HARSH VARDHAN BANSAL versus CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD AND ANR.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 962 · Decided: 24-05-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AR. LAKSHMANAN · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
]) 
E 
F 
HARSH V ARDHAN BANSAL 
v. 
CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD AND ANR. 
MAY 24, 2006 
[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.] 
Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of 
Tenements) Regulatiom, 1979; Regulation 6: 
Allotment of an Industrial jlat---Suppression of information regarding 
owning a house--Ineligibili1.y--Held. The Housing Board could cancel the 
registration of the flat and also could forfeit the amount deposited---The 
Board refunded the major portion of the amount-Under the circumstances, 
it is not proper to go into merits of the rival claims/correctness of the order-
Since the applicant alreadyfi1rnished all the details in the application form 
for registration on a bonafide belief, career of the applicants would not be 
affected by the f"'/;servation made by the High Court or in terms of show cause 
notice issued by the Board. 
An industrial flat was allotted to the appellant under a Scheme of 
the Chandigarh Housing Board. Urider the Scheme, a person would be 
eligible for allotment of a flat in case he/she or his wife/her husband or 
any of his/her dependent relations including unmarried children does 
not own on free hold or lease-hold or on hire-purchase basis a residential 
plot/house in the specified area or acquire a house through government 
at concessional rate. A complaint was received by the respondent-
Housing Board against the appellant that he had already acquired a flat 
in NOIDA under the Self-financing Scheme of Air force Naval Housing 
Board, and the same was confirmed by the Air Force Naval Housing 
Board. It was also intimated by them to the respondent Board that land 
G 
for the construction of group housing was allotted to them by the 
NOIDA at a fixed rate as was charged from other group housing 
societies. Consequently, the Board cancelled the allotment made in 
favour of the appellant. The appellant challenged the order before the 
High Court, which was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the present 
H 
appeal. 
962 
HARSH V ARDHAN BANSAL v. CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 963 
Respondent-Board submitted that the appellant has furnished 
A 
incorrect information in regard to the allotment made in his favour by 
the NOIDA authorities and has suppressed such fact from the purview 
of the Housing Board; that though Clause XI of the Chandigarh 
Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) 
Regulations, 1979 enables the Board to cancel the registration of the 
dwelling unit or the flat and to forfeit the deposit received with the 
application and all the payments made to the Board thereafter. 
Disposing of the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD: 1.1. The Housing Board has refunded a sum of Rs. 8 lacs 
C 
and odd to the appellant even though they are entitled to forfeit the 
entire deposit made. Since a major portion of the amount deposited has 
already been refunded to the appellant, it would not be appropriate to 
go into the merits of the rival claims or the correctness of the order 
passed by the High Court or the cancellation order passed by the 
Housing Board. (965-E-F] 
D 
1.2. It is clarified that any observation made in the Show Cause 
Notice or in the order passed by the High Court would not affect the 
career of the appellant, since the appellant has furnished all the details 
in the application form for registration on a bonajide belief and 
E 
impression. [965-E-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION 
Civil Appeal No. 7494 of 
2004. 
From the Judgment and Order' dated 21.2.2002 of the High Court of 
F 
Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in C.W.P. No. 14904/1999. 
Ms. Prasanthi Prasad, Adv., for the Appellant. 
Mrs. Rachna Joshi Issar, Adv., for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : Heard Ms. Prashanthi Prasad, learned 
counsel for the appellant and Ms. Rachana Joshi Issar, learned counsel for 
the respondent Board. 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
]) 
E 
F 
G 
H 
964 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court 
dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein on the ground of 
concealment of facts. The appellant applied for allotment of an H.l.G. (Ind.) 
flat. Under the Scheme, a person would be eligible for allotment of a 
dwelling unit in case he/she or his wife/her husband or any of his/her 
dependent relations including unmarried children does not own free hold or 
lease-hold or on hire-purchase basis a resid

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