HARSH VARDHAN BANSALversusCHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD AND ANR.

A                           HARSH VARDHAN BANSAL
                                           v.
                  CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD AND ANR.

                                    MAY 24, 2006

B
      [DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, JJ.]

         Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of
     Tenements) Regulatiom, 1979; Regulation 6:

c            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 ofthe rival claims/correctness ofthe 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 ofshow cause
     notice issued by the Board.

           An industrial flat was allotted to the appellant under a Scheme of
E
     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
F    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
     appeal.
H
                                          962
    HARSH VARDHAN 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
                                                                             B
application and all the payments made to the Board thereafter.

     Disposing of the appeal, the Court

     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.
                                                                             G
     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.
                                                                             H
     964                  SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R.

A          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
B    lease-hold or on hire-purchase basis a residential plot/house in the Union
     Territory of Chandigrah or in either of the Urban Estates of Mohali anct
     Panchkula. Similarly, in case he/she has acquired a house/residential site
     anywhere in India through Govt/semi government/Municipal Committee/
     Corporation/Improvement Trust at concessional rates, i.e. at reserved/fixed
c    price, in his/her name or in the names of dependent members of his/her
     family, he/she will not be eligible for allotment of a dwelling unit.

            A complaint was received by the respondent-Housing Board chat the
     appellant was owning a flat namely K-26, Sector-25, NOIDA under the self-
])   finance housing scheme of Airforce Naval Housing Board and the same was
     confirmed by the Airforce Naval Housing Board, New Delhi vide its letter
     dated 10.09.1997. It was also further intimated to the respondent Board that
     land for the construction of group housing was allotted to it by the NOIDA
     at a fixed rate as was charged from other group housing societies. At the time
     of hearing, our attention was drawn to para 11 at page 93 of the paper-book,
E    which read as follows:

              "Whether you, or your wife/husband or any of your dependent
              relations including unmarried children is a member of any
              Cooperative House Building Society which has been allotted land
F             or is registered for allotment of land at reserve/fixed price for
              construction of Residential house for its members, under any
              scheme framed/notified by the Government, Urban Development
              Authority/Housing Board/Improvement Trust/Municipal Committee/
              Corporations/Notified Area Committee?"

G         Learned counsel for the respondent Board submitted that the appellant
     has furnished 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. Therefore, the respondent Board, by the
     impugned Show Cause Notice, cancelled the allotment made in favour of the
H    appellant which was challenged before the High Court. The High Court
    HARSH VARDHAN BANSAL''· CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 965


dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Our attention was also          A
drawn to clause XI of Regulation 6 of the Scheme which reads as follows:

         "XI-. Mis-representation or suppression of facts :- If it is found at
         any time that the applicant has furnished any incorrect or false
         information or suppressed any material facts in the application form
         for registration or later on, which makes him/her ineligible,' the         B
         registration as well as allotment, if made, shall be cancelled and the
         total deposit made till date shall be liable to be forfeited. The
         applicant shall further be liable to penal consequences under the
         law."
                                                                                    c
      Learned counsel for the respondent-Board submitted that though the
Clause XI of the Chandigrah 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, the         D
respondent pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 12.7.2004 refunded
Rs. 8,06,441. As already noticed, a sum of Rs. 10 lacs and odd was deposited
and the Housing Board has now refunded a sum of Rs. 8 lacs and odd even
though they are entitled to forfeit the entire deposit made. Now that a major
portion of the amount has already been refunded to the appellant, we do not
propose to go into the merits of the rival claims or the correctness of the order   E
passed by the High Court or the cancellation order passed by the Housing
Board. We also make it clear that any observation made in the Show Cause
Notice or in the order passed by the High Court will not affect the career
of the appellant herein since, as argued and accepted by us, the appellant has
furnished all the details in the application form for registration on a bonafide    F
belief and impression.

     The Civil appeal is disposed of according. No costs.

S.K.S.                                                     Appeal disposed of.