Back
2020 Supreme(P&H) 1392
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Jaswant Singh, Sant Parkash, JJ.
Bhartendu Sood - Appellant
Versus
Chandigarh Housing Board And Another - Respondent
Civil Writ Petition No. 14772 of 2020
Decided On : 15-10-2020
Bhartendu Sood (Petitioner In Person), Advocate, Ashish Rawal, Advocate, Aditya Jain, Advocate
The administration's policy decisions are binding on the relevant entities, and rights addressed by other forums may not be revived through subsequent applications.
Headnote:
Mandamus - Transfer of Ownership - RTI Act, 2005 - Judgment dated 11.10.2011 - Circular dated 19.12.2017 - [State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Appeal No. A/100/2019, Judgment dated 27.11.2019, Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited Vs State of Haryana and anr] - The court discussed the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission's decision, the judgment dated 11.10.2011, and the circular dated 19.12.2017. It highlighted the obligation of the authority to not disturb ownership rights based on certain transactions, the impact of the circular on ownership transfers, and the administration's role in implementing the circular.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought a writ in the nature of Mandamus to transfer the ownership of his flat under the Housing Board's policy. The petitioner claimed entitlement to ownership transfer under the previous policy and challenged the circular issued by the Chandigarh Administration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner's application for ownership transfer was not fructified under the previous policy, and the circular issued by the Chandigarh Administration was implemented by the Housing Board. The court dismissed the writ petition, stating that the petitioner's rights had been appropriately addressed by the Consumer Forum.
Issues: Ownership transfer under previous and current policies, impact of circular on ownership transfers, administration's role in policy implementation.
Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner's application for ownership transfer was not completed under the previous policy, and the circular issued by the Chandigarh Administration was binding on the Housing Board. The petitioner's rights had been addressed by the Consumer Forum, and the administration's policy decisions were to be implemented by the Board.
Final Decision: The writ petition was dismissed for lacking merit.
JUDGMENT
Jaswant Singh, J. - Petitioner- Bhartendu Sood has filed the present petition seeking writ in the nature of Mandamus for directing Chairman Chandigarh Housing Board (respondent no 1) to transfer the ownership of his Flat no. 231, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh under its GPA transfer policy at par with the cases which were transferred by respondent no.1 before 19.12.2017.
2. Petitioner has made the following submissions before this Court:
1. On account of deficient services of respondent-Housing Board, as held by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Appeal No. A/100/2019 in its decision dated 27.11.2019 (P-4), respondent no. 1 is at fault and therefore, subsequent policy dated 19.12.2017 (P-2) cannot affect the rights of petitioner as he had applied for transfer of ownership on 02.06.2016 (P-1). Consequently, petitioner is entitled to acquire ownership under the previously existing policy whereby ownership could be transferred on the basis of GPA/Will etc.
2. The respondent-Board has very conveniently missed the important aspects of Judgment dated 11.10.2011 titled as "Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited Vs State of Haryana and anr" passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court while issuing the Circular/ policy dated 19.12.2017 (P-2) banning the registration of properties on the basis of GPA/Will etc. As per the judgment, the authority is under obligation to not disturb the ownership rights of those persons whose SA/GPA/Will transactions have been accepted by authorities.
3. Since the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court is dated 11.10.2011 whereas the Chandigarh Administration issued circular on dated 19.12.2017, therefore any transfers affected after the said date are also required to be set aside. However, as per the information supplied to petitioner under RTI Act, 2005, the board has not cancelled any transfer made between 11.10.2011 to 19.12.2017.
4. Petitioner claims parity with cases whereby respondent no. 1 has transferred ownership rights on the basis of Will/ GPA/SA after 11.10.2011 and before 19.12.2017, as the petitioner had moved his application for transfer on 02.06.2016.
5. The petitioner had not deposited an amount of Rs. 1,99,944/- as demanded by respondent no 1 in pursuance to his application dated 02.06.2016 because no details were given to him and previously also,unreasonable amount was sought to be charged which were never due for issuance of 'NO DUES' certificate. Therefore, the petitioner was well within his rights for breakup of the amount asked by respondent-Board which was not supplied.
3. Hence prayer has been made for allowing the present writ petition.
4. We have heard the petitioner in detail and have also perused the record, including the written submissions which were taken on record. However, we are of the view that present petition is liable to be dismissed.
5. It is an admitted position that the petitioner had purchased the flat in question on the basis of GPA/Will somewhere in the year 1995 and had moved an application dated 02.06.2016 for transfer of ownership of the flat with respondent-Board under the then existing policy. However, the respondent-Board had sought an amount of Rs. 1,99,944/- from petitioner, for which the petitioner wanted to know the exact details of the calculation made by Board. During the said period of correspondence between petitioner and respondent-Board, the Chandigarh Administration issued circular dated 19.12.2017 (P-2) directing the Board not to transfer ownership where the applicants claim on the basis of Will/ GPA/SA etc. The said circular was implemented by respondent no 1 in its letter and spirit and thereafter no transfer was made. It is evident that the circular dated 19.12.2017 (P2) was issued by Chandigarh Administration in compliance of the directions given by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suraj Lamp's case supra. It is further undisputed that no flat has been transferred where claim has been raised on the basis of GPA/Will etc after issuance of
