CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD Vs. SURINDER PALL SONI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Chandigarh Housing Board has filed this revision petition against the judgment and order dated 2.4.2002 passed by the State Commission (U.T.), Chandigarh in Appeal No. 99 of 2001 directing the petitioner to refund amount received from the complainant which was deposited for the allotment of 2 flats with 18% interest from the respective date of deposit till its refund.

(2.) It is the contention of the petitioner that impugned order is on the face of it contrary to the evidence brought on record. It is pointed out that, (a) petitioner committed fraud in submitting application for registration and allotment of Category I and Category IV flats in the year 1989 under two different Housing Schemes, namely (i) Self Financing Housing Scheme, 1989 for General Public (Categories I and II), and (ii) Hire Purchase Housing Scheme (Categories III and IV) in Modern Residential Complex, Chandigarh; (b) prior to the said applications, respondent had acquired a shop-cum-flat No. 385 in the Motor Market, Chandigarh, with full proprietary rights and thereafter he had filed an affidavit dated 15.9.1988 before the Authority that he was absolute owner and in possession of the said site and be permitted to construct building over the same; and (c) he had also executed Indemnity Bond to the Authority so that building plan submitted by him be sanctioned. That Indemnity Bond was executed by Shri Surinder Pall Soni (respondent) which is signed in presence of his Advocate Mr. Surinder Mohan Sharma and is attested and identified by the Executive Magistrate, Chandigarh. The petitioner has also produced on record the Memo dated 22.9.1988 issued by the President, Notified Area Committee that building plan was sanctioned. At this stage, it is to be stated that respondent filed application for Category I flat by mentioning Shri Surinder Pall Soni by giving address as House No. 170, Soni Niwas, Manimajra, U.T., Chandigarh, while for Category IV he filed application by mentioning Shri Surinder Pall by giving address as Delhi Motors, 488, New Motor Market, Manimajra.

(3.) At the time of hearing, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of Regulation 6, respondent was not eligible to apply for either Category I or Category IV flat, and affidavit filed by respondent was found to be false, the Board was entitled to cancel the registration or the allotment of dwelling unit or flat, as the case may be, and forfeit the deposit received with the application and all the payments made to the Board thereafter. It is, therefore, contended that as there was violation of Regulation 6, the order passed by the Authority was justified and the State Commission was not justified in interfering with the same.