Back
2023 Supreme(P&H) 560
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Augustine George Masih, Vikram Aggarwal, JJ.
Ramesh Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Chandigarh Administration & Ors. – Respondents
CWP-27532-2018
Decided On : 21-02-2023
Mr. S.M.Tripathi, Advocate, for the Appellant; Mr. Rahul Dev Singh, Advocate, Mr. J.S.Chandail, Advocate, for the Respondent
Entitlement to a separate flat for a married son with a separate address verified in the biometric survey under the Chandigarh Small Flat Scheme 2006.
Headnote:
Chandigarh Small Flat Scheme 2006 - Allotment of Flat - Rules 3(c), 6(a)(iii), 6(a)(i) - The court discussed the provisions of the 2006 Scheme, specifically the definition of 'Family' and the eligibility criteria for allotment of a flat. It highlighted the conditions for a separate family unit and the entitlement to a separate flat for a married son with a separate address verified in the biometric survey. The court emphasized the purpose of preventing misuse of the scheme while ensuring entitlement to separate flats for married sons with separate families and addresses.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner sought allotment of a flat under the Chandigarh Small Flat Scheme 2006. He claimed to be eligible as a separate family unit being a married son with a separate address, but the authorities had jointly allotted a flat to him, his mother, and brother. The petitioner challenged the order, arguing that he was entitled to a separate flat.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner, being a married son with a separate address verified in the biometric survey, was entitled to a separate flat under the 2006 Scheme. It held that the denial of a separate flat to the petitioner was wrongful and directed the respondents to allot an independent flat to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the 2006 Scheme.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner, as a married son with a separate address verified in the biometric survey, was entitled to a separate flat under the 2006 Scheme.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the provisions of the 2006 Scheme, specifically the definition of 'Family' and the eligibility criteria for allotment of a flat. It emphasized the entitlement to a separate flat for a married son with a separate address verified in the biometric survey.
Final Decision: The court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned order, and directed the respondents to allot an independent flat to the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of the 2006 Scheme within a period of eight weeks on completion of all formalities.
JUDGMENT
Vikram Aggarwal, J. - The petitioner assails the order dated 08.05.2018 (Annexure P-5), passed by respondent No.2 vide which, in the appeal filed by the petitioner for allotment of a flat under the Chandigarh Small Flat Scheme 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the 2006 Scheme') in lieu of Jhuggi (hut) No.365/1, Nehru Colony, Kajheri, Union Territory, Chandigarh, a flat was ordered to be allotted to him jointly with his mother Smt. Nemo and brother Prem.
2. The case of the petitioner is that he is a resident of Chandigarh for the last more than 30 years and has been residing alongwith his family members in a Jhuggi constructed by him in Nehru Colony, Kajheri, U.T., Chandigarh. He is a registered voter against his Jhuggi and had been issued Voter Identity Card on 21.10.1995 (Annexure P-1) by the competent authority. His vehicle had also been registered on this very address. Reliance has been placed upon the Registration Certificate (Annexure P-2). The Chandigarh Administration notified the 2006 Scheme for rehabilitating the jhuggi dwellers. In 2006, biometric survey of the petitioner was conducted. Since he was eligible for the allotment of flat under the 2006 Scheme, he had submitted an application on 07.04.2011 (Annexure P-3).
3. Since the flat was not being allotted to the petitioner, he filed an application before the Permanent Lok Adalat, Union Territory, Chandigarh seeking the allotment of the flat. By way of order dated 22.07.2015 (Annexure P-4), it was directed that the petitioner be allotted a flat jointly with his mother Smt. Nemo.
4. Aggrieved by the said order dated 22.07.2015 (Annexure P-4), the petitioner filed CWP No.22412-2015 titled as Ramesh Kumar vs. The Permanent Lok Adalat and others which was disposed of vide order dated 22.02.2017, giving liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal and directing that the same be disposed of within three months of the filing and that the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat would not prejudice the rights of the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority and the said Authority while passing the impugned order dated 08.05.2018 also held that the petitioner was entitled for a flat jointly with his mother Smt. Nemo and brother Prem.
5. It is also the case of the petitioner that vide letter dated 11.09.2018 (Annexure P-6), the petitioner was asked to attend the office of the Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh with his spouse to complete the requisite formalitiesand release of allotment letter & possession slip but when he went, he was told that he should come with his mother and brother. He served a legal notice (Annexure P-7) to which reply (Annexure P-8) was received. The case of the petitioner is that he had been living separately in Jhuggi No.365/1 and, therefore, there was no occasion to allot a flat jointly with his mother and brother.
6. The respondents have opposed the writ petition. In the reply, they have taken a stand that the mother of the petitioner Smt.Nemo had been allotted a flat in Dhanas and that both her sons namely Ramesh Kumar (petitioner) and Prem had also applied for the allotment of flats by way of separate forms but in accordance with the 2006 Scheme, they were entitled for a joint flat only. The filing of a writ petition earlier by the petitioner has been admitted. The decision given by the Permanent Lok Adalat and the Appellate Authority has been justified. It has been averred that the petitioner was living with his mother and brother in Jhuggi No.365/2, Nehru Colony and, therefore, they were not entitled for separate flats.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.
8. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that his claim has erroneously been rejected. He has referred to his Voter Identity Card (Annexure P-1), registration certificate (Annexure P-2) and application form (Annexure P-3) to contend that the petitioner was living separately in Jhuggi No.365/1. H
