IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 21163 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: December 17, 2008 Yash Pal Sethi …Petitioner Versus Adviser to the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Ashok Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has challenged orders dated 10.5.2002 (P-2), 9.8.2002 (P-3), 7.9.2005 (P-5), 18.2.2008 (P-7), 9.7.2008 (P-9) and 4.9.2008 (P-10), passed by various authorities in respect of Flat No. 5525-HIG, Sector 38 West, Chandigarh. 2. The petitioner was allotted Dwelling Unit No. 5525 HIG, Sector 38-West, Chandigarh, vide allotment No. HB-S-DO-SD/AA/- 11241/185, dated 7.1.2000, on the basis of his application dated C.W.P. No. 21163 of 2008 14.10.1996, bearing Registration No. 162, on a consideration amount of Rs. 12,86,800/-. He took over possession and claimed that he continues to be in possession till date. A copy of the allotment letter has been placed on record (P-1). A complaint was filed against the petitioner doubting his eligibility for allotment of a plot. The facts were brought to the notice of the Estate Officer and a vigilance inquiry was conducted. The allegation against the petitioner was that he had filed a false affidavit for procuring the allotment of the dwelling unit by concealing allotment of a plot by HUDA at the Urban Estate, Panchkula. According to the requirement of the scheme for allotment of a dwelling unit, the petitioner had filed the following affidavit to fulfill the requirement of various conditions:- “15. I and my wife/husband or any of my dependent relations including unmarried children do not own on free hold or lease hold or hire purchase basis a residential plot or house in the Union Territory, Chandigarh or in any of the Urban Estates of Mohali and Panchkula. 16. I have not acquired a house/residential site anywhere in India through Government / Semi- Government / Municipal Committee / Corporation / Improvement Trust at concessional rates i.e. reserved/fixed price, in my name or in the name of any dependent member of my family.” (emphasis added) 2 C.W.P. No. 21163 of 2008 3. A perusal of clause 16 of the affidavit filed by the petitioner shows that he did not acquire a house/residential plot anywhere in India through Government/Semi-Government/Municipal Committee/Corporation/Improvement Trust at concessional rates i.e. reserved/fixed price in his name or in the name of any dependent member of his family, whereas he was allotted Plot No. 916, Sector 26, Panchkula, on 28.2.1995. 4. After issuing show cause notice, the Chief Executive Officer, Chandigarh Housing Board-respondent No. 4, cancelled the allotment on 10.5.2002 (P-2). The aforementioned order has been upheld by all the authorities to the highest in hierarchy i.e. in appeals and revision, which are the orders challenged in the instant petition. According to the finding recorded by the Chief Executive Officer, Chandigarh Housing Board-respondent No. 4 in the first impugned order, the petitioner was allotted House No. 916, Sector 26, Panchkula, on 28.2.1995. In para 7 of the order, a categorical finding has been recorded which is to the effect that the O.S.D. Vigilance conducted the enquiry and on making verification from HUDA it was found by the Vigilance that the petitioner was allotted Plot No. 916, Sector 26, Panchkula, vide allotment letter No. 2618, dated 28.2.1995, whereas while submitting application form dated 14.10.1996 for allotment of the dwelling unit under the 252 (Industrial) Housing Scheme, he concealed the material fact of allotment of that plot to him. The affidavit has been found to be false and fraudulent. 3 C.W.P. No. 21163 of 2008 5. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner at some length we are of the considered view that the petitioner did not deserve to be allotted dwelling unit and the affidavit filed by him to secure eligibility was false. As a matter of fact, he was allotted Plot No. 916, Sector 26, Panchkula. The only argument raised by Mr. Sehgal, learned counsel for the petitioner is that the aforementioned plot was transferred by him by sale and thereafter transfer was duly effected through HUDA by selling the plot. He has also submitted that in somewhat similar circumstances the Adviser to the Administrator-respondent No. 1 has accepted the claim of one Pritam Singh while allowing Revision Petition No. 158 of 2005 (Pritam Singh v. Estate Officer and others). 6. We are not impressed by the submissions made by the learned counsel because if the argument that the plot was transferred, which was allotted to the petitioner on 28.2.1995, is accepted then every applicant can keep on getting allotment of plots/house/flats at concessional rates in order to become eligible by asserting that he did not own any property at the time of filing of application. Moreover, the import of clause 16 of the affidavit also shows that the petitioner should not have acquired a house/residential site anywhere in India through Government/Semi-Government/Municipal Committee/ Corporation/Improvement Trust at concessional rates i.e. reserved/fixed price in his name or in the name of any dependent member of his family. The petitioner not only concealed the fact but also filed a false affidavit that he did not acquire any 4 C.W.P. No. 21163 of 2008 house/residential site anywhere in India. The other argument that order passed in the case of Pritam Singh by the Adviser to the Administrator-respondent No. 1 has upheld the claim of the allottee, has also failed to impress us because in that case a family settlement was made between brothers and the allottee in whose name the property was allotted by the Administration and he was deprived of the same. The family settlement was not initially believed by the lower authority but the same was accepted by the Adviser to the Administrator-respondent No. 1. Therefore, the order passed in Pritam Singh’s case is entirely on different footing. 7. No other ground has been raised. 8. As a sequel to the above discussion, this petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) December 17, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 5