Petitioner challenged Permanent Lok Adalat order declining his claim for a dwelling unit allotment under the Chandigarh Scheme of 1979 due to income exceeding prescribed limits. Court found no illegality and dismissed the writ petition.
None.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P.No.20655 of 2010
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision : 11.01.2012
C.W.P.No.20655 of 2010
Raj Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh
...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.K.Gupta, Advocate, for the respondent.
HEMANT GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
Challenge in the present writ petition is to an order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat on 23.07.2010, whereby the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a dwelling unit was declined in view of the fact that his monthly gross income is Rs.16,180/- and therefore, the petitioner does not fulfill the criteria as per the Scheme of 1979.
The Chandigarh Administration framed a Scheme called "Licensing of Tenements and Sites and Services in Chandigarh Scheme, 1979" with a view to prevent avoidable hardships and to expedite the work of rehabilitation of slum-dwellers and in order to improve the dwelling conditions of such persons. Para 3(g) of the said Scheme defines 'Recognized Resident' to mean a bona fide resident of a Labour Colony since 1971, whose income does not exceed Rs.500/- or a bona fide resident of a Labour Colony since 1974, whose monthly family income is above Rs.350/-, but below Rs.500/-. Para 4 deals with preparation of a plan for clearing the Labour Colonies of all residents according to the anticipated availability of alternative tenements/sites.
Though there is amendment of para 7 Clause (v) and clause (d) of
C.W.P.No.20655 of 2010
2
para 9, but the definition of 'Recognized Resident' has not been altered. Since the petitioner is drawing a salary of more than Rs.16,000/-, as a Government servant, he cannot be treated as a 'Recognized Resident' and entitled to the Scheme for rehabilitation of Slum Dwellers.
In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, which warrants any interference by this Court.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA)
JUDGE
11.01.2012 Vimal
(A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE
Raj Kumar
Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh
Hemant Gupta
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
