Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
AVTAR SINGH & ANR.
DATE OF JUDGMENT07/08/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
CITATION:
1995 AIR 2470 1995 SCC (5) 313
1995 SCALE (4)765
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
O R D E R
Leave granted.
This appeal by special leave arises from the order
dated 22.7.1994 of the Division Bench of the Punjab &
Haryana High Court in Writ Petition No. 3843/94. The
admitted facts are that Regulation 6 of the Chandigarh
Housing Board (Allotment,Management and Sale of Tenements)
Regulations, 1979 (for short,‘the Regulations’) regulates,
among other things, allotment of the buildings/ flats
constructed by the appellant-Board. A wife/husband and the
unmarried children or other members of the family, one,
among them, alone is eligible for allotment of any
building/flat. When the notification was published inviting
applications for allotment of Category II flats, the 1st
respondent as well as his wife, Mrs. Kuldip Kaur, separately
applied for allotment of two houses. The allotments came to
be made independently,but later on it was discovered that
both of them being wife and husband, were not eligible .
Consequently, the allotment made to the 1st respondent was
cancelled and the amount paid by him was forfeited under the
Regulations. When he filed the writ petition, the High Court
in the impugned order directed the appellant-Board to return
the entire money paid by the 1st respondent or adjust the
same towards the amount payable by his wife. Thus this
appeal by special leave.
In the counter-affidavit filed by the 1st respondent,
it is admitted that acceptance of allotment by both, the
wife and husband was a mistake but there was no prohibition
for making an application for allotment at the relevant
time. Since the 1st respondent and his wife were estranged
and were living separately, they came to make the
applications separately and subsequently due to
reconcilement they have been living together and that,
therefore, there is no illegality in their making
applications as none of them was then owing a house and that
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
the High Court was right in directing to refund the amount.
Having considered the facts and circumstances, we find
that when the Regulations prohibit allotment to
wife/husband or dependants and if any one has got a house or
a flat, by necessary implication both or all except one
among the members of the unit are ineligible to make
separate applications. There need not be any specific rule
prohibiting making separate application in that behalf. So
long as the couple are tied by marriage bond, both are bound
by the Regulations for allotment. Therefore,the cancellation
per se is not illegal. The question then is whether the
entire amount should be forfeited. Obviously, the power of
forfeiture was intended to prevent fraud and malpractice in
allotment and in case of positive finding in that behalf,
courts would be loath to interfere with the exercise of the
power under Regulation 6 (2).
On the facts and circumstances in this case, we think
that the appellant- Board would be justified in forfeiting
half of the amount deposited by the 1st respondent and the
balance amount may be adjusted towards the amount payable by
his wife, if not already paid. This may not, however, be
treated as a precedent.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.