LAWS(P&H)-2014-10-167

NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD AND OTHERS

Decided On October 27, 2014
NIRANJAN SINGH Appellant
V/S
Chandigarh Housing Board and Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present writ petition is to the show cause notice dated 6.1.1995 and order dated 16.5.1995, passed by Chairman, Chandigarh Housing Board cancelling the allotment of dwelling unit No. 217/2 (LIG), Sector 41-A, Chandigarh, which was allotted to the petitioner vide letter dated 28.12.1982.

(2.) Shri Niranjan Singh, allottee of the said dwelling unit, gave a General Power of Attorney in June, 1984 to Ranjit Singh, husband of Smt. Nirmal Kaur husband of the petitioner. An agreement to sell of the said unit was entered into between the allottee Shri Niranjan Singh and late Shri Ranjit Singh. Shri Niranjan Singh also executed a valid Will which was registered on 2.7.1984 in favour of Shri Ranjit Singh. It is submitted that Shri Ranjit Singh, paid regular installments towards the said dwelling unit and a total sum of INR 30,937/- had been deposited. Since Ranjit Singh fell ill, he could not deposit the installments after Sept., 1995. The Housing Board served a show cause notice for not depositing the due installments. This letter, in fact, was not received by the petitioner but it was received by the tenant who did not hand it over to the petitioner. After the death of Shri Ranjit Singh, his wife Smt Nirmal Kaur approached the respondents to make the payment towards the dwelling unit and was informed that the dwelling unit had been cancelled on account of non-payment of the installments. Smt Nirmal Kaur approached the respondents against the cancellation and offered to pay the entire outstanding amount and prayed for restoration of the cancellation of the house but to no avail.

(3.) Aggrieved against the order of cancellation, the present writ petition has been filed. It is contended by the petitioner that a sum of INR 30,937/- had been deposited and the balance could not be paid on account of ill-health. It is also contended that the said dwelling unit was cancelled without giving any opportunity of hearing.