The board members agree in principle for making an amendment to Section 16 of the Allotment Rules which deals with the lock-in period clause
In what could bring cheer to thousands of allottees of the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) flats,the board on Monday moved a step closer to doing away with the clause of five-year lock-in period for the sale or transfer of the CHB flats.
The board members at a meeting agreed in principle for making an amendment to Section 16 of the Allotment Rules which deals with the five-year lock-in period clause. However,at the same time,after long deliberations between the board members,it was decided to study the Haryana Housing Board rules before the final approval is accorded in this matter.
The members then decided to bring this matter again in the next meeting for final approval before it is sent to the UT Administration for vetting.
The Section 16 of Allotment Rules implies the five-year lock-in period for re-allotment,sale,transfer of a CHB dwelling unit. Now after the relaxation,the CHB will allow re-allotment of dwelling units subject to payment of certain transfer fee.
Originally,as per the allotment rules,flats can be sold after a lock-in period of five years from the date of physical possession of the property. In the past,the CHB had relaxed the five-year lock-in period but later withdrew the relaxation.
There has been a longstanding demand from various quarters to withdraw this clause,especially from those property owners,who bought the CHB flats on general power of attorney (GPA) after the five-year lock-in period. They had been demanding this for being able to transfer these properties.
Sources said officials were also studying the ban imposed by the Supreme Court on GPA,so as to ascertain that while amending Section 16 of the Allotment Rules,there was no violation of the Supreme Court order.
The move comes as despite a ban on the GPAs for sale of the CHB flats,a number of allottees had illegally been selling the flats on the basis of GPA registered in the neighbouring states.
This not only led to a huge revenue loss to the CHB,but also resulted in unending litigation between the seller and the buyer as the flats could not be transferred in the name of the buyer,five years from the date of possession of the flat.
The board of directors also decided that the booths in different sectors,which are the properties of the CHB,would be auctioned shortly.
Local court upholds CHB decision on cancelling flat
A LOCAL court has upheld the decision of the Chandigarh Housing Board and the Adviser to the UT Administrator that cancelled the flat allotted to a woman on grounds of misrepresentation and forgery.
Additional District and Sessions Judge Preeti Sahni,on August 21,dismissed the petition filed by Jasbir Kaur challenging the order passed by the Housing Board and the Adviser to the Administrator to cancel the flat allotted to her at Phase-3 in Mani Majra in 1995.
The Housing Board had cancelled Kaurs allotment with forfeiture of money that she had deposited with the board following a complaint it received from Amarjit Singh,a resident of Sector 38,Chandigarh,in 2000.
Singh,in his complaint,had accused Kaur of impersonating herself as her brother-in-laws daughter Jasbir Kaur and submitting forged ration card and voter ID while applying for the allotment under the Mani Majra Housing Scheme in 1993.
Advocate Vikas Jain,counsel for the respondents (Housing Board and Adviser),informed the court that when Kaur was called by the board to explain her position,there were inconsistencies in the statements made by her and the documents she had submitted with her application. While she told the board that her age was 53 years,as per her ration card and voter ID,her age was 35 years. There was also overwriting in the application form and hence,the board decided to cancel her allotment and forfeit the money she had deposited with the board.
Kaur then filed an appeal against the order of the board which was dismissed and subsequently her revision petition was also dismissed by the Adviser in 2009. Kaur had then moved the lower court challenging the order passed by the respondents calling it illegal. Her counsel submitted that as Kaur had spent sufficient money on the construction of her house and had raised construction up to the second floor and hence,the respondents (Housing Board and Adviser) could not cancel her allotment.
However,the court held,Since no merit could be found in the appeal as well as in the evidence submitted by Kaur,the same (appeal) stands dismissed.