Certo Is this judgment real?
Beta, Supreme Court only. We check Supreme Court of India judgments only for now: a High Court citation reads "Not in our corpus", which never means it does not exist.

Supreme Court of India

HARSH VARDHAN BANSAL versus CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD AND ANR.

Decided
24 May 2006
Judges listed
AR. LAKSHMANAN (as the open data lists them; this may not name the whole bench)
Disposal
Disposed off

Citations

Official
[2006] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 962 · 2006 INSC 360
Not shown
1 other citation string that other judgments attach to this one, on evidence too thin or too divided to publish.

Cited by

Cited in 1 other Supreme Court judgment we hold.

Counted only in the Supreme Court judgments we hold whose text we could read, not in High Court judgments. We match each citation to a judgment automatically, so a citation we cannot match is not counted. "Cited" says only that a judgment refers to this one, not whether it followed, distinguished or overruled it.

The Court's text

Paragraphs from our copy of the Supreme Court Reports print, with the Court's own paragraph numbers, the printed page and, where printed, the margin letter. The Court did not number this judgment's paragraphs, so they are listed by page. Link to paragraph N with #para-N.

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. : Heard Ms. Prashanthi Prasad, learned counsel for the appellant and Ms. Rachana Joshi Issar, learned counsel for the respondent Board.

p. 963, margin G

This appeal is directed against the order passed by the High Court dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant herein on the ground of concealment of facts. The appellant applied for allotment of an H.l.G. (Ind.) flat. Under the Scheme, a person would be eligible for allotment of a dwelling unit in case he/she or his wife/her husband or any of his/her dependent relations including unmarried children does not own free hold or lease-hold or on hire-purchase basis a residential plot/house in the Union Territory of Chandigrah or in either of the Urban Estates of Mohali anct Panchkula. Similarly, in case he/she has acquired a house/residential site anywhere in India through Govt/semi government/Municipal Committee/ Corporation/Improvement Trust at concessional rates, i.e. at reserved/fixed price, in his/her name or in the names of dependent members of his/her family, he/she will not be eligible for allotment of a dwelling unit.

p. 964, margin A

A complaint was received by the respondent-Housing Board chat the appellant was owning a flat namely K-26, Sector-25, NOIDA under the selffinance housing scheme of Airforce Naval Housing Board and the same was confirmed by the Airforce Naval Housing Board, New Delhi vide its letter dated 10.09.1997. It was also further intimated to the respondent Board that land for the construction of group housing was allotted to it by the NOIDA at a fixed rate as was charged from other group housing societies. At the time of hearing, our attention was drawn to para 11 at page 93 of the paper-book, which read as follows:

p. 964, margin C

"Whether you, or your wife/husband or any of your dependent relations including unmarried children is a member of any Cooperative House Building Society which has been allotted land or is registered for allotment of land at reserve/fixed price for construction of Residential house for its members, under any scheme framed/notified by the Government, Urban Development Authority/Housing Board/Improvement Trust/Municipal Committee/

p. 964, margin E

Corporations/Notified Area Committee?"

p. 964, margin F

Learned counsel for the respondent Board submitted that the appellant has furnished incorrect information in regard to the allotment made in his favour by the NOIDA authorities and has suppressed such fact from the purview of the Housing Board. Therefore, the respondent Board, by the impugned Show Cause Notice, cancelled the allotment made in favour of the appellant which was challenged before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. Our attention was also drawn to clause XI of Regulation 6 of the Scheme which reads as follows:

pp. 964–965, margin G

"XI-. Mis-representation or suppression of facts :- If it is found at any time that the applicant has furnished any incorrect or false information or suppressed any material facts in the application form for registration or later on, which makes him/her ineligible,' the registration as well as allotment, if made, shall be cancelled and the total deposit made till date shall be liable to be forfeited. The applicant shall further be liable to penal consequences under the

p. 965, margin A

law."

p. 965, margin B

Learned counsel for the respondent-Board submitted that though the Clause XI of the Chandigrah Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979 enables the Board-to cancel the registration of the dwelling unit or the flat and to forfeit the deposit received with the application and all the payments made to the Board thereafter, the respondent pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 12.7.2004 refunded Rs. 8,06,441. As already noticed, a sum of Rs. 10 lacs and odd was deposited and the Housing Board has now refunded a sum of Rs. 8 lacs and odd even though they are entitled to forfeit the entire deposit made. Now that a major portion of the amount has already been refunded to the appellant, we do not propose to go into the merits of the rival claims or the correctness of the order passed by the High Court or the cancellation order passed by the Housing Board. We also make it clear that any observation made in the Show Cause Notice or in the order passed by the High Court will not affect the career of the appellant herein since, as argued and accepted by us, the appellant has furnished all the details in the application form for registration on a bonafide belief and impression.

p. 965, margin C

The Civil appeal is disposed of according. No costs. S.K.S. Appeal disposed of.

p. 965, margin F