Pratik vs State of Haryana

Surya Kant, J.—The petitioner impugns the communication dated 06.01.2014 sent by Chief Administrator, Housing Board, Haryana, asking him to furnish an affidavit to the effect that no ''dwelling unit'' has been earlier allotted at any other place in Haryana under any scheme floated by the Housing Board, Haryana, to the petitioner or his family members. The above-stated affidavit has been sought from the petitioner in the following background.

The petitioner applied for allotment of a dwelling unit meant for ''Below Poverty Line'' (for short, BPL) families and he being successful in draw of lots, has been offered allotment of one such unit at Amrawati, near Pinjore, District Panchkula. Thereafter, vide impugned communication, the petitioner has been asked to furnish the above-mentioned affidavit.

It is an admitted fact that the petitioner''s father has been allotted a dwelling unit in the BPL category by the Housing Board, Haryana, at Hansi. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner is entirely dependent on his hither and they constitute one BPL unit. The things would have been different if the petitioner was constituent of a separate BPL unit.

In the application brochure published by the Housing Board, Haryana, the eligibility conditions No. (i), (ii) and (v) say that:-

(i) The applicant should belong to Below Poverty Line (BPL) family of Haryana only;

(ii) The applicant, his/her spouse of his/her dependent children do not own any flat/plot in any HUDA Sector/licensed colony in any of the urban area in the State;

XX XX XX XX XX XX XX

(v) An eligible person, his or her spouse, or any of his/her dependent members cannot submit more than one application under the scheme......

In this backdrop, the question that arises for consideration is whether the BPL family of the petitioner is entitled to allotment of more than one flat? Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and on a combined reading of the above-reproduced eligibility conditions, we have no reason to doubt that benefit of such like social welfare scheme, namely, allotment of dwelling unit to the ''Below Poverty Line (BPL) Families'' would entitle the petitioner and his family for allotment of one dwelling unit only. Since a dwelling unit has already been allotted to his father, we are of the considered view that the petitioner is not entitled to second allotment, moreso when it is not disputed that he does not constitute a separate BPL unit. It is, thus, obvious that the information sought from the petitioner through an affidavit by the Housing Board, Haryana, would render him ineligible for such allotment, if sully justified.

Since the petitioner''s family has already got a BPL unit, the information sought by the respondents so as to ensure that a BPL family does not get more than one flat, is also fully justified and calls for no interference by this Court. There are thousands of BPL families, whereas dwelling units are very less. As such, allotment of more than one dwelling unit to one BPL family would essentially be at the cost of another deserving BPL family. That cannot be the object of the subject scheme. The matter may have been different if the petitioner had constituted a separate and distinct BPL family unit apart from his father.

For the reasons afore-stated, we do not find any irrationality in seeking the information sought by the respondents vide the impugned communication. No interference is thus called for in the impugned communication.

Dismissed.

However, if the allotment policy so permits, the family of the petitioner (BPL family) may request the Competent Authority to opt for retention of the dwelling unit at Hansi or at Amrawati, near Pinjore, District Panchkula, by surrendering one of the allotments, provided that it is so permissible under the Scheme.