'Liberally View Marginalised Peoples' Housing Applications': P&H High Court Asks Chandigarh To Allot Flat To Orphaned Minor
Emphasising that hyper-technical objections should not defeat welfare schemes meant for marginalised sections, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the Chandigarh Administration to allot a small flat to a petitioner who was a minor at the time of filing the petition, in lieu of her deceased father who had already been found eligible under the Chandigarh Small Flats...
Emphasising that hyper-technical objections should not defeat welfare schemes meant for marginalised sections, the Punjab & Haryana High Court has directed the Chandigarh Administration to allot a small flat to a petitioner who was a minor at the time of filing the petition, in lieu of her deceased father who had already been found eligible under the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006.
Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda said, " while evaluating the applications of the marginalised sections of society for their rehabilitation in furtherance of their right to shelter, a more holistic and liberal view ought to be taken by the Constitutional Court, instead of a hyper-technical view which would defeat the very purpose of the scheme."
The petitioner sought allotment of a flat under the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme in place of her father, Vir Singh @ Bir Singh, who was declared eligible for allotment by the Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services), Chandigarh, in 2010. However, before the flat could be allotted, he expired in February 2013. The petitioner's mother had also gone missing, and a DDR was lodged in 2014, leaving the petitioner — then a minor — as the sole legal heir.
Despite repeated proceedings before the Lok Adalat and the authorities, her claim was rejected on technical grounds, including that she was a minor and there was no provision for allotment in favour of a minor, discrepancies existed in the name of her mother in records and her father's name allegedly did not appear in the voter list of 2013.
After examining the record, the Court held that the petitioner's father was a “recognized resident” under the Scheme, as his name appeared in both the 2006 biometric survey and 2006 voter list, and he had already been adjudged eligible by a final Lok Adalat order.
"The overarching purpose of the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006 is to rehabilitate poor Jhuggi dwellers who belong to the ultra- marginalised sections of society, secure their fundamental right to shelter by providing them a dwelling unit and ensure the equitable distribution of resources by providing 'one family' only one flat," said the Court.
The bench added that, in doing so, the Scheme ensures the full realisation of the Constitutional guarantee of right to life. "The object behind the proviso is to ensure that allotment is restricted to one family member on the demise of an eligible person/recognised resident. It is trite that a scheme framed by the authorities cannot visualise every uncertainty and provide for every eventuality."
Referring to Chameli Singh v. State of U.P [1996] , the Court said, "the Constitution is founded on the principle that the State must function as a welfare state and in light of Article 21 which guarantees the Right to Life which further includes right to shelter, it is the sacred duty of the Constitutional Courts to grant succour and ameliorate the plight of the petitioner."
The Court highlighted that, when the bio-metric survey was conducted in March 2006, the petitioner was in the womb of her mother. Obviously her name would not find place in the electoral rolls at the relevant time as she was a minor and attained majority in 2024.
The bench refused accept the submission of the respondents that as the name of the petitioner did not figure in the survey and voter lists as required by the Scheme, she is not a “recognized resident”. "Similarly the contention that there is no provision for allotment of a flat to minors cannot be accepted,"it added.
Observing that, "The father of the petitioner had been found eligible for allotment of the small flat when she was a minor and after his demise the right of the petitioner for allotment of flat being the sole legal heir cannot be defeated. We have no hesitation to hold that the petitioner, who is akin to an orphan, would be entitled to allotment of flat in lieu of her father, who was found eligible for allotment," the Court directed the Chandigarh Administration to allot a small flat to the petitioner within 15 days.
Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel) for the petitioner.
Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for respondent No.1-Chandigarh Housing Board.
Title: Kiran (minor) v. Chandigarh Housing Board and others