YASHPAL Vs. ESTATE OFFICE U. T.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner Yashpal has approached this Court by way of filing the present petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing of impugned order dated 11.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) passed by the Appellate Authority-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh (respondent No.2), whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected. A further prayer has also been made seeking direction to the respondents to allot a flat being eligible for the same.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case as made out in the present petition are that the petitioner applied for a flat under the Scheme For Rehabilitation and Resettlement Of the Economically Weaker Section of the Society living in slums area or labour colonies Chandigarh Administration had floated the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006, which was further amended in the year 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Scheme') for the unauthorised inhabitants, who had encroached upon the public land. Such persons were allotted one room tenements on payment of licence fee. As per the Sheme, the Chandigarh Housing Board had to provide flats to the beneficiaries on licence fee basis and on depositing the same, they will acquire the ownership rights at the end of 20 years on payment of balance amount. The Administration after conducting a bio-metric survey in the month of March, 2006, identified 18 colonies, where unplanned habitations had encroached upon public land. Only those persons included in the bio-metric survey become eligible for licence fee based accommodation under this scheme. Two proposals for construction of 25728 (6368 Phase-I and 19360 Phase- II) small flats were approved by the Ministry of Housing and Urban Poverty Alleviation, Government of India for 23841 slum families scattered over 18 colonies in Chandigarh. As per the Scheme, only one member of the family was entitled for allotment. Meaning thereby, the allotment of flat was to be made provided that the family fulfils certain conditions as required under the Scheme. Subsequently, the Chandigarh Administration issued notification in the year 2009 i.e. on 09.11.2009, wherein it was provided that a person whose name appeared in bio-metric survey but did not appear in the voter list as on 01.01.2006, was held eligible for allotment of flat under the said Scheme, in case his name was in the voter list as on 01.01.2004, 01.01.2005, 01.01.2007 and 01.01.2008. The petitioner finding himself eligible as he was having voter card in the year 2002 of the Jhuggi, where he was residing since 2002 till moving the application and his name was there in the voter lists of the years 2002, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2013, 2014, 2016 and 2017. Name of the petitioner was also there in the bio-metric survey conducted by the Administration in the year 2006. At that time when the application was moved, he was unmarried and was residing separately from his father in a separate Jhuggi. His father was residing in separate Jhuggi. The claim of the petitioner was not considered and it was declined by the Screening Committee. He was declared ineligible on 20.08.2015. Thereafter he approached the Appellate Authority-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh (respondent No.2). His appeal was also dismissed vide order dated 11.12.2018, which is under challenge in the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the very purpose and object of the Scheme was to provide living space and the claim of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected without taking into consideration the fact that he was major, earning hand and residing separately and also that his father has already been allotted a flat; being unmarried major earning son residing separately; the petitioner did not come in the definition of 'Family'. Learned counsel also submits that not only he was major and earning son but his name was there in the voter list of different years which shows that he was residing separately and his identity was different. Subsequently, he got married in the year 2010. Learned counsel submits that claim of the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that only married and earning son, living separately is eligible for separate allotment. At the end, learned counsel submits that the impugned order being illegal, unlawful and contrary to the provisions of the Scheme, is liable to be set aside.