MOOL CHAND Vs. STATE OF U.T., CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners have challenged the order dtd. 27/1/2023 (Annexure P-3), whereby the allotment of the small flat to the petitioners has been cancelled.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had been allotted a small flat in the year 2013 on license basis for a period of 20 years and had been residing in that flat along with their family members. The petitioners and their family members had gone to their native village and the nephew of petitioner No.1 was temporarily residing in the premises when the survey was conducted which cannot be the basis of cancelling the allotment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submit that in the survey conducted, one Sunil Kumar was found to be in occupation of the flat and said Sunil Kumar had also submitted an application to respondent No.2 wherein he had stated that the flat had been purchased by one Manoj Kumar, who had inducted him as a tenant.