CWP No.10768 of 2010 (O&M) and connected case [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) CWP No.10768 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 04.10.2011 Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh, 9 Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Secretary. ... Petitioner Versus Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), U.T. Chandigarh and others. ... Respondents (2) CWP No.15009 of 2010 (O&M) Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh, 9 Jan Marg, Sector 9, Chandigarh through its Secretary. ... Petitioner Versus Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), U.T. Chandigarh and others. ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:Mr. Indresh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner. None for respondent No.2. Mr. Arjun Shukla, Advocate for Mr. A.P.S. Setia, Advocate, for respondent No.3. ***** 1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO 2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO 3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO CWP No.10768 of 2010 (O&M) and connected case [2] K. KANNAN, J. (Oral) CWP No.10768 of 2010 1. The writ petition is being filed by the Chandigarh Housing Board against the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The order came to be passed in the petition filed by the 2nd respondent Ram Singh claiming an allotment for a flat under Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006, which was brought as a measure of rehabilitation of persons staying in Jhuggi for whose benefit the scheme had been introduced. At the time of enumeration of actual occupiers at the Jhuggi, the 2nd respondent was not available but a person by name Santosh Kumar appears to have collected application form stating that he was a representative of the original occupier Ram Singh arrayed as 2nd respondent here. Ram Singh was not available and not to be found actually residing at the time when the enumeration through personal verification was made. When the allotment was not done in his favour, the 2nd respondent filed the petition before the Permanent Lok Adalat. It was dismissed originally on 17th September, 2009. Subsequently, an affidavit had been given by the aforesaid Santosh Kumar that he had no objection to the property being allotted to Ram Singh and he had not been taken the accommodation on rent from Ram Singh but actually Ram Singh himself was the actual occupier of the said house. On the basis of this affidavit, the Permanent Lok Adalat reversed its own decision and ordered the allotment of the flat to the petitioner. 2. The Housing Board challenges the order on the ground that the Permanent Lok Adalat had no power to review its own decision; that an affidavit of Santosh Kumar could not be the basis for a fresh allotment. Ram Singh, who was not an actual occupier and not found to be present at the time of physical CWP No.10768 of 2010 (O&M) and connected case [3] verification, could not be the beneficiary under the Scheme. Santosh Kumar himself had originally filled up the application in his own name and if he was later forsaking the claim, the said fact itself showed that Ram Singh was not actually occupying the property but he was trying to take a fraudulent benefit under the Scheme. I find that the ground urged to be weighty enough to dislodge the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The 2nd respondent, who is represented through the counsel has not been appearing for the last two hearings and even today there is no representation made on his behalf to sustain the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat. The scheme has been brought for the benefit of poor persons, who were required to be rehabilitated in State policy of locating persons in respectable homes and healthier environment far from the strench and ill-equipped slums. A person who was not actually residing there, cannot stake a claim for State largesse. The right cannot be passed merely by a statement through an affidavit such as produced by the 2nd respondent (Ram Singh) that Santosh Kumar, who was the occupier had no objection to the allotment in the 2nd respondent's name. It will amount to stealing the benefit of a deserving person, who was required to be rehabilitated. 3. The order of the Permanent Lok Adalat is set aside and the writ petition filed by the Chandigarh Housing Board is allowed. CWP No.15009 of 2010 4. This writ petition comprises of the same set of circumstances except that there is no petition for review but the claimant was a person, who was claiming the benefit under the Scheme but he was not himself actually in possession of the property at the time of actual physical verification. What would CWP No.10768 of 2010 (O&M) and connected case [4] apply to a finding of disentitlement to the claimant in the above case, will apply with equal force to the claimant in this case as well. The order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat is also set aside and the writ petition filed by the Chandigarh Housing Board is allowed. OCTOBER 04, 2011 ( K. KANNAN ) Rajan JUDGE