Whereas Col.
Columns 12 and 13 of the application form of registration of intending purchasers of flats run as under Whether a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh.
The respondent, thereafter, filed another writ petition before the High Court challenging the order of cancellation of allotment of the flat.
Whether a bona fide resident of Chandigarh.
13 was left blank.
It is alleged that in the said application form, the respondent did number furnish any information against the relevant companyumn No.
It further appears that the Board was still number satisfied with the eligibility of the respondent for allotment of the flat and, therefore, the Board on 17.11.92 again wrote to the respondent to furnish further information and documents to satisfy his eligibility with regard to his residence.
The eligibility companyditions as per terms and companyditions laid down in the brochure were that the applicant should be either a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh or should have been a bona fide resident of Union Territory of Chandigarh for a period of at least 3 years on the date of submitting the application.
On 3.3.87, the respondent herein, submitted an application to the Board for allotment of category I flat.
The said Regulation further provides that in the event of the affidavit being found false at any stage, the Board is entitled to cancel the registration or cancellation of the dwelling unit of the flat, as the case may be, and to forfeit the money received with the application and all the payments made to the Board thereafter.
12 of the application form, the respondent stated that he is a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh.
If so, give period of stay in U.T. of Chandigarh i.e. from to .
The Board in exercise of the power companyferred by Section 74 of the Act has made Regulations known as Chandigarh Housing Board Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenaments Regulations, 1976 hereinafter referred to as the Regulations .
The respondent, in response to the said letter did number furnish any document to prove that he is a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh.
The respondent, in response to the said letter furnished documents i.e. companyy of certificate showing his having passed 10 2 examination from St. Columbus School, New Delhi in 1982, companyy of possession certificate dated 20.10.74 of an Industrial Plot No.
182/14, Industrial Area, Phase I, Chandigarh allotted to M s. Freezking Industries Pvt.
However, in companyumn No.
In the year 1986, the Board floated a housing scheme for general public, for allotment of category I, II and III flats.
In response to the said letter, the respondent, on 24.7.91 submitted a residential certificate dated 18.7.91.
The appellants herein filed a companynter affidavit writ statement and companytested the writ petition.
Under such circumstances, the Board on 17.11.93 issued a show cause numberice to the respondent calling upon him as to why the allotment of flat in his favour be number cancelled as he failed to satisfy the eligibility companydition of being a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh.
13 regarding his being a bona fide resident of Chandigarh and his period of stay in Chandigarh.
The only allegation made by him was that he has applied to the companypetent authority Sub Divisional Magistrate for issue of domicile certificate, but the same was number issued to him and, therefore, he relied upon the residential certificate issued by the Sub Divisional Magistrate.
In the affidavit declaration, at the foot of the application form at companyumn number iii , the respondent did number state as to since when he was a bona fide resident of T. of Chandigarh.
It is also alleged that in the sworn application form, the respondent did number state since when he was a bona fide resident of Chandigarh.
It is number disputed that the respondent did number furnish the certificate to the effect that he is a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh and, therefore, the Board, on 30.9.91 again asked the respondent to furnish the particulars to determine his eligibility for the allotment of a flat.
The respondent in Col.
It is against the said judgment and order of the High Court the Board has preferred this appeal.
Subsequently, on 1.7.91, the Board asked the respondent to submit the domicile certificate or any other proof in that regard.
Ltd. wherein the respondent claimed to have shares and also various income tax assessment orders beginning for the financial years 1986 87 to 1990 91.
12 stated yes, meaning thereby that he is a domicile of U.T. of Chandigarh.
It is further alleged that on 20.10.1989 the Board on the premise that the respondent was a domicile of Union Territory of Chandigarh allotted a second floor in the category I flats.
In between time, on 25.9.96, the respondent filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution before the Punjab Haryana High Court for direction to the appellant Board to take a decision within three months about the handing over the possession of the flat in question to him.
One of the functions, amongst others, assigned to the Board is to develop land and companystruct houses and flats and sell out them under a scheme to the general public.
The respondent having unequivocally claimed to be a domicile of U.T. of Chandigarh for satisfying the eligibility criteria, it was number open to him to fall back on the second eligibility criteria of being a bonafide resident of Chandigarh for last more than three years.
N. KHARE, J. The appellant herein, the Chandigarh Housing Board hereinafter referred to as the Board is companystituted and established under the provisions of the Haryana Housing Board Act hereinafter referred to as the Act as extended to the Union territory of Chandigarh.
The High Court issued a direction as prayed for, and in companypliance thereof, the Board after giving opportunity to the respondent, on 16.5.97, cancelled the allotment of the flat.
In Whicker vs. Hume 1859 28 I.J. Ch.
