CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD vs Surjit Singh Sandhawalia

THE appellant, Chandigarh Housing Board, was the opposite party before the State Commission, where the respondent/complainant Shri S.S. Sandhawalia & Anr. had filed a complaint alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant.

THE facts leading to filing the complaint were that the complainant being Chief Justice of the Punjab and Haryana High Court, on his being transferred to Patna High Court, requested the Governor who is also the Administrator of U.T. Chandigarh to allot him a residential house or accommodation, for which he made an application. THEreafter a letter indicating an intent to allot a house was issued by the appellant on 8.12.1989. It needs to be made clear that this offer was subject to furnishing information whether the complainant or any other member of the family possessed any other plot/dwelling unit made available through any Board/Corporation or Development Authority. On 12.10.1990, the complainant informed the appellant Board that he is in possession of Flat No. 382, Ground Floor, Pocket ''C'' Sarita Vihar, New Delhi in the self-financing scheme of Delhi Development Authority (DDA), which he has purchased at the prevalent market price. Nothing happened till 11.1.1994, when the offer of allotment of dwelling unit allotted to the complainant in Manimajra, was revoked and the earnest money of Rs. 20,000 was refunded. It is in these circumstances, a complaint was filed alleging deficiency in service on the part of the appellant. The complaint was contested by the appellant/opposite party and the State Commission after hearing the parties and perusal of material on record allowed the complaint after holding that since by order of Administrator he had shown his willingness to accommodate the complainant by relaxing rules as they were in force on that day, the subsequent cancellation at the level of Officer(s) of the Board without the knowledge of Administrator/the whole Housing Board, amounts to deficiency in service on the part of the appellant/opposite party. The State Commission also held that letter dated 11.1.1994 revoking the allotment is non est in the eyes of law. According to the State Commission, the matter had to be decided at the appropriate level and the complainant is entitled to an opportunity of being heard. With these directions the complaint was allowed. Aggrieved by this order this appeal has been filed before us.

We heard the learned Counsel for the parties at some length. There is no disputing the fact that on a request made by the complainant vide his letter dated 14.7.1987, in response to which a letter was issued on 8.12.1989 by the appellant to the respondent/complainant which reads as under: "Sir/Madam, I am directed to refer to your application dated ............. regarding allotment of a house and to inform you that the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh/Chandigarh Housing Board has decided to allot you one house of HIG Cat. I Manimajra category on Ground floor out of discretionary quota. Necessary allotment letter to this effect will be issued to you in due course after knowing your eligibility for the allotment of a house of this category from the Chandigarh Housing Board. Under Ref. 6 of the Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979, a dwelling unit of a flat in the housing estate of Board can be allotted only to such persons who are bona fide residents of U.T. Chandigarh for a period of at least three years from the date of submitting application. Further, allotment can be made only to such persons who are or his wife/husband or any of his/her dependent relations including unmarried children does not own on free-hold or lease-hold or hire purchase basis a residential plot or house in the U.T. of Chandigarh or in any of the urban estate of Mohali or Panchkula. Similarly, persons who have acquired a house / residential site anywhere in India through Government/Semi-Government/Municipal Committee/Corporation/Improvement Trust at concessional rate in their name or in the name of any dependent relations of their family, will not be eligible to apply to the Board for the allotment of a house/dwelling unit: Provided that the condition of eligibility regarding the application being a bona fide resident of U.T. of Chandigarh for at least three years on the date of submitting the application or of his being a domicile of U.T. of Chandigarh shall not apply to the following categories of persons- (i) Defence/ex-defence personnel including pensioners belonging to the defence forces; and (ii) Employees of the Government of India, Punjab Government-Haryana Government and the U.T. Administration and their Boards/Corporations and Undertakings.

Before the requisite allotment of this house is made to you, your are requested to furnish an affidavit on a non-judicial stamp paper worth Rs. 3 to the effect that: (i) You have been bona fide resident of U.T. of Chandigarh for a period of at least three years on the date of submission of application; (ii) You or your dependent relations do not own a house/residential plot in the U.T. of Chandigarh or in any of the Urban Estate of Mohali or Panchkula; (iii) You or your dependent relations have not acquired a house/residential site anywhere in India through Government/Semi Government/Municipal Com-mittee/Corporation/Improvement Trust at concessional rate. (iv) You do not own a house in your name *.

In case you fulfil all these conditions, you are requested to get yourself registered with the Board for the allotment of this house by submitting a formal application in the prescribed form obtainable from this office on payment of Rs. 30 along with a sum of Rs. 20,000 as earnest money in the form of bank draft drawn on any scheduled bank at Chandigarh in favour of Chandigarh Housing Board, accompanied with your recent passport size photograph duly attested by a Gazetted Officer/Board Member/Magistrate, Ist Class/Local Member of Parliament so as to enable this office to take further necessary action.

The formalities should be completed within 15 days from the date of issue of this letter, failing which it will be presumed that you are not interested in the allotment and the offer will be treated as withdrawn. *or in the Benami name of any person including your spouses or any of your dependents." (Emphasis supplied)

IT needs to be made clear that letter dated 8.12.1989 could not be construed to be an ''allotment letter''. At best it can be construed to mean a letter of intent to allot a house for the simple reason that Para 1 of the letter clearly states that ''necessary allotment letter ........ will be issued to you in due course after knowing your eligibility.'' As per record, it is true that the respondent/complainant had filed an affidavit dated 12.10.1990, which reads as under: "I, the above named deponent, do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under- 1. That I or my spouse or any member of my family neither own nor have ever acquired a dwelling unit from the Chandigarh Housing Board or any other source in the Union Territory of Chandigarh. 2. That I have purchased one flat No. 382 (Ground Floor) in Pocket ''C'' at Sarita Vihar, Delhi, in the self-financing Scheme of the Delhi Development Authority, at the prevalent market price applicable to all the allottees. 3. That my monthly income from all sources approximately is Rs. 11,650 exclusive of house rent allowance."

IT appears that the appellant Board ascertained details of allotment from DDA. As per appellant, letter dated 6.11.1985 from DDA showed that the Vice-Chairman of DDA, informed the complainant that in response to his application, it was decided to allot him a three-bed room flat under the self-financing scheme out-of-turn basis. However, letter dated 4.3.1987 from the Vice-Chairman showed that the complainant was allotted flat in Sarita Vihar. When we see the condition 3(iii) of the letter dated 8.12.1989, issued by the appellant to the respondent, it is clear that the complainant was obliged to file an affidavit that he has not acquired any house/residential site any where in India through Government/Semi-Government/Corporation/Improvement Trust at concessional rates. There is no disputing the fact that the complainant was allotted the Sarita Vihar Flat by DDA, which is a body of the Government at reserved / fixed price for which he had approached DDA. The word ''concessional rate'' was gone into by the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana in large number of cases. The whole question of ''Concessional Rate'' as occurring in the offer of allotment dated 8.12.1989, para 3(iii), has been gone into by the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in large number of cases. In CWP No. 16181/1990, Gyan Prakash Aggarwal v. Chandigarh Housing Board, the Hon''ble High Court held as follows: "Admittedly, applications were invited where it has been specifically provided that persons who have been allotted/have acquired a house/residential site anywhere in India through Government/Semi-Government/Municipal Committee Corporation/Improvement Trust/ Notified Area Committee at fixed/reserved rates in their names or in the name of dependent members of their family, will not be eligible to apply to the Board. Admittedly, plots have been allotted to the petitioner at reserved/fixed price at various places. The flats built by the Board are for providing shelter to the homeless and not for hoarding or doing business at the cost of the State. Dismissed."

SIMILARLY, in CWP No. 963/94, R.C. Bhatia & Anr. v. Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board, the Hon''ble High Court upheld the interpretation adopted by the Housing Board which reads as follows: "As the Board experienced practical difficulties in adopting the above said definition of ''concessional rate''. The matter was again referred to the Finance Department, U.T. Chandigarh vide this officer letter No. HB(S)-85/9319 dated 10.6.1985. In response to our reference, the Finance Department vide their No. UTFI (20-62/1753 dated 12.12.1985 clarified that concessional rate means the allotment of residential plots/houses at a fixed/reserved price by Government/Semi-Government/Municipal Board/Improvement Trust/Development Authority/Housing Board."

THE Hon''ble High Court held this interpretation of the Housing Board in following terms: "In our opinion, this interpretation is quite logical and plausible. We are also of he considered opinion that the decision taken by the respondent Board does not suffer from any irrationality or arbitrariness so as to warrant our interference. Consequently, the writ petition fails and it is hereby dismissed. Parties are left to bear their own costs."

This was also the view given by the Law Department of the State Government of Punjab to the Housing Board who passed the resolution to this effect in their Board Meeting and later challenged before the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana and Chandigarh, who decided the matter as mentioned above.

It may also be mentioned here that it was argued by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the complainant had also been allotted house No. 461 in Sector 6, Panchkula, in his individual name, out of discretionary quota of the Haryana Government, which he later on converted into a joint-stock of Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) property. This fact was also suppressed by the complainant while making application for allotment of flat in Chandigarh.

THE learned Counsel for the respondent advanced the argument that the State Commission is quite correct on the issue that the provisions of Regulation 6 on which the appellant is relying, was specifically relaxed in the case of the respondent by the Administrator Chandigarh, U.T. In our view, this is only to confound the issue. As per material brought on record by the parties and as per un-rebutted material brought on record by the appellant, the relaxation was relatable to relinquishing his (complainant''s) right in the allotment of HUF property (Plot No. 461 in sector 6 Panchkula) and was not relatable to the plot to be allotted under the discretionary quota of the Administrator, Chandigarh U.T. In the aforementioned circumstances, we find that the State Commission had no material before them to pass the order that the Administrator had relaxed rules. First of all, there is no such material on record; it has only to be inferred and the inference is that it was relatable to the HUF property and not to the plot allotted under the discretionary quota.

PRIMA facie, it also appears, that while in the affidavit dated 12.10.1990, the factum of the complainant having purchased a flat in Delhi is mentioned but it does not mention the correct facts, i.e., that it was given ''out-of-turn'' and at reserved price which in perspective and as per law laid down by the Hon''ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana, it was at a ''concessional rate''/''reserved price.'' Had this fact been mentioned in the affidavit of the complainant, he would have become ineligible at that stage only, in terms of Regulation 6 of the Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979. Here we also like to observe what the Hon''ble Supreme Court held in the case of Chandigarh Housing Board and Anr. v. Narinder Kaur Makol, V (2000) SLT 507=(2000) 6 SCC 415, which touches the core of issue, appartment to the allotment of house under discretionary quota. The Hon''ble Supreme Court in para 12 of the judgment (supra) held, "it must be realised that these plots are allotted at concessional basis to allottees by the Public Authority and the relevant regulations must, therefore, be interpreted in such a manner as to save (sic serve) their real purpose so that the plots are available, as far as possible, to the largest number of persons.............." One has to appreciate as to why and under what circumstances, the allotment is made out of the "discretionary quota"? It is to help a given individual to get a shelter/roof over his head. But if a person has already got allotted house/land in his name and then gets it converted as joint-stock of H.U.F. and also gets a house in this case from DDA, on an application made by him - shall it not hit the scheme adversely if this person approaches a third authority for allotment of a house under discretionary quota? As if allotment of two houses under discretionary quota / out of turn allotment was not enough to provide shelter to the applicant!

IN our view the applicant/complainant in the given circumstances, was not eligible either under law or even from the spirit of the scheme of allotment of house under discretionary quota / which has to be used by the ''powers-that-be'' for allotting a house to the person keeping in view the need and status of the applicant but with an important rider that he does not have any other shelter, which was not the case here.

IN the aforementioned circumstances, we are unable to sustain the order passed by the State Commission, which is set aside and the complaint stands dismissed. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, no order as to cost. Appeal allowed.