CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD AND ANR. versus NARINDER KAUR MAKOL

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 487 · Decided: 13-07-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
NARINDER KAUR MAKOL 
JULY 13, 2000 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO ANO D.P. MOHAPATRA, JJ.] 
B 
Urban Development: 
Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of 
Tenements) Regulations, 1979. 
C 
Regulation 6(/)-Allotment of residential plot-By Housing Board-
Eligibility-Regulations of the Board disqualified a person for allotment of 
residential plot if he or his spouse owned any other residential plot in 
specified !ocalities-Applican/'s husband constructed residential flats above D 
a commercial plot with due permission-Held: Words "residential house" in 
the Regulation covered such residential flats also-Hence, applicant not 
eligible for allotment of a residential plot-Haryana Housing Board Act, 
1971, S.74. 
Regulation 6(2)--Fa/se affidavit-Filing of-Forfeiture of deposit in E 
such cases-Applicant's husband constructed residential flats above a 
commercial plot with due permission-Applicant filed an affidavit stating 
that her husband did not own a residential plot-However, allotment in 
favour of the applicant cancelled and deposit forfeited-Held: Although the 
incorrect statement in the affidavit is made bona fide the cancellation of 
allotment justified-Though the Regulations permit forfeiture of deposit yet F 
applicant entitled lo refund of deposit but without interest-However, such 
refund order not to be treated as a precedent in any other case. 
Words and PhraEes: 
"Residential house"-Meaning of-In the context of Regn.6(1) of the G 
Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) 
Regulations, 1979. 
The appellant-Board allotted a commercial plot to the respondent's 
husband. As per the allotment order the respondent's husband constructed R 
487 
488 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 
A residential flats, in first and second floors of the building constructed on the 
said commercial plot with due permission. 
Subsequently, the respondent (i.e. wife of the allottee) applied for 
allotment of a residential plot and also filed an affidavit stating that neither 
she nor her husband owned a residential plot in any of the places mentioned 
B in Regulation 6 of the Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management 
and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979. On the basis of this affidavit the 
respondent was allotted a residential plot. 
Later on, realising that the respondent's husband owned residential 
C flats, the allotment was cancelled and deposit forfeited under Regulation 6(2). 
The Consumer Disputes Redressal Forums up to the National Commission 
held the cancellation of allotment as unjustified. Hence this appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, this Court 
HELD: 1. Admittedly, there is a residential flat in the second and third 
D floors of the building constructed on the commercial plot. Therefore, it must 
necessarily be held that the husband of the respondent owned a residential 
house within the territory in question and that, therefore, the respondent (wife 
of the first allottee) is not eligible for allotment of another residential plot. 
These plots are allotted on concessional basis to the allottees by the public 
E authority and the relevant Regulations must, therefore, be interpreted in such 
a manner to serve their real purpose so that the plots are available, as far as 
possible, to the largest number of persons, and for preventing the same family 
members, husband or wife or dependent as the case may be, from getting more 
than one plot or house, for the same purpose. Hence the words 'residential 
F house' in Regulation 6(1) of the Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, 
Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979 must be treated as 
including a flat constructed above the commercial plot on the ground floor, 
This will be so even if originally the plot was allotted for commercial purposes, 
if incidentally construction of residential flat above the ground floor 
commercial plot is permitted as per the plans. In other words, even though 
G the plot is allotted as a commercial plot, if it is permissible to build a 
residential flat above the commercial plot, and is so constructed, then such a 
residential flat will come within the prohibition in Regulation 6(1). (492-C-Fl 
2.1. The declaration made by the respondent that her husband did not 
own a residential house was not correct. It may be a bona fide st'ltement by 
H her, but it does not reflect the facts correctly. The cancellation of the allotment 
> 
\ 
_J 
C

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.