Safiya Malik

The Punjab & Haryana High Court Division Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda has allowed a writ petition and directed the Chandigarh Administration and Housing Board to allot a small flat to the petitioner under the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006, within 15 days of receiving a certified copy of the order. The petitioner, who was a minor when the case was instituted, sought allotment in place of her deceased father, who had earlier been held eligible for a flat under the Scheme but was not allotted one during his lifetime. The respondents opposed the claim on grounds including the petitioner’s minority and objections to eligibility records. The Bench stated that, for rehabilitation-linked housing claims of marginalised sections, courts should adopt a holistic approach rather than a hyper-technical one that defeats the scheme’s purpose.

The petition was filed by a minor through her guardian seeking allotment of a small flat under the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006, in lieu of her father, who had been declared eligible for allotment but died before a flat could be allotted. The petitioner’s father had been identified as a recognized resident during the 2006 biometric survey and was found eligible by an order of the Permanent Lok Adalat dated 19.03.2010. Despite this, no flat was allotted during his lifetime. After his death in 2013, the petitioner applied for allotment as his sole legal heir.

Also Read: Supreme Court Asks Union Government To Consider “Romeo–Juliet” Exception In POCSO Act To Shield Consensual Adolescent Relationships From Criminal Prosecution

The authorities rejected her claim on the grounds that she was a minor, that her name did not appear in the voter list, and that there was a discrepancy regarding her mother’s name in certain records. Subsequent applications before the Permanent Lok Adalat were dismissed, leading to the filing of the writ petition challenging the rejection and seeking enforcement of the entitlement flowing from the father’s eligibility under the scheme.

The Court examined the eligibility of the petitioner’s father under the scheme and “held that the father of the petitioner was a ‘recognized resident’ and was eligible for allotment of a flat under the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006.” It noted that the rejection based on the 2013 voter list was misplaced, as “at the time of scrutiny, the respondents ought to have determined his eligibility either when he had applied for allotment… or when the order of the Lok Adalat was passed.”

On the discrepancy regarding the mother’s name, the Court “observed that it is of little or no consequence” and recorded that the affidavit relied upon did not establish that the woman described therein was the wife of the deceased. The Court also took note that the petitioner’s mother had deserted the family and was missing, as reflected in the DDR.

Addressing the objection relating to minority, the Court referred to the scheme provisions and recorded that “it is manifest from a bare reading of the proviso to Clause 3(g) that in the event of the demise of the ‘Recognized Resident’, one member of his family… will be eligible for being a licensee.” While acknowledging that a strict interpretation would exclude a minor, the Court noted the purpose of the scheme and stated that “an extraordinary situation of hardship has arisen, which the scheme did not contemplate.”

The Court further recorded that “the Constitution is founded on the principle that the State must function as a welfare state” and that Article 21 includes the right to shelter. It observed that the petitioner was unborn at the time of the survey and therefore her absence from electoral records could not defeat her claim. The Court concluded that “the right of the petitioner for allotment of flat being the sole legal heir cannot be defeated.”

Also Read: Punjab & Haryana High Court Condones 1415-Day Delay, Grants Default Bail In UAPA Terror Case

The Court allowed the writ petition and “set aside the impugned order. The respondents are directed to allot the petitioner a small flat under the afore-noted Scheme, within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.” Before parting with the judgment, that the authorities should consider “recognizing the rights of a minor for allotment in the event of the demise of ‘recognized resident’.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner: Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advocate (Legal Aid Counsel)
For the Respondents: Mr. Parveen Chauhan, Advocate for Chandigarh Housing Board

Case Title: Kiran (Minor) v. Chandigarh Housing Board and Others
Neutral Citation: 2025: PHHC:168520-DB
Case Number: CWP-20837-2015 (O&M)
Bench: Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal, Justice Deepak Manchanda