(I) When a property is disposed of by sale, evcry applicant shall deposit a sum equal to 25 per centum of the consideration money of the propelty or such amount as may be specified in the schcme. Such dcposit shall be non-intcrcst bcaring ullless other wise declared by the Board to be interest bearing.
(2) An applicant to whom the property has been allotted shall have to pay the balance amount oftlle consideration money (i.e. after adjusting the dcposit) as may be specified in the allotment letter either in lump-sum or in such number of instalments as may be prescribed therein.
(3) If payment of the balance ofconsideration money is madc in instalments, the allottee shall have to pay intcrest on the balance amount of premium at the rate as may be fixed by the Board by prior intimation.
(4) In case any instalment is not paid by the allottee by the due datc, a notice shall be served on him calling upon him to pay thc instalment within a 1110llth together with penalty which may~xtend upto I [25] percent of the amount due. If the payment is not made within the said period or such extcnded period as may be allowed by the Board but not exc(;oding three months in all, from the date 2[ _ ] on which the instalment was originally due, the Board may cancel the allotment and forfeit the whole or part ofthe consideration money and ground rent already paid in respect of the propcrty and thenceforth the propcrty shall vcst in the Board.
(5) In case of an applicant who has not been allotted any property, the de posit made with the application shall be considered as Deposit under allY scheme which the Board may framc for further allotment ofthc dwelling unit unless thc applicant applies for the rcfund ofthe said amount.
(6) Thc Board shall have the sole and exclusive right over the deposit till it is adjusted or rcfunded with or without deduction as provided in these regulations and the appl icant shall execute all neccssary documcnts as may be directed by thc Board from time to time in this behalf to enable the Board to deal with such money.
1[(7) The allottee shall not sell, alienate, transfer or otherwise part with the possession of the whole or ally part ofthe said propcrty ti 11 he becomes the owner
1. Substituted by Chd. Admn. Gil;':. (Extm) Notification No. IIl3(S)-G-2/961l1228 lbtcd 30-8-1996
2. Omitted by Chd. Adllln. Gaz. (I:xtra) Notification No. 1113(S)-G-2/96/1 t228 lbh:d 30-8-1996
3. Substiluted by Chd.Adlllll. Gaz.tExtra) NOlifieation datcu 18-3-2005 published 01123-3-2005 at pagl! 182 536 Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and 537 Sale ofTenements) Regulations, 1979 so long as the marriage between husband and wife was subsisting - However, thc Board was directed to forfeit only halfofthe amount deposited by the respondent . Chandigarh Housing Board v. Awar Singh, 1995 HRR 471 S.C.
Allotment of Government houses - Cancellation - On an inquiring it was found that the petitioners who were allotted government houses had sublet the same and in consequence thereof their allotment was cancelled - Hcld, the mere fact that a cyclostyled order was passed, does not prove that ~here was no appli cation of mind by the authorities concerned - Balwant Singh .~~ ChiefSecretary to Government Punjab. 1989 H.R.R. 620 (D.B.)
Allotment of houses - Discretion - Petitioner deposited R.J. 1,000/- with an application invited by I-lousing Board for allotment of houses - Petitioner was unsuccessful for allotment in draw of lots - No objection was filed against the allotment through draw of lots - All thc allottees were not impleaded - No rcply about the lettcr giving option ofchoice ofplots was given by pctitioner - Morcover, writ petition was filed after a delay ofmore than one year - There is no illegal ity in the allotment - Shamir Singh v. Chandigarh Housing Board, 1995 II.R.R. 499.
Allotment ofH.IG. houses - Discrimination - The [~ousingBoard allottcd houses in favour of some officers and ignored the petitioner who was similarly situated - Order wholly unjustified - Sh. L.R. Roojam v. Sh. K. Banwji, Chief Commissioner, 1985 H.R.R. 220.
Arbitrariness - When there is a pure and simple contract betwecn the parties, no reliefcan be granted to the petitioner in writ proceedings - But where increase in initial.price of the plot was wholly unjustifiable, such increase can be challenged under Contract Act - Arbitrary increase in price offlat by the Housing Board recoverable from the petitioner ignoring the case ofanother allottees held to be violative of Article 14 of the Constitution - Sukhpal Singh Kang v.
Chandigarh Housing Board, 1995 HRR 253.
-Allotment of shops - Allegation of malafide and arbitrary allotmcnt of shops/stalls by Minister of Housing - Allegation duly proved - Cancellation of allotment ordered - Show cause notice issued to the Minister - Government is directed to frame a policy within two months for re-allotment after cancellation of present allotment which should be fair andjust - The Minister is requircd to show cause why damages should not be claimed from hcr for alleged misuse of power - Shivsagar Tiwari v. Union of India, 1997 H.R.R. 98 S.C.
Cancellation of allotment - Housing Board is the competent authority un der the Regulations - Approval ofdraft order by the Chairman of the Board does not mean that order was passed by the Chairman - Under the Act Chairman of the Board alone is not competent to pass the order unless othcr mcmbers of the Board pass the same jointly - Thc impugned order ofcancellation of plot deserves to be set aside - Rattna Ram v. Chandigarh Housing Board, 1997 llRR 482.
Discrimination - Rajasthan Housing Board started a sclfhousing scheme Applicants were grouped into four quarters - Possession was to be givcn after construction of houses by phases - After granting allotment for the first quatter construction for the remaining quarters was delayed which was beyond control of the Board - Enhanced price was demanded of the remaining quarters from the allottees - Discriminatory treatment about the remaining quartcrs was alleged The contention is withoutany force - Board committed no error in dctcrminingthe cost differently in respect of2nd, 3rd and 4th quartcrs as the Board had borrowed huge amount from various sources for which interest was payable - Pica of dis criminatolY treatment rejected - Awasan MandaI Parijat Ayawarg Sangharsh Samiti v. Rajasthan Housing Board, 1997 H.R.R. 425 S.C.
COMMENTARY Affidavit - The Oath Commissioner attested the signature ofa dead person and the affidavit ofa person who was not alive was filed in the Registry - Inquiry ordered against the Oath Commissioner - The Advocate on rccord who filed the affidavit was given warning for not indulging in such activities in future after he tendered an apology for this act - Bihar State Housing Board v. Satya Narayan Prasad (dead) by L.Rs., 1998 H.R.R. 153 S.C.
Allotment - Revised policy of industrial sites forthe establishment of print ing presses called into question in writ petition - Revised policy docs not suffer from any act of arbitrariness - Appellants fonned a separate class - All persons who have applied for industrial sites for establishing printing presses \~erc gl:ouped togcther - No discrimination - Appeal dismissed - Constitution oflndm, article 14 . Paradise Printers v. Union Territmy of Chandigarh, 1988 H.R.R. 409 S.C.
-Allotment ofdwelling unit was cancelled without any notice to the al1ott~c by Administration - Notice was not served with the plea that allotment was provI sional and allottee failed to comply with terms ofallotment letter - Plea not tenable as lack ofopportunity has resulted in miscarriage ofjustice - Impugned order held to be violative of principles of natural justice - 8mt. Shashi Bala v. Chandigarh Housing Board, 2001 HRR 232 D.B.
-School in park site - D.D.A. allowed respondent No.2 to open a nursery school in a place which was reserved for a park - Allotment uf sitc in favour of respondent No.2 in the name ofa school obviously is misuse ofpower - Allotment is liable to be cancelled - However, respondent can continue to run the school for a period of six months to enable them to make alternative arrangcments to avoid harassment to the children - Dr. GN. Khajuria v. Delhi Development Author ity, 1995 H.R.R. 557 S.C.
Allotment of flats - As per regulation only one among wife, husband and their dependents was eligible of a building or a flat - In the present case both husband and wife applied separately and were made allotment of two Oats - After discovery ofreal fact allotment made to the husband was cancelled and the entire amount was forfeited - It was pleaded by respondent-husband that he was having estranged relation with his wife and was entitled to makc separate application There is no force in the contention - Cancellation ofallotment is not per se illegal, Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979 or for a period of 10 years from the date of actual possession, whichever is latcr except that - .
(i) A lease for a period not exceeding 5 years at a tnne may be. created. .
(ii) The right, title and intcrest ofthe allottee may be mortgaged 111 favour ot the Gov'emment, Life Insurance Corporation or any Scheduled ~ank ~r any Cor pOl'ate Body subject to first charge on the property for the unpa~d'por~lOn of pur chase price and other due~' ')utstanding towards the allottee remain II1g 111 favour of the Board:
Provided further that mch mortgage, lease, etc. can only be created \\lith the prior permission of the Board and the Board will be competent to impose any condition while granting such pennission. .
Notwithstanding anything containcd in sub-regulation (7) ab?~c, the Ad.mll1 istrator. may at his discretion and for reasons to be recorded 111 wn ling, pernut the allottee in genuine cases of hardship Or on humanitarian grounus as he dcems fit to sell, alienate, transfer or otherwise palt with the possession of thc wholc or any part of the said property after he has made the full payment of the properly to the Board].
538 Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale ofTenements) Regulations, 1979 Enhanced price - Although courts have been, from time to time, upholding the excess prices charged by Development Authorities in the circumstances of the cases, but it does not mean that Authorities have absolute right to hike the price offlats initially announced as approximate or estimated cost of such flats Authorities owe a duty to explain and to satisfy the Courts, the reasons for such escalation - Indore Development Authority v. Sadhana Agarwal, 1995 HRR 552 SC Eqliit), - Respondent obtained allotment of plot in his favour concealilJ~ the fact of allotment of another plot in his name within the same Municipal Awa Violation of undertaking given to Allotment Authorities - Cancellation of second allotment justified - No equitable reliefcan be granted to respondent - Bihar State Housing Board v. Satya Narayan Prasad (dead) by 1.&., 1998 H.R.R. 153 S.C.
Forfeiturc - Cancellation of allotment - Respondent was allotted a house under the Economically Weaker Section Scheme - She misstated the facts of monthly income resulting in the cancellation of plot - A petty amount being for feited - Forfeiture of hire purchase deposit was set aside by the authorities below - Thcre is no illegality with the impugned order - Petition stands dismissed -Ilous ing Board Haryana v. Smt. Raj Rani, 1997 H.R.R. 271.
Incomplete construction - Respondent allottee had been informing the appellant Board, time and again, for making the flat residentiable by putting up fittings and fixtures without which the flat remains only in a skeleton form - It was being used for storing cement by the Board - Respondent without completion of construction of flat cannot be compelled to execute the agreement to pay the revised rate oftlfe flat with interest - Dismissing the appeal of Board it is directed to comply with the directions ofthe High Court issued vide its order datcd 2.2.1993 - BillaI' State Housing Board v. Lalit Ram, 1997 H.R.R. 243 S.c.
Incrcasc in price of Houses - Petitioners were allotted houses by respon dent Board, of various categories, on the basis of tentative price - Prices were reviscd frequently which forced the petitioners to challenge the same - The Board furnished details of the grounds for revising the price of houses - As regards the profits added on the amount which is total ofexpenses on building portion, public health, electric installation, interest on land and building cost, it is justified - There is no logic for adding cost of land, interest on land cost and building cost towards the cost of construction of flats for determining the profit - There was no justi ficatio:1 to charge profit on cost of land by contending that the procedure is fol lowed as suggested by the HUDCO - The writ petition is accepted to that extent - Mathura Parshad v. Chandigarh /lousing Board, 1996 H.R.R. 118.
Intel'cst - Housing Board paying interest to HU DCO - Charging of intcrest at the same rate from alloltees is not arbitrary - Mathura POl'shad v. Chandigarh IIousing Board, 1996 H.R.R. 118, Officcr's liability -An officer allowing unauthorised construction at a pub 1ic place should not be allowed to go scot free - Such officer is more to be blamed than the rccipient of the illegal benefit - It is imperative that while undoing the mischiefwhich would require the demolition ofthe unauthorised construction, the delinquent officer has also to be punished in accordance to the law - In thc present case D.D.A. was directed to make inquiry against the officers concerned and inform the apex court within three months for passing further orders in this regard - Dr. GN. Khajuria v. Delhi Development Authority, 1995 I-1.R.R. 557 S.c.
Ucsel-vation of plot -If any reservation is under in violation of provisions of the Act, the same cannot be sustained - Reservation was made in the name of C s hlandfi~arh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and 539 a eo lenements) Regulations, 1979 industrial workers in violation of legal provisions - Some tenements alter making ~lIotm~nts to women workers remained un-allotted which were allotted to the II1dustnal workers wh.ich ~as !lOt p,ermitted by Re&u.lation 7 (2) ofthe Regulations, 197~ - Allotment beIng In VIolatIon of the prOVISIons of Regulation set aside, Kapli Dev 11.. Housing Board Haryana, 2013(1) Haryana Law Reporter 250 Tenta~l~e price: Inc,:ease in pri~e - Enhanc~ment of price is justi fied only when there IS II1crcase 111 pnce ofacqUIred la.'J or Ifcost of constructioll or labour charges hav~ been incre~sed - Mere mentioning a price as tentative as it has be~0n:te ayl1lversal practice adopted by the B..lard, does not make the increase in pr.lce Justifiable - Increase in tentative price being arbitrarily and cannot be SlIS tall1ed: SU~hpal Singh Kang v. Chandigarh Housing Board, 1995 HRR 253.
. VIOlation of legal provision - Encroachment - Show cause notice _ Gnevance of the petitioner is against a show cause notice by respondent for encro~chment on governl,nent land ~nd .issuance of n.otice w.ithout any legal authonty - !,he plea that ,Issuance ot notIce under Punjab Capital Act and also ~nd~rHousll1& ~oardAct IS against law- Held, the objection is without any merit 1I1 view of deCISion rendered by this Court in Paramjeet Singh's case decided on
4.3.2~12 (CyvPNo. 16970 of2007) when it was held that Capital of Punjab Act, 1952 I~ applicable to u.rban as well ~s r.ural area of UT, Chandigarh as envisaged by sectIOn 4 ofthe ~unJab Re-?rganlsat.lOn Act, 1966 - The objection is repelled But a~ no opportun.l~y of hear~ngafter Issuan~e of notice and passing ofan order was given to the petitioner, the Impugned order IS not legally sustainable-Impugned Or~e.r quashed - Case remanded to pass an order after hearing the petitioner Petition allowed - P.S. Sawhney v. Chondigarh Housing Board, 20 12(1) Harvanu Law RepOlter 499 D.B, .
. Writ rcmedy - Onc~ the procedure adopted by the authority is held to be agall1st th~ mandate ofArticle 14 the Court can~ot ignore such action saying that the !1ut~onty~oncernedmust have some IIberty III contractual matters - A !though ordll1arl1y Article 2~6 ofthe Constitution is not a proper remedy for re-openingof contracts or for gettll1g back the purchase money paid under the contract - Mathura Parshad v. Chandigarh Housing Board, 1996 H.R.R. 118.
**** ~. Manner ofpayment of Hir~-purchaseprice, - (1) The hire-purchase depos!t shall be a sum as may be deCided by the Board from time to time. Such dep~slt shall be payable along with the application and it shall be non-interest be~f1ng unless t~e Board otherwise provides in the scheme. Such deposit shall be adjusted at the time ofallotment ofdwelling unit.
(2) In t!le ca~e ofany appl.icant who has not becn allotted any property, the depOSit speclfie? 111 sub-regulatIon (I) above shall be considered as deposit under any scheme which the Board lUay frame thereafter unless the applicant applies for the refund of his amount. .
(3) [n the,case of an appl icant to whom an allotmcnt letter has becn issued and who has faIled to fulfill the requirements as specified in the allotl11cntlcttcr a sum up to 20 pCI' centum ofthe deposit shall be forfeited and the balance refunddd.
***