Facts of the Case
On 27th November 2019, the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission held that the Chandigarh Housing Board (Board) did not provide adequate services. Thus, the Redressal Commission passed an Order, stating the Housing Board to be at fault in the matter.
Therefore, the Petitioner contended that the subsequent policy dated 19th December 2017 could not affect the rights of the Petitioner as he applied for transfer of ownership on 2nd June 2016.
The present Writ petition of Mandamus is sought for directing Chairman of the Board to transfer the ownership of his Flat no. 231, Sector 45-A, Chandigarh under its GPA transfer policy at par with the cases which were transferred by the Board before 19th December 2017.
On 11th October 2011, the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp and Industries Private Limited Vs State of Haryana and Anr held that the authority is under obligation to not disturb the ownership rights of those persons whose SA/GPA/Will transactions have been accepted by authorities. The Counsel for the Petitioner argued that the Board missed the important aspects of the aforementioned Judgment. The Board did not cancel any transfer of ownership rights from 11th October 2011 and 19th December 2017. Further, the Board did not give any details to the Petitioner and also sought an unreasonable amount from him. In light of the above, the Petitioner did not deposit Rs 1, 99,944.
The Court observed that the prayer made by the Petitioner citing the Supreme Court judgment was misconceived. The Court stated that the Board is an entity of the Chandigarh Administration, which is empowered to make policy decisions. Since the Chandigarh Administration decided its policy on 19th December 2017, the Board was bound to implement it. Before that, there was no such decision and therefore, they did not impede with the Board not to transfer ownerships based on GPA/SA/Will.
The Court further observed that the Petitioner could not be permitted to take a U-turn and in turn, challenge actions under the said policy. The Administration indeed complied with the Supreme Court judgment very late, however, this could not be used as the sole basis for permitting the Application of the Petitioner. Stating the above, the Court concluded that those dwelling owners who took the benefit of the policy existing before 19th December 2017 should not be put at disadvantage by turning the clock back.
The Court held that no meaningful arguments were submitted by the Petitioner. The Court stated that the Petitioner was seeking relief under the very policy that was in existence, and thus, he could not take a U-turn and challenge the same.
Stating it to be devoid of any merit, the Court dismissed the Writ Petition.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.