RUP JUDGE Vs. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THROUGH the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the action of the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh (respondent No. 2) in rejecting her application seeking allotment of a house under the 1996 Oustees' Scheme. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Chandigarh Housing Board through its Chairman (respondent No. 1) to allot a house under the said scheme of the HIG category to which she is entitled. She has further prayed for allotment of a HIG category house in Sector 38 (West), Chandigarh, where some houses were lying vacant.

(2.) IT has been averred in the petition that the land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the Union Territory Chandigarh for the purpose of forestation vide notifications dated 27.11.1991 and 12.6.1992 respectively issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The possession of the farm house and its surrounding areas remained with the petitioner and without taking any compensation for the acquired property, the acquisition proceedings were challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 9491 of 1992, which was dismissed vide a common judgment dated 2.5.1997 passed in 16 other connected petitions by a Single Bench of this Court and against the judgment passed, Letters Patent Appeal were also preferred, but the same were also dismissed. The husband of the petitioner then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, which was disposed of vide order dated September 19, 1997, the relevant portion of which runs as under :-

(3.) ON the other hand, the petition was contested by the respondents and through their written statement, it was pointed out that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts with regard to complete eligibility conditions that were made applicable for the Oustees applicants in the 336 Category-I Housing Scheme of 2001 in Sector 51-A, Chandigarh under which she had applied. It is further pleaded that Clause 3 of "The Chandigarh Allotment of Dwelling Units to the Oustees of Chandigarh, Scheme-1996' (Annexure P-3) envisages that the allotment shall be made by the answering respondent and the same shall be subject to the provisions of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971, as extended to U.T. Of Chandigarh and Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979, as amended from time to time. Regulation-6 of the Statutory Regulations lays down the eligibility criteria qua allotment to be made by the answering-respondent, wherein it has been provided that an applicant should have been a bona fide resident of Union Territory of Chandigarh for a period of at least three years immediately preceding the opening of a Housing Scheme. The petitioner is ineligible for allotment of a flat in Sector 51-A, Chandigarh as per terms and conditions laid down in the Scheme-2001 and as such, she is not entitled to the allotment of a flat. While denying the other assertions raised in the petition, it was finally prayed that the petition be dismissed.