Putting to rest controversy hovering around the entitlement of both husband and wife to allotment of separate residential sites, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that expression “applicant” included “spouse”.
The judgment is significant as it means term applicant would cover wife, even if the application for allotment is submitted by the husband alone and vice-versa. Either the husband, or the wife, can be allotted a dwelling unit and not both in terms of specific eligibility condition.
The ruling came in a case where the allotment to wife was cancelled as her husband too was an allottee. The court was told only husband, wife or dependent family members could be allotted a plot in a particular urban estate as per eligibility clause 11 of the brochure-cum-application form.
The Bench ruled: “We were only required to interpret clause 11… and as we have concluded, on its true and purposive construction, the expression `applicant’ would include and represent; his/her spouse, notwithstanding whether he/she is financially independent or not”.
The ruling by Acting Chief Justice Shiavax Jal Vazifdar and Justice Arun Palli came on a petition filed by Manju S. Gupta in 1998.
She was seeking the quashing of order dated August 17, 1992, passed by HUDA Estate Officer vide which residential site allotted to her was resumed.
The wife’s claim was that applicants not owning a residential house or plot in Gurgaon Urban Estate in his or her name, or in the name of their dependent family members, were eligible to apply. She and her husband were not financially dependent on the other; both were income tax assessee and running their separate businesses.
The Bench was told Haryana Urban Development Authority, in 1984, invited applications for allotment of residential sites in Sector 22, Gurgaon.
The petitioner and her husband had filed separate applications and were declared successful in the draw of lots. Later, the couple was asked to clarify their entitlement to retain separate plots. They were later told to surrender one of the plots.
Dismissing the plea, the Bench ruled: “Next to food and clothing, housing is the basic necessity of mankind….In wake of an ever widening gulf between rising population and depleting housing infrastructure stocks, we are impelled to construe clause 11 contextually. And, therefore, the expression applicant shall also include and represent a spouse for they are intertwined for the purposes of allotment of house sites.”
The judgment is significant as it means term applicant would cover wife, even if the application for allotment is submitted by the husband alone and vice-versa. Either the husband, or the wife, can be allotted a dwelling unit and not both in terms of specific eligibility condition.
The ruling came in a case where the allotment to wife was cancelled as her husband too was an allottee. The court was told only husband, wife or dependent family members could be allotted a plot in a particular urban estate as per eligibility clause 11 of the brochure-cum-application form.
The Bench ruled: “We were only required to interpret clause 11… and as we have concluded, on its true and purposive construction, the expression `applicant’ would include and represent; his/her spouse, notwithstanding whether he/she is financially independent or not”.
The ruling by Acting Chief Justice Shiavax Jal Vazifdar and Justice Arun Palli came on a petition filed by Manju S. Gupta in 1998.
She was seeking the quashing of order dated August 17, 1992, passed by HUDA Estate Officer vide which residential site allotted to her was resumed.
The wife’s claim was that applicants not owning a residential house or plot in Gurgaon Urban Estate in his or her name, or in the name of their dependent family members, were eligible to apply. She and her husband were not financially dependent on the other; both were income tax assessee and running their separate businesses.
The Bench was told Haryana Urban Development Authority, in 1984, invited applications for allotment of residential sites in Sector 22, Gurgaon.
The petitioner and her husband had filed separate applications and were declared successful in the draw of lots. Later, the couple was asked to clarify their entitlement to retain separate plots. They were later told to surrender one of the plots.
Dismissing the plea, the Bench ruled: “Next to food and clothing, housing is the basic necessity of mankind….In wake of an ever widening gulf between rising population and depleting housing infrastructure stocks, we are impelled to construe clause 11 contextually. And, therefore, the expression applicant shall also include and represent a spouse for they are intertwined for the purposes of allotment of house sites.”
Comments
Post a Comment