CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD versus DEVINDER SINGH AND ANR.

Citation: [2007] 3 S.C.R. 1049 · Decided: 14-03-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

j 
CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD 
A 
v. 
DEVINDER SINGH AND ANR. 
MARCH 14, 2007 
[S.B. SINHA AND MARKANDEY KATJU, JJ.] 
B 
Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971-Allotment of housing plot-
Eligibility conditions for-Regulations imposing restriction on allotment to 
person having residential site through Government/Semi Government/ C 
Municipal Committee/Improvement Trust-Allotment by Housing Board-
Allottee getting another residentiaf unit through a Cooperative Society-
Show cause to allottee by Housing Board for cancellation of the allotment-
Propriety of cancellation-Held: Cancelltion not permissible-Right ot 
acquire property though not fundamental but a constitutional and human 
right-A clause impinging on the right of a citizen must be construed strictly D 
and principle of contextual interpretation will have no application in such 
cases-The restrietions provided under the provision are applicable onfy 
when the property is acquired throgh the agency, specifically mentioned 
therein-Co-operative society not being the specified agency, restriction 
clause not applicable-Chandigarh Housing Board (Alltoment, Management E 
and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979-Regulations 6-lnterpretation of 
Statutes-Rules of interpretation-Principle-Principle of contextual 
interpretation. 
Interpretation of Statutes/Deeds-Principle of interpretation-When a 
plain meaning can be given effect to, court should not take recourse to any F 
other principle or interpretation, when it is not necessary. 
Rights-Rights to acquire Property-Nature of-Held: It is a 
constitutional and human, right, through not fundamental right. 
Respondents-a retired Army Officer and his wife, had applied for and G 
were allotted a housing plot under a Housing Scheme of the appellant-Board. 
Resj>odents had also jointly become members of a Housing Cooperative Society 
constituted for the welfare of the Army Officer. The Co-operative Society was 
later allowed some land at Delhi and the respondents were allotted a flat 
1049 
H 
1050 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007 J 3 S.C.R. 
A therein. 
Regulation 6 of Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management 
and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979, constituted under Haryana 
Housing Board Act, 1971, imposed restriction on alltoment to such persons 
who has acquired a house/residential site in india through Government/Semi 
B Government/Municipal Committee/Improvement Trust at concessional rate in 
their name or in the name of any of their dependents. 
In view of the allotment to the respondents of the Cooperative society, 
appellant-Board issued show cause notice to the respondents for cancellation 
C of their allotment under the Scheme. Respondents filed Wirt Petition and the 
same was allowed by High Court. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: I. It is, one thing to say that a member of a society has no 
independent status so as to acquire a higher right than the society itself or 
D for the purpose of questioning the validity or constitutionally of the provisions 
of the Cooperative Society Act or the Rules, it does not have any independent 
locus to maintain an action, but it is another thing to say that although a person 
acquired a reight of propertyy by reason of allotment made by another juristic 
person, namely, a Corporation, he can be deprived therefrom by reason of a 
E clause. Status of a member qua Society and his relationship as an allottee 
under a statutory organisation stands on different footings. One deals with 
his right qua another organisation. In the first case, he exercises a limited 
right, in the second would be no such restriction. In a given case if allotment 
is made by different authorities in the same area, matter may have to be 
considered differently. IPara 17111056-G-H; 1057-A-BI 
F 
G 
State of UP. and Anr. v. COD. Chheoki Employees' Cooperative Society 
and Ors .. 1199713 SCC 681, referred to. 
2.1. Keeping in view the settled principles of interpretation of deed/ 
Statute the condition of eligibility in question must be C611strued literaily. If 
a plain meaning can be given effect to, there is no reason why it should not be 
applied. The Court would not take recourse to any other principle of 
interpretation when it is not necessary. I Para 27111059-F-HI 
2.2. A plain reading of Regulation 6 of Chandigarh Housing Board 
H (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979 indicates 
. 
) 
CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARDr. OEVINDERSINGH 
1051 
that th

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