate the slum dwellers. It was on 06.11.2006, the "Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006" was notified. The relevant extract from the said Scheme reads as under:
"3. In this Scheme, unless the context otherwise requires:
xx xx
(g) "Recognised Resident" means a resident of a Notified Colony, whose name is both included in the voter list of 2006 and whose name is also included in the Bio-metric survey conducted by the Chandigarh Administration in the month of March, 2006 and is continuously residing in the colony. Provided that in case of the demise of the Recognised Resident, one member of his family, as defined above, who fulfils the conditions of the Recognised Resident will be eligible for being a licensee.
xx xx
Procedure of shifting the unauthorised habitations
4. (a) The Competent Authority may prepare a phased plan for clearing the Notified Colonies according to the availability of alternative flats and may implement such plan in accordance with the provisions of the Scheme.
(b) A general notice of at least 21 days shall be given by the Competent Authority, before the residents of a Notified Colony are required to vacate the colony or part thereof.
xxx xxx xxx
D. Eligibility and Mode of Allotment
6. (a) With respect to every block of a Notified Colo
