H.S.BHALLA, J. - (1.) THROUGH the instant writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the action of the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh (respondent No. 2) in rejecting her application seeking allotment of a house under the 1996 Oustees' Scheme. The petitioner has further prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing Chandigarh Housing Board through its Chairman (respondent No. 1) to allot a house under the said scheme of the HIG category to which she is entitled. She has further prayed for allotment of a HIG category house in Sector 38 (West), Chandigarh, where some houses were lying vacant.
(2.) IT has been averred in the petition that the land belonging to the petitioner was acquired by the Union Territory Chandigarh for the purpose of forestation vide notifications dated 27.11.1991 and 12.6.1992 respectively issued under sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The possession of the farm house and its surrounding areas remained with the petitioner and without taking any compensation for the acquired property, the acquisition proceedings were challenged by the petitioner before this Court by filing a Civil Writ Petition No. 9491 of 1992, which was dismissed vide a common judgment dated 2.5.1997 passed in 16 other connected petitions by a Single Bench of this Court and against the judgment passed, Letters Patent Appeal were also preferred, but the same were also dismissed. The husband of the petitioner then filed a Special Leave Petition before the Apex Court, which was disposed of vide order dated September 19, 1997, the relevant portion of which runs as under :- " Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that at this stage, the petitioners confine their grievance only to the limited extent that they may be permitted to continue to occupy the houses in which they are living in case those houses are not to be demolished after acquisition. In our opinion, this cannot be the ground for interference with the acquisition proceedings. However, it is open to the petitioners to approach the concerned authorities for consideration of their request to this extent. In that event, it would be for the concerned authorities to decide in the manner they consider fit. The Special Leave Petitions are dismissed." After passing this order, the petitioners continued in possession of the house and land and a representation was filed before the Administration on the basis of which a direction was passed vide Memo PA/FS/98/6 dated 21.1.1998 allowing the applicant Ranjeet Singh Judge to continue to reside in the Farm House subject to payment of rent @ Rs. 9220.00 per month for the house and 4- 1/2 Kanals of land. Later on, the petitioner moved an application before the Administration wherein it was stated that the petitioners had no source of income apart from a meager pension and if the compensation amount towards acquisition of land is to be used for the purpose of making a fixed deposit to earn interest which in turn is required to pay monthly rent which will result in an extremely harsh financial burden. The petitioner prayed that her case be reconsidered sympathetically and a small area comprising the house along with the proportionate land and means of ingress be released from acquisition. Plea for release was taken on the basis of the fact that actual physical possession of the land had not been taken. On 27.10.1999 the house of the petitioner was sealed in her absence and the letter dated 26.10.1999 was left at the door asking the petitioner to vacate the land which was allegedly under illegal occupation. The petitioner has asserted that the letter failed to take note of the earlier order dated 21.1.1998. After sealing of this house, the petitioner and her family were suddenly without a house and in fact, no notice giving the petitioner any reasonable time for filing a representation was served upon her. The petitioner had no other option but to file a writ petition on 18.11.1999 for quashing of the order and at that point of time, it came to light that no award had been passed. It is further pointed out that the petitioner was all along led to believe that the land and house stood acquired vide award Nos. 469 and 477 dated 9.11.1992 and 23.3.1993 respectively. It only later came to light that Award No.469 was for land and Award 477 was not connected with the land of the petitioner. This petition was allowed by this Court on the ground that the order dated 21.1.1998 could not have been reviewed without notice to the petitioner. A direction was given to the petition to appear before the Advisor, who would decide the matter within two weeks. The petitioner appeared before the Advisor and explained her position. This order was challenged by way of petition, which was dismissed as a Special Leave Petition filed against the same was also dismissed on the ground that the acquisition had become final. In the meantime, the petitioner had been dispossessed only from the house and later on purchased a house from the open market at Panchkula, awaiting allotment of a dwelling unit at Chandigarh where she and her family have always resided and wish to reside. It is further pointed out that the Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh was pleased to make a scheme for allotment of dwelling units in Chandigarh to Oustees of Chandigarh, namely, "Chandigarh Allotment of Dwelling Units to the Oustees of Chandigarh, Scheme 1996." The said scheme has been duly notified in the Gazette on 12.1.1996. Under this Scheme, allotment is to be made by respondent No. 1 and the allotment is subject to the provisions of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971 as extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. Eligibility for allotment under this scheme has been defined in the 1996 Scheme. Land of the person should have been acquired for development of Chandigarh and the entitlement would depend upon the area that has been acquired. An oustee is eligible for allotment if he or his dependent family members do not own a residential site/dwelling unit in Chandigarh, Mohali or Panchkula or if he has not acquired a house/residential site anywhere in India through Government/semi Government/Municipal Committee/Corporation/Improvement Trust at concessional rates. The petitioner fulfilled the eligibility conditions of the Oustees Scheme and on 25.5.2001 submitted an application for issuance of an Oustees certificate which was issued granting her the status of an Oustee. Thereafter, the petitioner approached respondent No. 1 for allotment of a house but was informed that she would have to wait until a housing scheme was floated and that there was no scheme as yet. Respondent No. 1 failed to inform her that a number of HIG Houses remained unallotted and that she could have been allotted such a house and her suffering could have been alleviated. Instead she was expected to stay under the stars until a scheme was floated. On 7.6.2001 respondent No. 1 advertised for allotment of houses in Sector 51-A Chandigarh. It has been specifically mentioned in the advertisement with regard to offering of the houses to Oustees under the 1996 Scheme. Seventeen units were kept reserved for oustees. According to the residential eligibility, which in the respectful submission of the petitioner, applies only to the General Category it was required that the applicant be a bona fide resident of Chandigarh for a period of at least three years immediately preceding the date of opening of the scheme. An exemption was granted to the retired employees of Government of India, Punjab Government etc. such as the house of the petitioner. For oustees, land should have been acquired after 1.11.1966. The oustees certificate is also to be produced. An initial deposit of Rs. 74,000/- was to be made and after registering the applicants, a draw of lots is to be held on the basis of which allotment is to be made. The petitioner has further pointed out that vide application No. 1067 the petitioner on 7.6.2001 applied for allotment of a dwelling unit as an Oustee as per the 1996 scheme of Chandigarh Administration. On 24.9.2001 the list of eligible applicants became known and the petitioner through her son, who visited at the office of respondent No. 1 to get information, was asked and she was shocked to learn that her application had been rejected on the ground that she had not been residing in Chandigarh for the last three years preceding the opening of the Housing Board Scheme. Draw of lots took place on 10.10.2003 and the application of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner has finally pleaded that he, admittedly, is an oustee and has been deprived of her only house and as such, one HIG Flat No. 5464 is still lying vacant in Sector 38 (West) Chandigarh can be allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for quashment of action of respondent No. 1 in rejecting the application of the petitioner. Hence, this petition.
(3.) ON the other hand, the petition was contested by the respondents and through their written statement, it was pointed out that the petitioner has suppressed the material facts with regard to complete eligibility conditions that were made applicable for the Oustees applicants in the 336 Category-I Housing Scheme of 2001 in Sector 51-A, Chandigarh under which she had applied. It is further pleaded that Clause 3 of "The Chandigarh Allotment of Dwelling Units to the Oustees of Chandigarh, Scheme-1996' (Annexure P-3) envisages that the allotment shall be made by the answering respondent and the same shall be subject to the provisions of the Haryana Housing Board Act, 1971, as extended to U.T. Of Chandigarh and Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979, as amended from time to time. Regulation-6 of the Statutory Regulations lays down the eligibility criteria qua allotment to be made by the answering-respondent, wherein it has been provided that an applicant should have been a bona fide resident of Union Territory of Chandigarh for a period of at least three years immediately preceding the opening of a Housing Scheme. The petitioner is ineligible for allotment of a flat in Sector 51-A, Chandigarh as per terms and conditions laid down in the Scheme-2001 and as such, she is not entitled to the allotment of a flat. While denying the other assertions raised in the petition, it was finally prayed that the petition be dismissed.;