Punjab-Haryana High Court
Smt. Shakuntla Khandelwal vs Registrar on 31 October, 2012
Author: Ranjit Singh
Bench: Ranjit Singh
C.W.P. No.20034 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.20034 of 2008
Date of Decision: October 31, 2012
Smt. Shakuntla Khandelwal
......PETITIONER
Vs.
Registrar, Cooperative Societies and another
.....RESPONDENTS
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate
for respondent No.1.
RANJIT SINGH, J (Oral)
Husband of the petitioner had been allotted L.I.G. Category Flat No.607/1, Sector 41-A, Chandigarh under "Self Financing Scheme"
floated by the Chandigarh Housing Board on 25.07.1984.
The petitioner-wife has subsequently applied for and has become Member of the Registered Cooperative House Building Society- respondent No.2 on 25.08.1988. The object of the Society is to promote, construct and manage the residential accommodation for the use of its Members. One Scheme was promulgated by the Chandigarh Administration on 28.05.1991 for allotment of land to House Building Societies. Applications were invited for allotment of land to the Societies on leasehold basis for construction of multi-storey structures of dwelling units.C.W.P. No.20034 of 2008 2
Respondent-Society, accordingly, had moved an application for allotment of land on 13.03.1991. The respondent-Society had furnished affidavits of all its registered eligible Members to the effect that the said Members are not owning any residential flat/dwelling unit in Chandigarh, Panchkula, Manimajra or Mohali in their own name or in the name of his/her spouse or dependent children and that no plot, house, flat, dwelling unit was ever allotted to them by the Chandigarh Administration or Chandigarh Housing Board under any Scheme formulated. The petitioner had filed this affidavit to this effect. The averments in the affidavit are obviously false.
The petitioner would urge that she had strained relations with her husband and had signed the affidavits which were in a printed format with blanks left out for filing up specific details. She claims that she was not aware of the allotment of flat in the name of her husband and she had submitted her affidavit best to her knowledge and belief.
Chandigarh Housing Board, otherwise, had allotted the land to Society on 15.12.1994. The petitioner was allotted a dwelling unit of Category-A on 18.12.1996. The petitioner raised a loan of `2 lacs from Mahrishi Housing Development Finance Corporation Ltd., New Delhi on 23.03.1999. She paid the amount to the Society to fulfill her long cherish hope of having her own shelter. Her son was the co- applicant for obtaining loan. The Society had raised construction of the residential complex on the land allotted to it. The petitioner was also delivered actual physical possession on 23.09.2000.
Suddenly, however on 05.11.2001, Chandigarh Housing Board has issued a letter that the amount paid by the petitioner towards the premium of land/ground rent be forfeited because the affidavit given by the petitioner that she, her husband or her C.W.P. No.20034 of 2008 3 dependent children do not have any other house at Panchkula, Mohali, Manimajra or Chandigarh is found false on verification. It was found that dwelling unit has already been allotted in favour of her husband on 02.05.1984. Respondent-Society was, accordingly directed to cancel flat/dwelling unit allotted to the petitioner on 19.07.2002. Accordingly, the Society has cancelled the allotment of flat in favour of the petitioner on 07.09.2003.
Aggrieved against the said order, the petitioner filed CWP No.19674 of 2003 for setting aside the cancellation order. This Court directed the respondent to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Thereafter, the Society had issued a show cause notice to the petitioner on 26.08.2004. The petitioner submitted a detailed reply explaining the said circumstances under which affidavit was given and prayed for regularizing her allotment. The respondent-Society again passed an order cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioner on
02.02.2005. The Society had decided to allot flat to her relative, who is a Member of the Society, namely, Anubhav Khandelwal but still failed to issue a formal allotment letter. The petitioner was directed to hand over physical possession of the flat to the Chandigarh Administration. The petitioner filed an appeal against this order, which has also been rejected. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Advisor to the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh by filing revision petition, which was also dismissed. The petitioner, accordingly, has filed this revision petition on various grounds.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the affidavit was filed inadvertently and the petitioner has no intention to mis-lead or mis-state the facts. He further submits that the Society had no C.W.P. No.20034 of 2008 4 Authority to cancel the allotment as this power would be with Estate Officer.
It is usual practice generally noticed on the part of persons, who seek allotment to file such an affidavit making false averments. The petitioner cannot be oblivious of the fact that her husband was allotted dwelling unit by Chandigarh Housing Board. Even if she was having strained relations with her husband, it was incumbent on her to ascertain the truth before filing such an affidavit. The cancellation has been done on the basis of directions issued by the Chandigarh Housing Board and does not suffer from any infirmity which would call any interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The petitioner may have suffered because of forfeiture as ordered. To this extent, she may approach the Chandigarh Administration for seeking some concession, if otherwise due in accordance with law.
I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed.
(RANJIT SINGH) JUDGE October 31, 2012 jt