- (1.) What has been assailed is an order, dated 08.01.1999 (Annexure P17), rendered by the Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh (respondent No.1), vide which claims of the petitioners for allotment of tenements under the Licensing of Tenements and Sites and Services in Chandigarh Scheme, 1979 (for short, '1979 Scheme'), has been declined. A writ of mandamus is also prayed for to direct the respondents to allot dwelling units, at village Mauli Jagran, UT, Chandigarh, to the petitioners.
(2.) In brief, the case set out by the petitioners is that they had migrated from the State of Tamil Nadu and had set up their Jhuggies (Huts) in Sector 34, on a land that belonged to UT Chandigarh. The area was inhabited by many, who were similarly placed, and was known as Madrasi Labour Colony. Chandigarh Administration initiated a programme for housing and rehabilitation of economically weaker sections of society living in slum conditions in the labour colonies. And to provide them a low cost tenements, a Scheme; "Licensing of Tenements and Sites and Services in Chandigarh Scheme, 1979" (for short, '1979 Scheme') was formulated. The Scheme envisaged development of alternative residential sites or tenements, which were to be built by the Chandigarh Housing Board. With a purpose to identify the jhuggi dwellers of the colony, a survey was conducted by the Chandigarh Administration. For the petitioners were inhabiting in the colony, they were issued the provisional identity cards on 20.10.1991 (Annexures P1 to P4). Petitioners, in terms of the 1979 Scheme, applied for allotment of tenements on hire-purchase basis and deposited a sum of Rs.500/- each along with their applications on 24.10.1991. The demand raised by the board to deposit a further sum of Rs.1500/- each on 18.03.1993, was also met with by the petitioners. In the meantime, the Chandigarh Administration with a view to cause an amendment in the 1979 Scheme, framed another Scheme; "The Licensing of Tenements and Sites and Services in Chandigarh (Amendment) Scheme, 1992" which came into force w.e.f. 09.10.1992. As claims of the petitioners were not processed, they had approached this court even in the past on a few occasions. A writ petition, bearing CWP No.4440 of 1997, preferred by the petitioners, was disposed of by this court on 05.11.1997, with a direction to the respondents to consider the claims of the petitioners, in accordance with law, within a specified time. And eventually, the Estate Officer (respondent No.1), vide order being assailed dated 08.01.1999 (Annexure P17), rejected the claims of the petitioners. The conclusion arrived at by respondent No.1, in support of its order, reads as thus: "A perusal of the relevant record reveals that the petitioners were living in the Madrasi Colony, Sector 34 Chandigarh in the year 1991. At the time of shifting of the Madrasi Colony, a surprise survey was got conducted in the year 1993 and the record of this survey reveals that the petitioners namely S/Shri Pandu, Shanker, Dharam Pal and Manikam were not found residing in the colony. Even during their personal hearing on 3-11- 1998, the petitioners could not provide any evidence which could prove that they were living in the Madrasi Colony in the year 1993 on the basis of which the alternative tenements were given in Mauli Jagran by the Chandigarh Housing Board. The case of the petitioners was also referred to the Finance Secretary, U.T., Chandigarh for allotting them tenements by relaxing clause 30(i) of the Scheme, but the same was rejected. The identity cards were issued to the petitioners based upon the survey of 1991, but no evidence has been put forth by the petitioners which can substantiated that they were living in the colony in the year 1993 on the basis of which tenements were allotted by the Chandigarh Housing Board. Since the petitioners have not been found to be a bonafide resident of the Madrasi Colony which is one of the essential condition for eligibility for the allotment of tenement under the "Licensing of Tenements, Sites and Services Scheme in Chandigarh, 1979", the request of the petitioners for the allotment of tenements is hereby rejected. This order should be communicated to the petitioners."
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the only reason assigned by respondent No.1 to reject the claims of the petitioners is that they were not found residing in the colony at the time of survey/spot inspection in the year 1993, whereas concededly the petitioners were issued the identity cards, being inhabitants of Madrasi Colony, on the basis of a survey conducted in the year 1991. So much so, their names also find mentioned in the voter's list for the Lok Sabha election in the year 1993 (Annexure P8). Thus, the reason that has been assigned to decline their claims is palpably erroneous. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents contends that no doubt the petitioners were issued the provisional identity cards, pursuant to a survey conducted in the year 1991, and their names even exist in the voter's list for the year 1993, but as they were not found residing in the colony during spot inspection in the year 1993, which was/is one of the essential conditions for allotment under the scheme, their claims were rightly rejected. In support of his contention, he even referred to an inspection report dated 19.02.1993 which is taken on record as Mark A. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records.;