Inderbir Kaur vs The Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board and Another

V.K. Bali, J.—Inderbir Kaur through the present petition filed by her under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks a direction to the respondent No. 1 (Chandigarh Housing Board Chandigarh) to give her possession of dwelling Unit No. 276/2 of HIG (L) II category in Sector 45-A Chandigarh which stood already allotted to her as a result of draw of lots held on May 26, 1990.

Facts, in brief, on which the aforesaid relief rests reveal that the petitioner is working as Lecturer in Geography in S.B.S. (Municipal) College, Kotkapura, in District Faridkot in the State of Punjab on regular basis. She applied for allotment of a dwelling unit to respondent No. 1 in the year 1987 and was registered at serial No. 536 for allotment of house under Category HIG (L)- II in Sector 45-A, Chandigarh. Subsequently in a draw of lots that was held on February 20, 1988, she was declared successful for allotment of 2nd Floor in Sector 45-A. She received intimation in this regard through letter from the Chandigarh Housing Board of April 25, 1988. Later, however, the Board through its letter dated April 12, 1989, informed her that they had improved the design of the dwelling units providing for better accommodation and more facilities and enhanced the price which was initially fixed and asked her to opt either for the new design or for the existing design. The petitioner opted for the new design and started paying instalments as per directions of the Board for the new design. Even though allocation of floors was made as per draw held on February 2, 1988, allotment was done through draw of lots on May 26, 1990. The Chandigarh Housing Board issued a notice published in the Tribune dated May 14, 1990, whereby it was provided that list of eligible applicants would be displayed in the office of the Board on May 15, 1990. The name of the petitioner was published in this list as eligible applicant. Thereafter she was allotted a dwelling unit as per the draw of lots held on May 26, 1990. Dwelling Unit No. 276/2 of HIG (L) II category was allotted to her in Sector 45-A, Chandigarh. She submitted all the documents asked for vide allotment letter Annexure P-4 on February 11, 1991 but on her visit to the office of the Board on February 20, 1991, as directed, she was refused possession of the dwelling unit that was allotted to her. However, she continued paying the instalments @ Rs. 2,270/- per month. These instalments were accepted by the respondent Board up to October, 1992. In the manner aforesaid she had paid Rs. 1,49,480/- by then. However, when she was not given possession she made various representations seeking the desired relief but without any tangible result. When others similarly situated were given the possession but the petitioner was not even informed as to why a different treatment had been meted out to her, she was left with no option but to knock at the door of this Court for the grant of relief as already indicated.

The relief claimed by the petitioner has been opposed by the respondents and a written statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No. 1 through Sh. R.K. Gupta, Secretary of the Board. It has been mainly pleaded that the petitioner being a municipal employee did not satisfy the eligibility criteria as laid down in Regulation 6 of the Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979. As per this regulation, a dwelling unit or flat in the Housing estates of the Board can be allotted only to such person who or his wife/her husband or any of his/her dependent relations, including unmarried children, does not own on freehold or lease-hold or on hire purchase basis, a residential plot or house in the Union Territory of Chandigarh or in any of the urban estates of Mohali or Panchkula. It is further provided that similarly persons who have acquired a house/residential site anywhere in India through Government/semi Government/Municipal Committee/Corporation/Improvement Trust at a concessional rate in their name or in the name of any dependent member of their family will not be eligible to apply to the Board for allotment of a dwelling unit or flat. In addition to what has been said above, an applicant has to be a domicile of the Union Territory Chandigarh or should be a bona fide resident of Union Territory Chandigarh for a period of at least three years on the date of submission of the application. There is, however, a proviso to Regulation 6 which mentions that in case an applicant is not a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh or a bona fide resident of Union Territory Chandigarh but is still a Punjab/Haryana Government employee or an employee of any of their Board/Corporations/Undertakings will be eligible for getting the dwelling unit. Inasmuch as the petitioner who was not a bona fide resident of Chandigarh and was admittedly residing at Faridkot and was only a municipal employee, was not eligible for allotment of the dwelling unit.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and going through the record of the case I am of the view that this petition deserves to succeed. It shall be seen from the array of facts that the application for allotment of flat was made way back in 1987 when she was registered at serial No. 536 in the category of HIG (L) II houses. It is conceded as there is nothing in the written statement controverting the fact that petitioner had not concealed anything and clearly mentioned her self to be an employee of Municipal Committee and residing at Faridkot. Ignoring this, admittedly as well, the Board issued her allotment letter and kept on receiving the instalments of money till October, 1992. It is too late in the day for the respondent to raise the plea of eligibility as by its own act and conduct the Board is debarred from raising such an objection at such a belated stage. This apart, the petitioner who applied for a house as far back as 1987 cannot be denied the benefit of allotment made to her on equity as well. Had she been told in the beginning that she was not eligible she would have applied for a flat elsewhere but at this stage when the prices have gone sky- rocketing she cannot be compensated as she cannot possibly apply for a plot of the same area for the prices prevalent in the year 1987.

In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition is allowed. A direction is issued to respondent No. 1 to hand over the dwelling unit to the petitioner forthwith. No order as to costs.