Dismissed

Om Lata v. Housing Board Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Feb 2012CWP/16175/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the rejection of a request for allocation of a High Income Group category house, the court rejected the petitioner’s claim that a vacant flat arising from cancellation of a serving military person’s allotment should be hers. The court held she lacked standing as a general category candidate.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition was dismissed as the petitioner's claim was misconceived and no ground to interfere with the impugned order was found.

Om Lata Vs Housing Board Haryana and Anr. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 16175 of 2009

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 16175 of 2009 Date of decision: February 14, 2012

Smt. Om Lata

...Petitioner

Versus

Housing Board Haryana and another

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Parveen Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶13

HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral)

¶14

The petitioner has challenged to the communication dated 6^th May, 2009 (Annexure P/11), whereby the request of the petitioner for allotment of HIG category house was rejected.

¶15

The respondents-Board invited applications for allotment of plots in Housing Board Colony, Sector 6, Phase-II, Dharuhera. The petitioner submitted an application for allotment of a house in HIG category. The petitioner was placed in the waiting list at serial No.5 in draw of lots held on 30^th January, 2008. A communication was addressed to the petitioner on 4^th March, 2008 to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- so that the

¶16

¶17

CWP No. 16175 of 2009

¶18

registration of the petitioner is kept intact at serial No. 5. The petitioner deposited the said amount, as per the communication. The waiting list was to remain operative upto 30^th June, 2008, but subsequently it was extended upto 31^st December, 2008.

¶19

The grievance of the petitioner is that one Smt. Darshana Devi was successful allottee of a flat at serial No. 33 but since she did not fulfill the requisite criteria for allotment of the plot, therefore, her allotment should have been cancelled. Such request was made by the petitioner on 12^th January, 2009 but the amount deposited by the petitioner was refunded to him on 22^nd January, 2009. It was thereafter, the petitioner again submitted a representation, which was declined, vide communication dated 6^th May, 2009 (Annexure P/11), which is the subject matter of challenge in the present writ petition.

¶20

A perusal of the written statement shows that Smt. Darshana Devi was allotted a flat in the category of serving military person. Though she deposited the amount but failed to deposit the requisite documents in support of her category. After giving an opportunity to Smt. Darshana Devi her allotment of flat was cancelled on 15^th June, 2009.

¶21

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contended that had the respondents-Board acted diligently and the allotment of Smt. Darshana Devi cancelled during the validity of the waiting list period, the flat could have been allotted to the petitioner.

¶22

We find that the claim of the petitioner is misconceived. The action of the respondents in giving an opportunity to Smt. Darshana Devi to submit the requisite documents in support of her claim is fair and reasonable. A waiting list candidate has no right to insist upon cancellation

¶23

¶24

CWP No. 16175 of 2009

¶25

of allotment of other allottees and seek allotment of the resultant flats amongst the waiting list candidates. Apart from the said fact, we find that Smt. Darshana Devi was allotted flat in reserved category of serving military person whereas the petitioner belongs to general category candidate. As a general category candidate, it will not be open to the petitioner to seek a flat which fell vacant under reservation meant for serving military person.

¶26

We do not find any ground to interfere in the orders passed by

¶27

the authorities under the Act.

¶28

Dismissed.

¶29

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶30

14.2.2012 prem

¶31

(A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE

Om Lata v. Housing Board Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Lata v. Housing Board Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Harkesh Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Dasa Singh Vs Financial Commissioner and Ors.

Arshad @ Bugga Vs State of Haryana

Sonia etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Muga Devi Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.

Karamveer Arya Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority