High Court issues notice to UT, CHB

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, November 18

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has issued a notice of motion to the UT Administration and the Chandigarh Housing Board (CHB) on a petition seeking the quashing of a circular on a complete ban on the transfer of immovable properties by way of special power of attorney, general power of attorney and will.

The notice by the Bench of Justice Daya Chaudhary and Justice Sudhir Mittal came on a petition filed by a woman not provided an application form for the transfer of a house she purchased. In her case, the original allottee had executed a sale agreement and also issued in her favour a GPA duly registered before a Sub-Registrar.

The original allottee also executed a registered will dated June 20, 2000, in favour of the petitioner. An indemnity bond in respect of the house, too, was executed by the original allottee in her favour.

The petitioner, Kamlesh Sharma, through counsel AS Nabhewala, submitted that the original allottee sold a dwelling unit in the Modern Residential Complex to the petitioner after acceptance of full and final consideration.

Nabhewala added the board on August 13, 2015, allowed one-time transfer of dwelling units under different polices like spouse/blood relation policy/GPA transfer policy and mutual transfer policy, transfer on the basis of registered will/ unregistered will and intestate demise, etc However, subsequently the Chandigarh Administration, on December 19, 2017, issued the impugned circular.

Nabhewala added the petitioner went to the housing board office to collect the application form for the transfer of the house, but officials refused to entertain her request. Rather, the application form was not given to her and it was intimated that “there was a total ban on the transfer policy in view of the circular/order”. As such nothing could be done.

Nabhewala submitted that the circular, dated December 19, 2017, and the subsequent circular/order, dated January 10, 2018, was issued in pursuance of the directions of the Supreme Court in the case of Suraj Lamp Industries Private Limited versus state of Haryana and another.

The petitioner submitted that the judgment was delivered on October 11, 2011, and it was clearly mentioned that “SPA/GPA/will transactions” were not intended to apply to “such bona fide genuine transactions”. The judgment was also prospective in nature.