IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4774 of 1988 Date of decision:03.02.2010 Gurnam Kaur (since died) through her L.Rs. ....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Ramesh Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate, for Mr. R.S.Khosla, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? Yes. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? Yes. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The petitioner challenges the order of cancellation of an allotment of house in Phase-V, Mohali issued to the petitioner through proceeding dated 30.09.1975. A cancellation notice was issued on 29.06.1983 stating that the petitioner had applied for an allotment concealing the fact that her husband had also applied for an allotment and secured one. Thus, the double allotment of the house in the name of both husband and wife was said to be against the policy of the Board. In an earlier notice to show cause notice, the petitioner had sought to explain that they had not been living together and there had been a Civil Writ Petition No.4774 of 1988 - 2 - separation. The order canceling allotment came to be passed stating that there was no legal proof that the wife had been divorced from her husband. Subsequent to the order of cancellation, notice of resumption had been issued and an action for eviction had also been taken under the Punjab Public Premises and Land (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act of 1973. By an order dated 19.11.1987, the claim for eviction had been rejected and in an appeal filed by the Housing Board, the Commissioner (Appeals) had observed that once the Board had cancelled the allotment, the continuation of occupation of the petitioner had become unauthorized and when the Board had applied to the Collector for eviction, the Collector was merely to treat her as an unauthorized occupant and follow a procedure prescribed under the Act. The observation of the Collector attempting to examine whether the cancellation had been properly done or not, was adversely commented by the Commissioner (Appeals) and remanded the case to the Collector for rehearing the parties. 2. The order of cancellation of the allotment as well as the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) remitting the matter for fresh consideration are in challenge before me. The second order of the Commissioner (Appeals) would obtain relevance only on the first consideration whether the cancellation was justified or not. If it was not, the question of directing eviction does not arise at all. The order of cancellation of allotment has been on the basis that a husband and wife could not be permitted to apply for allotments and that it was against the policy of the Housing Board. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that there was no stated policy at all and even Civil Writ Petition No.4774 of 1988 - 3 - while inviting for applications for allotment, no such policy statement had been declared or made known to the petitioner. He also urges that the petitioner had not been living with her husband and she could not be denied the allotment by the only fact that there had been no dissolution of marriage. I do not want to examine whether there had been a legal separation or not. The cancellation has been effected on the basis of an alleged policy prohibiting both husband and wife to apply for allotment. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent is unable to substantiate the existence of such policy and would seek for time to produce records. A case which has been hanging fire since 1987 for the petitioner cannot wait for the convenience of either the respondents or their counsel. If the policy did exist, it ought to have been referred in specific terms in the order. When the challenge had been mounted through this writ petition even at the time when the reply was filed, the respondent was bound to have given the statement of policy and how there had been any breach in the terms of allotment. There is no such proof and the cancellation made on the ostensible basis that the allotment could not have been made both to husband or wife, cannot be entertained. 3. After the filing of the writ petition, the petitioner herself has died and the legal representatives have been impleaded. The benefit of allotment to the petitioner who is since dead, will enure to her legal representatives also. In view of the fact that the order canceling the allotment is quashed, there is no necessity to examine the issue whether she could be evicted. On the other hand, the petitioner or the legal Civil Writ Petition No.4774 of 1988 - 4 - representatives now, cannot be evicted since the allotment is upheld. Learned counsel for the respondent states that the petitioner had not paid all the installments representing the price of the plots. The cancellation itself had not been made on that basis. The counsel for the petitioner however submits that there are no installments payable. If there are any installments which have not being paid, the respondent shall give details of the same and issue notice to them giving them a time limit before which it should be done. Any default on the part of the petitioner will result in such action as the terms of allotment provide for. Subject to this liberty to the respondents to initiate action for recovery of alleged arrears of amounts payable for the price of the plot, writ petition is allowed with cost assessed at Rs.5,000/-. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 03.02.2010. sanjeev