Punjab and Haryana High Court: In a writ petition filed by a petitioner seeking quashing of the order passed by the Chief Executive Officer of Chandigarh Housing Board (‘Appellate Authority’) under Clause 17 of the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006, (‘the Scheme’) whereby the petitioner’s appeal for grant of a flat was rejected, the Division Bench of Sureshwar Thakur* and Vikas Suri, JJ., allowed the petition and directed the authorities to allot the petitioner a flat as per the Scheme holding that the petitioner was arbitrarily disqualified despite being a resident of the colony concerned since 2006.
Background
Under the aforesaid Scheme, persons residing in Jhuggis were eligible for a one-room apartment. The petitioner applied for it, but his application was not considered. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Permanent Lok Adalat which rejected the petitioner’s claim, holding that the petitioner could not be considered a ‘recognized resident’ as required under the Scheme, therefore he was not eligible for allotment.
The petitioner subsequently filed a writ petition challenging the order passed by the Lok Adalat. A Single Judge Bench of this Court set aside the Lok Adalat order and remanded the case to the Lok Adalat for fresh adjudication. Upon reconsideration, the Lok Adalat directed the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority under Clause 17 of the Scheme.
The Appellate Authority rejected the petitioner’s claim citing insufficient admissible proof of residence for the required years. As a result, the petitioner filed the present petition.
As per the Scheme, a ‘recognised resident’ was a person whose name appeared in the biometric survey and voter list in 2006 and who had continuously resided in the notified colony. It shall also include a resident of a notified colony whose name did not appear in the 2006 voter list but appeared in the voter lists for the years 2004, 2005, 2007, and 2008.
Analysis
The Court noted that the petitioner’s name occurred in the biometric survey of 2006 and the voter lists for the years 2004, 2005, 2010, and 2011 but not in the voter lists from 2006 to 2009. The Court remarked that the criteria for a ‘recognised resident’ created an anomaly to the extent that the petitioner did not qualify because his name was absent from the voter lists from 2006-2009 despite his name appearing in the biometric survey and other voter lists.
The Court stated that the criteria imposed a rigid necessity on the petitioner without considering that the voter lists were prepared by the Election Commission staff who physically visited the jhuggis and enumerated the dwellers. The Court stated that the reason for the petitioner’s name not appearing in the voter lists concerned might be because he was not present inside the jhuggi, or the election staff might not have visited his jhuggi. However, this did not imply that the petitioner was not continuously residing in the jhuggi from 2006-2008, especially since his name appeared in the subsequent voter lists.
The Court stated that the petitioner was continuously residing in the colony since his name appeared in the biometric survey, a certificate of electricity installation was issued by the contractor concerned, and his Aadhaar card provided that he had been residing in the jhuggi since 2011. Moreover, no evidence was adduced to suggest that the petitioner was not continuously residing in the colony after 2009.
Thus, the Court held that the petitioner’s exclusion from the definition of ‘recognised resident’ appeared to be done through an ill-informed order with reasons not based on any cogent evidence. Hence, the petitioner was arbitrarily disqualified from being considered a ‘recognized resident’.
The Court also stated that when the holistic purpose of the Scheme was to endow the jhuggi dwellers, who were an ultra-marginal section of society, with a shelter, the constitutionally guaranteed right to life would also be activated.
The Court held that a more detailed inquiry was required to be conducted by the competent authority regarding the petitioner’s residential status, however, since no such inquiry was conducted, the impugned order suffered from a gross procedural error and was liable to be set aside.
Thus, the Court allowed the writ petition, and the authorities were directed to allot a small flat under the Scheme to the petitioner within three weeks.
[Mohan Lal v. Union Territory of Chandigarh, 2025 SCC OnLine P&H 643, decided on 05-02-2025]
*Judgment authored by Justice Sureshwar Thakur
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the petitioner: Kushaldeep Kaur
For the respondents: Anil Sharma, V.D. Anand, and Priyanka Dalal