Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the Board shall determine and ifconsidered essential, may revise consideration from time to time and wherever the eonsideration is revised, it shall also determine the manner in which the revised consideration is payable and such determination, both original orrevised, shall be final; and the allottee or hirer shall be precluded from making complaint or raising objection or setting up any claim in this behalf at any stage.
COMMENTARY Allotment. The petitioner was allotted a flat way back in 1987 when she was registered at Sr. No. 536 in the category of HIG (L) 1 houses but she was 530 Chi:ll1digarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale ofTenements) Regulations, 1979 refused possession thereof On one pretext or another - The Board is debarred by its own conduct from raising baseless objection at such a belated stage when prices have gone sky roeketi~g - She cannot possibly apply f?r a plotofthc samc area for the prices prevalent In thc year 1987 - Rcspondent dIrected to hand over the possession of the tlat to the petitioner - Inderbir Kaur v. The Chairman Chandig".'h Housing Board. 1993 H.R.R. 578 -The petitioner applied for the allotmcnt ofa Flat under a Scheme "fer one and all'" - 'lhe deposited a sum of Rs. 4,000/- and latel: on Rs. 50,?00(- for allot ment of House in Sector 45-1\ - She wrongly stated III her applIcatIOn that no membcr of her family was owning any residential house or plot in Chandigarh/ Panchkula or Mohali while her husband had already been allotted a house - Shc realizing her mistake, wrote to the Board to cancel her husband's house to en~ble her to havc the second house in Sector 45-A allotted to her but no reply was gIven by the Board - After having been directed by the Hon' ble High Court to hear her in this respect, the Board eaneellcd her allotment ofSector 45-A and o~dered Rs.
54 000/- to be forfeited - Held, thc order of the Board cannot be sustaIlled - She w~s not given any opportunity to explain her position by the authorities - However forfeiturc of Rs. 4,000/- would meet the ends of justice - The respondent is di rected to refund Rs. 50,000/- to the petitioner with interest at the rate of 12% per annum - Smt. Ram Dulari v. Union Territory. Chandigarh, 1994 HRR 67 Enhanccmcnt of pricc - Where the allotment of plot was accepted per the terms given in thc letter ofallotment including tentative price ~ubJect to increase in ease ofenhancement in cost of land. The contract would be blOdlIlg upon both the parties. A finding that action of Authorities in enl~ancing th~ price i~ arbit:ary a~d unreasonable, cannot be interfered with by the High Court In exercise of ItsJuns diction under Art. 226 ofthe Constitution. The plea that plots sold on (no profit no loss basis' should be taken care of by the Authorities, not tenable in view of Charanjit Bajaj's case decided on 10the April, 1991 - Air Marshal Shiv Del' Singh (Retd) v. HUDA, 1991 PU 487.
-Recovery of cnhanced price was ordered to be recovered from some. of the allottees of flats - Other similarly situated were not touched though fallIng undcr thc same Schcme - Increase to be split upon all the alloltees - The plea of Housing Board that some of the flats were not frec from encroachment, was not acceptablc - Sukhpal Singh Kang v. Chandigarh Housing Board, 1995 HRR
253.
-Where in the lettcr of allotment it was made clear that the price of the plot is tentativc one and any enhancemcnt in the cost of land under the Land Acquisi tion Act shall also be payable propoltionately by the plot holdcrs. The pctitioners accepted the terms and conditions of allotment, it was held that the Haryana Dcvelopmcnt Authority was within its competence to cnhance the price. The plea that the burdcn of enhanced priec of the commercial site which was to bc borne by the HUDA and it has wrongly been passcd on to thc allottecs, not acecpted. It was further observed that those who contract with open eyes must accept the burdens of the contract along with its benefits as held in Har Shanker s case
(1975) 3 SCR 254. Relying upon the judgments delivcred in c;hander Mani s case 1990 pLJ 501 and Charanjit Bajaj:5 case 1986 pLJ 60 I It was hcld that allottee is not only liable to pay the additional cnhanced price of land but.alsot.he costs of acquisition which includes solatium, interest and legal ~xpcndlture .I~ cUlTed by thc Estatc Officer in defending acquisition and award 01 Land ACqUISI tion Collector at all stat'.(;'> mentioned in the Land Acquisition Act - Ravinder Narula & ors v. flVDA: 1991 PLJ 509.
*** Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and 531 Sale ofTenements) Regulations, 1979 I [6. Eligibility ofA/lolment. - (1) A Dwclling Unit or a flat in the Ilolising Estatcs of the Board shall be allotted only to such person who or his wife/her husband or any of his/her minor children does not own on frce-hold or on hire purchase basis or on the basis 0 I' an Agrccment to Sell, GPA, Wi II etc. a residell tial plot or house, in full or in part, in the Union Territory ofChandigarh or in any or the Urban Estatcs or Mohali or Panchkul,l. If. however, individual share of a person ill thc jointly owned plot or land unuer the residential houscs is less than 100 Sq. Yds., he/she shall be eligiblc for allotmcnt of a D.U. by the Board. How ever, a person \vho has already been owning on frcchold, leasehold or hire-pur chase basis a residential plot or house or flat in thc u:r. ofChandigarh or in any of the Urban Estates ofMohali or Panchkula, shall not be cligible for thc allotmcnt of a D.U. by the Board. Further, persons who have becn allotted a rcsidential plot/ dwclling unit in the Union Territory ofChandigarh or in any of the Urban Estates ofMohali or Panchkula through Governmcnt/Semi- Government/Statutory Cor poration/Board/Municipal Committcc/Corporation/ Registcrcd Socicty like A.W.H.O. or a Co-operative I-louse Building Society, in their name or in the name of their spouse or any minor children, shall also not be eligible for allotment of a dwelling unit or flat. The applicant shall further continue to fulfil these cligibility conditions from the date of opening of the scheme up to the date ofdclivcry of possession of the dwelling unit by the Chandigarh Housing Board.
In addition to thc above provisions, the applicant should be a bona fide resi dent ofU.T., Chandigarh on the date of opening of scheme:
Provided that the condition ofel igibi lity regarding the applicant being a bona fide resident ofU.T., Chandigarh on thc date of opening of the scheme shall not apply to the following categories ofpcrsons :-
(i) Serving Dcfence Personnel and the Pensioners/Family Pensioners of the Defence rorces; and
(ii) Employees of the Government ofIndia, Punjab Government, Haryana Govel1lment and the U.T. Admi nistration and their Boards/Corporations and Undertakings.
(iii) Retired employees of the Govcrnment oflndia, Punjab Govcrnment, Haryana Government and the Chandigarh Administration and thcir Boards/Corporations/Undertakings.]
(2) The applicant shall furnish an affidavit in thc prescribed form with regard to his eligibility along with the application. In the event ofthe affidavit bcing found false at any stage, the Board shall be entitled to cancel the registration or the allotment of dwelling unit or flat as the case may be, and to forfcit thc deposit receivcd with the application and all the payments made to thc Board therafter.
(3) The Board shall have the right to impose any additional condition of eligibility as may be determined and notified from time to timc.
COMMENTARY Allotmcnt - Retrospcctive effect - Eligibility of a pcrson for dceiding his application for allotment of plot is scen at the time ofdeciding his application. Any subsequent amcndment to the Regulation bccomes inapplicable to thcease of pctitioner as the Board has no power to form Rcgulation with retrospeetivc effect - DI: Trikha v. Union Territory, 1991 (1) PLR 169 DB.
-Allotlllcnt - Forfciture - The provisions of Regulation 6 (2) undoubtedly authorise thc Board to forfeit the deposit or cancel the allotmcnt in case the con tents of the affidavit filed by the applicant are found to be false - Howcver it is an I. Substituted by Chd. Admit Guz. (Extra) Notification No. [1I3(S)/EAI/2K8/4429 dated 17-3 2008 at page 456 532 Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale ofTenements) Regulations, 1979 enabling provision - Such an order cannot be passed mechanically - Where the petitioner was not given proper opportunity to explain her position about the al leged false statement, the order of cancellation and forfeiture was held to be unjustified - Smt. Ram Dulari v. Union Territory, Chandigarh, 1994 HRR 67 -Fixation of Price - Where the respondent continued to challenge the price fixed and other matter and for that purr,Q)e he filed various representations before the Board, he did not deposit the amount due from him as a beneficiary of the allotment made by the Board. Ultimately the Board issued notice to the respon dent and on non-compliance ofthe terms of the notice, the allotment made to the respondent, was cancelled. Held, the Board should consider the case of the re spondent sympathetically for allotment of the dwelling unit to him on the terms mentioned in para 25 of the reply filed by the Board. In case the dwelling unit reserved for him has been allotted to some body else, then his case for any other alternative allotment of such unit should be considered. In this case the judgment given in Baldev Singh's case 1991 PU 443 was followed - Chandigarh Hous ing Board v. Sh. HarjU Singh Joshan, 1991 PLl 491 D.B.
Allotment in violation of Regulation - Petitioner applied for allotment of house in response of an advertisement and deposited a sum of Rs. 20,000/- with respondent - His wife was already owning a plot in Delhi against which query was sti \I pending when petitioner was allowed to participate in draw of plots of allot ment and was successful - Respondent asked to deposit a sum of Rs. 3.40 lacs which was not deposited within stipulated period - Request for payment in instal ment was declined - Respondent kept the amount of Rs. 20,000/- without any reason by keeping the inquiry about inel igibility pending for a long time - Respon dent cannot forfeit this amount as it had directed petitioner to pay price of Rs. 3.40 lacs in lump sum - Petitioner is not entitled to allotment as being ineligible for the same under relevant law - Respondent directed to refund Rs. 20,000/- with 5% interest - o.F. Samal v. Chandigarh Housing Board, 2005( 1) II.R.R. 36 Allotment of flat - Forfeiture - The petitioner allegedly made a wrong state ment as a result of which allotment of her flat was cancelled - It was held by the Hon'ble High Court that the Board ought to have given the petitioner an opportu nity to explain her position before cancellation offlat or forfeiture of the amount Smt, Ram Dulari v. Union Territ01Y Chandigarh, 1994 H.R.R. 67 Allotmcnt of houscs - It was due to certain reasons that housing depart ment had extended the time for delivery of possession - Allotment was cancelled by Board for not taking the possession by allotteelpetitioner - Some what tenuous stands was taken by the Housing Board - Order of cancellation of allotment set aside - Petition allowed - Krishan Lal Pasricha v. Housing Board Ilaryana, 2002 HRR539 Allotment of plot and belated paymcnt - The petitioner was allotted the flat on 12th March, 1987, In terms of agreement she was required to accept or refuse the allotment within 30 days of the issue of the letter. The payment was made belatedly on 29th April 1989 which was accepted by the Board. The Board contended that the allotment had deemingly being cancelled under clause 3. It was held that the Board could demand interest for the belated payment and it was not a deemed cancellation of the flat as the time is extendable under clause 4 of . the Regulations - Gurpreet Kaur v. Union of India, 1989 PLl 767.
Cancellation of allotment of flat - Appellant applied for allotment ofHIG flat by making a false statement that he or any members of his family had acquired no house through Government, or municipal corporation in violence oftenns ofallotment - It was revealed that he had constructed a house in Noida under a scheme of Air Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Managcment and 533 Sale ofTenements) Regulations, 1979 Force Naval Hou~ing Board - Allotment was cancelled due to suppression of fact _ Order of~aneellatlonwas sustained by High COUlt - However, Housing Board refunded a sum (~f Rs. 8064~ 11- (:lUt of Rs. 10,000,001- deposited by appellant though Board was entitled to f?rfelt entlre amount - But a major portion has been rcfunJcd - Impugned order up.held WIth the obser~ation that show cause notice and order passed by High Court 'VIII not affect the carner ofappellant - Harsh Vardhan Bum'all'. ChQ/1digarh Housin;; Board, 2006(2) HRR 105 S.C.
Eligibility - Appellant applied for allotment under the Regulation 1979 $tatino !hat her husband had no resi~ential house within boun.daries ofChandigarh or a,:join~ mg areas - But a commerCial flat was allotted to hun on which residential house could b~ const!ucted under rules - Condition of prohibition laid down in Regulation 16 (I) IS applIcable - Allotment being in contravention of Regulation set aside _ ChandiE5.m:h .I~ous~ng Board v. Narindel: ~au,. Makal, 2006 (Supp!.) IIRR 123 S.c.
.~hglbIlI~y tor all?tmcnt - Donlletle of U.T. - Respondent claimed to be a dO',Tllelle ofU. r. C~a!l~I~arh for satisfying eligibility criteria - The Board was not satisfied WIth the chglbllJty ofrespondent for allotment offlat -He cannot fall back on the second ~Iigibil.it?" criteria a.fter failing to satisfy the first eligibility eriteria Respondent bemg a cItIzen ofIndla cannot claim allotmcnt as adomicile of Union 1crr~t~ry of~handigarh - Howcver, respondent on having succeeded to obtain a d.omlel.le eeltlfieate from competent authority can approach the Board for recon SideratIOn of the matter - Chandigarh Housillg Board v. Gurmit Singh, 2002 H.R.R. 503 S.C.
--Appell.rint Board served a notice on respondent to the effect that allot ~ent of a housmg plot. made to hiJ~ was in eon~ravcntion of pl'Ovisions of Regula t1~1I1 (~) ofthe RegulatIon, 1979 -1 he reason gIven was that respondent alongwith hIS ~Ife was ~em.ber of Cooperative Housing S~eiety namely Army W~ltare Ho~slllg Orga.nlsatlon and they were allotted a houslllg plot as member orthc said ". socIety - Puttlllg a correct eonstl:,!e~ion to the pr?visi.OI.l~ of I\eguiation 6 High COUlt found the.allotm.e!'!t not sun~~I~g from any IllegIbIlity -1 he order docs not s~:fer from any t1.le[5a1Jtle~ - Aequ~sl~lOn ofany .property through any agency (so ciety) IS not p,roh!blted -1 h~ restfldlon c1~use In the condition of eligibility will have no appl.l~atlon ~ ~-Io~s~n~ Board haVIng a regulation making power could make an exphelt prOVISion If It Illtel1ded to put any such restriction- Harsh Vanlhall Bansals c,ase! does not eo~stitute any binding precedent - Allotmcnt upheld _ Appeal dismIssed - Chandlgarh How'ing Board v. Major Gen. Devinder Singh (Retd), 2007(1) H.R.R. 477 S.C.
. Eligibi~ity - Allotm~nt undc::r the Scheme should be strictly in accordance WIth Regulatl<?n No.6 \vhleh prOVIdes that applicant should be bona fide resident of U! Chandlgarh for at least three years immediately preceding the date of openmgofthe scheme in addition to the eligibility laid down under clause 4 ofthe ~ustees Scheme 1996 - Petitioner in the present case has failed to prove that he IS a bo.na fide resident of UT Chandigarh for at least three years - Board did not e.?mml~ any fuult in rejecting his claim - Petition dismissed - Mrs. Rup Judge v.
Chandlgarh Housing Board, 2007(2) H.R.R. 663 Elegibility for allotmcnt - Housing Board Chandigarh prepared a Scheme ~f Allotment of House on th~ b~sis of different eatcgories of employees i.e.
Employees ofB. an.d C eategones 111 the year 2008 -- Due to revise in pay scale by 6th Pay COmnll~SIOn some employees of C eat<;.gor~ became cmployee of B category and elUlmed the allotn:en~ ofhous~ on th,e baSIS of new categories - This controversy ofB and C categories IS the mam subject matter of their writ pdition - By taking into consideration relevant law as cited in various judglllen ts allotment 534 Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale ofTenements) Regulations, 1979 should be made as per categories of employecs available at the date which applicati~n for allotment of flats were fi le9 -If category is changed from C to B aftel: c1osll1g of sehemc on account of rcvlsed pay scale such employces cannot be glv.en the b~nefit .of the schcm~ ~- Subsequent eligibi lity condition cannot be taken I nt~ cO~lslderatton - Conversion of.Group C to Group l3 was provisional only - Board IS directed t? prepare a fresh list of allotmcnt pertaining to 13 category employees - SukhraJ Singh v. Chandigarh Housing Board, 20 12( I) Haryana Law RepOiter 277 D.S.
-~Petitioner's ~aughter who was depcndcnt on him was allotted a flat under Chandlgarh ~~gulat.lOns of0~lotment- In view ofallotmcnt to his daughter who is a membcr oLliS famlly- Pctlttoner cannot be made allotment under the Regulations - In the. absence ofany report about acquisition of right as a landowner before the Patwa.n, the d,:ughtcr call1~ot c1a!m that she is owner of land in her own capacity - Relief declIned - HarJeet Smgh v. Chl1lldigarh Housing Board, 2014(2) Ilaryana Law Reporter 38 D.B.
. .Enhancement of price - The enhanced price had been claimcd from the petitioner by th~ respondents without stating the circumstances which led them to enhanc~ the pnc~. Order of ~nhancementof price quashed and change of allot (~ent of house without heanng the allottee was hldd wholly unjustjl~ed - Smt.
Chhaya Arora v. Haryana HOl/sing Board, 1990 (2) PLR 926.
-SelfFinancing Schcl~le wlIi.le il~viting a~plication ofallotmcnt it was clearly stated that .allotmcnt ofdw~lltngunit Will be subject to Regulation, 1979 and strictly n:gulated 111 accordance with the terms and conditions aiven in the advertisement ~ Itwa~ cl~ar~ysti pulated .in the,Schcme of allotm~nttl~at there may be variations III 0.10 cos.s fl om tll1:e to tune - Enhancement ofpnce not open to challenge under Arttcle .226 as parties are bound by terms of allotment - Bareilly Development Authonty's case AIR 1989 SC 1076 reiterated - Kulwant Singh v. Chandigarh Housing Board, 2005(1) HRR 482 EllhaI~CCI~cnt of llIlotted flat - Petitioncrs were allotted multi-storeyed flats at ManlmaJra by th~ respond~nt Buard - In category Itentativc price of the flat was Rs. 4 Lacs and 111 category II it was Rs. 3 lacs - subseq uently the price wa~ ~nhanced to Rs. 6.25 la.cs and 4.75 lacs respectively to be deposited by the petitioners - No reply was gIven to the reprcsentation made to the Board - Held there.is no just!fication for increasing the price arbitrarily - Notice ofenhancement of prtce h~ld I:able to be quashed- However, it will be open to the Board to take f~rther actlO.n 111.accordance with the terms and conditions ofthe contract in ques tIon - Dalblr Singh Bhagat v. Chandigarh Administration, 1993 H.R.R. 514.
Enhancemcnt of sale price - Thc Chandigarh Administration dccided to allot some land for construction often shops to Chandigarh Housing Board at the rate of Rs., 500/- per sq. yard - The Board, thereafter invited application for ~lIotmel1t of these shops in t!le ycar 1983 and again in 1986 - The allottees were Issued dcmand-cum- allocatIOn letters demanding Rs. 3.5 lakh each plus balance amo~nt of Rs. 1.5 Lakh to be paid after the delivery of possession of the shop - It was 111 th~ year .1989 that the Board fixed and demanded Rs. 1205514/- against the tentative prtce of Rs. 500000/- as advcrtised earlier - I-reid, The price as demanded by the Chandigarh Administration vide its letter dated 31-10-1989 is hereby quashed with the direction that the allottees may be given possession of thc shops at the rate of land as advertised earlier - Maj General Ram Singh v.
Chandlgarh HOI/sing Board, 1991 H.R.R. 375.
. Falsc affi~avit - A d:v.elling house was.allott~d to the pctitioncr by respondcnt 011 false affidaVIts that petItIOner or any oflus family member was not owning any !
i I 1 i :1', ~ Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and 535 Sale ofTenements) Regulations, 1979 house within Panchkula, Chandigarh or Mohali - But the S.P. had intimated that petitioncr was owning a housc No. 2373 in Sector 71 of Mohali - Allotment of house was cancelled on the basis of false affidavit -It is pleaded by the petitioner that he had sold this house in 1995 whereas allotment was made in 1996 - But mere agrecment to sell is not a sale as its sale deed was registered alter the datc ofallotment - Order ofcancellation ofallotment upheld - Raghbir Singh v. Advisor to Administrator, Ur, C/ulildigarh, 2012(2) Haryana Law Repcrter 229 D.B.
Self Financing Housing Scheme, 2008 - Petitioner sold/u'ansferred the ~arlier dwelling unit allotted to him at cOl1cessional rates to a third p<>rty by execut ing a tripartite agreement ill violation ofclause 5 ofsaid agreemcnt - As per terms ofagreement, petitioncr was not eligible for allotment ofany dwelling unit under any scheme ofthe Chandigarh I-lousing Board - Petitioner is not eligible for allot ment and is estopped from challenging thc clause of agreement in view of2006 (Supp!.) HRR 123 S.c. - Petition dismissed - Parmes!lwar Dutt Sharma 1'. u.r Chandigarh, 2008(2) HRR 439 D.B.
****