HC: Physical possession must for alternative accommodation

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, February 8

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a person seeking allotment of an alternative dwelling unit under the rehabilitation scheme was required to be in actual physical possession of a hut or a structure in the colony to be rehabilitated. Mere ownership of the same was not enough.

The ruling came on a petition filed by Dharam Pal and other petitioners against the UT Estate Officer and another respondent.

In their petition placed before the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Shiavax Jal Vazifdar and Justice Arun Palli, the petitioners had assailed the order dated January 8, 1999, issued by the Estate Officer.

The court was told that their claims for allotment of tenements under the Licensing of Tenements and Sites and Services in Chandigarh Scheme, 1979, was declined vide the order. Directions were also sought to the respondents to allot dwelling units at Mauli Jagran to them. Their counsel claimed that the petitioners migrated from Tamil Nadu before setting up jhuggis in Sector 34 on UT land. The Chandigarh Administration initiated a programme for housing and rehabilitation of economically weaker sections of society living in “slum conditions” in labour colonies and launched the scheme to provide them low-cost tenements.

It envisaged development of alternative residential sites or tenements to be built by the Chandigarh Housing Board. For identifying jhuggi dwellers, a survey was conducted by the Administration. Their counsel added that the only reason assigned by the Estate Officer to reject their claims was that they were not found residing in the colony at the time of the survey or the spot inspection in 1993.

The counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, contended that the petitioners were issued provisional identity cards pursuant to a survey conducted in1991 and their names even existed in the voters’ list for 1993. However, they were not found residing in the colony during the spot inspection in 1993, which was an essential condition for allotment under the scheme. The Bench added: “A person himself must be residing in the colony and is required to be in actual physical possession of a hut or structure that he claims to have set up, notwithstanding a mere ownership…

“The petitioners ceased to be bona fide residents of the colony. Apparently, the purpose sought to be achieved vide the scheme in question was/is to provide housing to slum dwellers…. The petition is accordingly dismissed.”