Back
2015 Supreme(P&H) 2169
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Paramjeet Singh, J.
Krishan Pal – Appellant
Versus
Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others – Respondents
CWP No. 15215 of 2013
Decided On : 14-10-2015
For the Appellant : R.N. Maurya.
For the Respondent: Deepak Sharma.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the eligibility criteria for allotment of a flat under the 2006 Scheme, including the importance of corroborative documents of residence and the expanded acceptable proofs of residence to include documents issued under any statute.
Headnote:
Bio-metric Survey - Rehabilitation Scheme - Chandigarh Small Flat Scheme, 2006 - [Article 226 of the Constitution of India] - [2006 Scheme, Clause 2] - [Voter List, Driving License, Passport] - The court discussed the purpose of relying upon the voter list to corroborate the bio-metric survey and the eligibility criteria for allotment of a flat under the 2006 Scheme. It emphasized the importance of corroborative documents of residence and clarified that the ration card cannot be used as a document of identity. The court also expanded the acceptable proofs of residence to include documents issued under any statute, such as the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 and the Passport Act, 1967. The judgment highlighted the responsibility of the survey team to obtain finger print impressions and the need to consider other evidence if such impressions are not available. The court allowed the petition and directed the authorities to consider the petitioner's claim for allotment of a flat under the 2006 Scheme.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to set aside an order declining allotment of a tenement to him under the Chandigarh Small Flat Scheme, 2006, despite his name/particulars being mentioned in the bio-metric survey. The petitioner provided evidence of residence, including voter identity card, voter lists, and bio-metric survey folio number, but his claim was rejected on the ground of non-appearance in the bio-metric survey list.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had provided sufficient evidence of residence and was eligible for allotment of a flat under the 2006 Scheme. It emphasized the importance of corroborative documents of residence and expanded the acceptable proofs of residence to include documents issued under any statute. The court held that the petitioner had been deprived of his rights and directed the authorities to consider his claim for allotment of a flat.
Issues: The issues involved the eligibility criteria for allotment of a flat under the 2006 Scheme, the importance of corroborative documents of residence, and the responsibility of the survey team to obtain finger print impressions.
Ratio Decidendi: The court clarified the eligibility criteria for allotment of a flat under the 2006 Scheme, expanded the acceptable proofs of residence to include documents issued under any statute, and emphasized the responsibility of the survey team to obtain finger print impressions. It held that the petitioner had provided sufficient evidence of residence and was eligible for allotment of a flat.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, the impugned order was set aside, and the authorities were directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a flat under the 2006 Scheme within three months from the date of receipt of the order.
Paramjeet Singh, J.
1. CD along with a print out of bio-metric survey produced in Court in pursuance of order dated 13.10.2015 is taken on record.
2. Instant writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dated 08.03.2013 (Annexure P-9) whereby respondent No. 3- Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Union Territory, Chandigarh has declined allotment of a tenement to the petitioner despite the fact that his name/particulars find mentioned in Bio-Metric Survey at S. No. 24588. It is also prayed that the petitioner is entitled to be considered for a tenement, as per the Scheme called the Chandigarh Small Flat Scheme, 2006 (for short, the 2006 Scheme).
3. In brief, the facts as averred in the petition are to the effect that in many jhuggi (slum) colonies in Chandigarh persons were living in unhygienic conditions. Some of the jhuggi dwellers whose jhuggis were demolished by the Chandigarh Administration due to some influential persons, approached this Court vide CWP No. 20217 of 2001 which was disposed of vide order dated 23.05.2006 with a direction to the Union Territory, Chandigarh to treat the case of petitioners with sympathy and take steps to rehabilitate them as per law. The Chandigarh Administration identified 18 such jhuggi colonies where persons were living in unhygienic conditions and in unplanned accommodation and framed a policy called the 2006 Scheme. The aforesaid scheme was concerning persons who have unauthorizedly encroached upon public land and are living there in unhygienic conditions, lack of basic amenities and unsafe for inhabitants. In the bio-metric survey conducted in March 2006, the petitioner was found residing in Jhuggi No. 28, Block C, Nehru Colony, Village Kajheri, Chandigarh which falls in one of the aforesaid 18 colonies. After the bio-metric survey was conducted and Biometric/Folio No. 24588 was issued to the petitioner. The family photo of the petitioner as well as individual photo of the petitioner were also taken by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 vide photo No. 75 and 74, respectively, which are attached herewith as Annexure P-6. Besides this, the petitioner has also annexed on record his voter identity card dated 22.09.1995 as Annexure P-1, copies of voter lists for the years 2005, 2009, 2010 and 2011 as Annexure P-2 to P-5 and copy of renewed ration-card issued on 21.02.2006 as Annexure P-7. However, the authorities have declined the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that his name does not appear in the bio-metric survey conducted by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 as per the 2006 Scheme. Hence, this writ petition.
4. Upon notice, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed reply with the averments that the 2006 Scheme was floated for rehabilitation of slum dwellers who were uprooted and in order to rehabilitate them, the survey was conducted in March 2006 and 18 colonies were identified for rehabilitation and those who were found eligible under the said Scheme, were allotted available constructed flats. During the bio-metric survey, the slum dwellers were given a specific form i.e. Form-A with a specific number (which was treated as Bio-metric/Folio) on it. The slum dwellers were required to submit those forms along with the requisite documents of residence proof with the private agency appointed by the Chandigarh Administration. As per the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, name of the petitioner does not figure in the list of Bio-metric survey of slum dwellers. When the rehabilitation process was started by the Administration, the slum dwellers were supplied the application forms with the direction to attend the camp on a specific date. At the time of distribution of application form, the Folio number was filled by the official of the Chandigarh Administration after asking the same from the applicant. The screening committee constituted by the answering respondents rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that his name
