{"id":152431,"date":"2000-07-13T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2000-07-12T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000"},"modified":"2017-03-13T02:03:26","modified_gmt":"2017-03-12T20:33:26","slug":"chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000","title":{"rendered":"Chandigarh Housing Board &amp; Anr vs Narinder Kaur Makol on 13 July, 2000"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Chandigarh Housing Board &amp; Anr vs Narinder Kaur Makol on 13 July, 2000<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, J., D.P. Mohapatra, J.<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nCHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD &amp; ANR\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nNARINDER KAUR MAKOL\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t13\/07\/2000\n\nBENCH:\nM. Jagannadha Rao, J. &amp; D.P. Mohapatra, J.\n\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>Leave granted.\n<\/p>\n<p>L&#8230;.I&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J<\/p>\n<p>     This  appeal  is  preferred by the\t Chandigarh  Housing<br \/>\nBoard against the judgmenr of the National Consumer DIsputes<br \/>\nRedressal  Commission, New Delhi in R.P.  No.  1469 of\t1997<br \/>\ndated 29.4.1999.\n<\/p>\n<p>     A\tcommercial  plot was allotted to the husband of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent on 4.4.1979 by the Notified Area Committee, Union<br \/>\nTerritory  of  Chandigarh, on free hold basis in  the  Motor<br \/>\nMarket\t and  Commercial  Complex  at  Mainmajra,   by\t the<br \/>\nappellant.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Para  8 (a) of the said allotment order stated that the<br \/>\nallottee  should complete the building in according with the<br \/>\nsanctioned  plan  which\t shall be according to\tthe  control<br \/>\nsheets\tprepared by the Chief Architect and Secretary of the<br \/>\nBoard.\t Thereafter,  the Administrator issued a  letter  on<br \/>\n9.7.1993  to  the  respondent&#8217;s husband that  the  procedure<br \/>\nrelating  to preparation of Architectural Control sheets for<br \/>\nShop-Flats  are applicable for Motor shops also and that  in<br \/>\nthese  cases  the  said procedure of  architectural  Control<br \/>\npermits\t the  construction of shops on the ground floor\t and<br \/>\nflats  on  the first and second floor.\tOn the basis of\t the<br \/>\nabove  said  order, the respondent&#8217;s husband  submitted\t the<br \/>\nPlan to the Architect for construction of a around floor for<br \/>\ncommercial purposes and for construction of first and second<br \/>\nfloor\tresidential  flats.   A\t  Deed\tof  Convenvance\t was<br \/>\nthereafter   executed  by  the\tBoard\tin  favour  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s  husband,\ton 30th September, 1981.  Para 4  of<br \/>\nthe  said convenyance also stated that the transferee should<br \/>\ncomplete the said building in accordance with the sanctioned<br \/>\nPlan  which  should  be\t according  to\tthe  Control  Sheets<br \/>\nprepared by the Chief Architect and the Secretary.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On\t the  basis  of the above Plan, the husband  of\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  got\t constructed a building in which the  ground<br \/>\nfloor  was being used for commercial purposes and the  first<br \/>\nand second floor for residential purposes.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Subsequently,  the respondent (i.e.  wife of the  above<br \/>\nallottee)   filed   an\tapplication   for  allotmenr  of   a<br \/>\nresidential  plot  and\tshe filed declaration by way  of  an<br \/>\naffidavit  that neither she, nor her husband nor any of\t her<br \/>\ndependent  relations including any married childern own\t any<br \/>\nfree   hold  or\t leasehold  or\t on  hire  purchase   basis,<br \/>\nresidential  plot  or  house  in   the\tUnion  Territory  of<br \/>\nChandigarh  or\tin  any of the Urban Estates  of  Mohali  or<br \/>\nPanchkula.  She had to file such an affidavit in view of the<br \/>\nconditions  of eligibility mentioned in Requlation 6 of\t the<br \/>\nChandigarh Housing Board (Allotment.  Management and Sale of<br \/>\nTenaments)  Regulations,  1979.\t The said  Regulations\twere<br \/>\nframed\tunder  Section 74 of the Haryana Housing Board\tAct.<br \/>\n1971, as extended to the Union Territory of Chandigarh.\t The<br \/>\nrelevant Regulation reads as follows:-\n<\/p>\n<p>     &#8220;Eligibility of Allotment:-\n<\/p>\n<p>     (i)  A dweiling unit or flat in the Housing Estates  of<br \/>\nthe  Board shall be allotted only to such person who or\t his<br \/>\nwife\/her  husband  or  any of  his\/her\tdependent  relations<br \/>\nincluding  unmarried  children does not own on\tfreehold  or<br \/>\nleasehold  or on hire purchase basis, a residential plot  or<br \/>\nhouse  in the Union Territory of Chandigarh or in any of the<br \/>\nUrban  Estates of Mohali on Panchkula, Similarly persons who<br \/>\nhave  acquired\ta house\/residential site anywhere  in  India<br \/>\nThrough\t\t\t\t  Govt.\/Semi-Govt.\/Municipal<br \/>\nCommittee\/Corporation\/Improvement Trust At CONCESSIONAL RATE<br \/>\nin  their  name\t or in the name of any dependent  member  of<br \/>\ntheir  family will not be eligible to apply to the Board for<br \/>\nallotment of a dwelling unit, or flat.\tSubject to the above<br \/>\nprovision,  the\t applicant  should   have  been\t a  bonafide<br \/>\nresident  of  U.T.  of Chandigarh for a period of  at  least<br \/>\nthree years on the date of submitting the application.\n<\/p>\n<p>     (2)  The  applicant shall furnish an affidavit  in\t the<br \/>\nprescribed  form  with regard to his eligibility along\twith<br \/>\nthe  application.  In the event of the affidavit being found<br \/>\nfalse  at  any stage, the Board shall be entitied to  cancel<br \/>\nthe  registration or the allotment of dwelling unit or flat,<br \/>\nas  the\t case  may be, and to forfeit the  deposit  received<br \/>\nwiththe\t application and all the payments made to the  Board<br \/>\nthereafter.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     An\t allotment of a residential plot was made in  favour<br \/>\nof the respondent on the basis of the affidavit.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Lateron,  realising that the husband of the  respondent<br \/>\nwas  owing a residential flat, the authorities cancelled the<br \/>\nallotment  in favour of the respondent.\t This was done by an<br \/>\norder  dated  15.12.1993.  Aggrieved by the said order,\t the<br \/>\nappellant  moved  the District Consumer\t Disputes  Redressal<br \/>\nForum.\tUnion Territory at Chandigarh, in Complaint Case No.<br \/>\n1\/1996.\t  The  said forum allowed the application set  aside<br \/>\nthe order of cancellation dated 15.12.1993 and directed that<br \/>\nthe  respondent\t to be put in possession of the\t residential<br \/>\nplot allotted to her.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Aggrived  by the said order of the District Forum,\t the<br \/>\nappellant moved an appeal before the State Consumer Disputes<br \/>\nRedressal  Commission.\t Union Territory at  chandigarh,  in<br \/>\nappeal\t Case  No.   106\/97,  which   by  its  order   dated<br \/>\n11.11.1997,  confirmed\tthe  order of  the  District  Forum.<br \/>\nAggrived  by  the  said\t order, the  appellant\tpreferred  a<br \/>\nRevision  before  the National Consumer\t Disputes  Redressal<br \/>\nCommission,  New  Delhi.   As already stated,  the  National<br \/>\nCommission  dismissed  the  Revision  by  its  order   dated<br \/>\n29.4.1999.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t this  appeal,\tit is contended by Mr.\t B.   Datta,<br \/>\nlearned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Chandigarh<br \/>\nHousing Board that all the Tribunals below had gone wrong in<br \/>\ntheir  interpretation of Regulation 6(1) referred to  above.<br \/>\nLearned\t Senior counsel contended that it was an  undisputed<br \/>\nfact   that  on\t the  commercial   plot\t allotted   to\t the<br \/>\nrespondent&#8217;s  husband,\tadmittedly a residential  flat\thadd<br \/>\nbeen  constructed in the second and third floors, while\t the<br \/>\nground\tfloow  was  being   used  for  commercial  purposes.<br \/>\nLearned\t Senior\t counsel  contended  that  for\tincurring  a<br \/>\ndisqualification under Regulation 6(1), it was not necessary<br \/>\nthat  the entire building owned by respondent&#8217;s husband must<br \/>\nbe  one exclusively used for residential purposes.  Even  if<br \/>\nthe  ground floor was used for commercial purposes and there<br \/>\nwas  a residential flat in the second and third floors,\t the<br \/>\nsaid  ownership of a flat in the said floors on the part  of<br \/>\nthe  husband  of  the  respondent   would  be  a  ground  to<br \/>\ndisqualify  the\t respondent (wife of the original  allottee)<br \/>\nfrom  seeking any allotment of another plot for\t residential<br \/>\npurposes.\n<\/p>\n<p>     On\t a  reading  of the Regulation No.   6\treferred  to<br \/>\nabove,\tit is clear that the eligibility of the other spouse<br \/>\nis to be decided on the basis as to whether the other spouse<br \/>\nor  their dependents do not own a residential plot or  house<br \/>\nin the U.T.  of Chandigarh or in any of the Urban Estates of<br \/>\nMohali\tor Panchkula.  Therefore, in the present case, while<br \/>\nconsidering the question of eligibility of the respondent we<br \/>\nhave  to  see whether her husband owned an original plot  or<br \/>\nhouse  in the U.T.  of Chandigarh or in the Urban Estate  of<br \/>\nMohli or Panchkula, for residential purposes.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In our opinion, in view of the admitted fact that there<br \/>\nis  a residential flat in the second and third floors of the<br \/>\nground\tfloor  commercial plot, it must necessarily be\theld<br \/>\nthat  the husband of the respondent owned a residentil house<br \/>\nwithin\tthe  territory\tin question and that  therefore\t the<br \/>\nrespondent  (wife of the first allottee) is not eligible for<br \/>\nallotment   of\tanother\t residential   plot  from  the\tsaid<br \/>\nauthority.  It must be realised tht these plots are allotted<br \/>\non  concessional  basis\t to  the  allottees  by\t the  public<br \/>\nauthority  and\tthe relevant Regulations must  therefore  be<br \/>\ninterpreted  in such a manner to save their real purpose  so<br \/>\nthat  the  plots are available, as far as possible,  to\t the<br \/>\nlargest\t number\t of  persons, and for  preventing  the\tsame<br \/>\nfamily\tmembers\t husband or wife or dependents, as the\tcase<br \/>\nmay  be,  from getting more than one plot or house, for\t the<br \/>\nsame   purpose.\t  We  are  of\tthe  view  that\t the   words<br \/>\n&#8216;residential  house&#8217;  in Regulation 6(1) must be treated  as<br \/>\nincluding  flat constructed above the commercial flat on the<br \/>\nground\tfloor.\tThis will be so even if originally the\tplot<br \/>\nwas  allotted  for  commercial\t purpose.   If\tincidentaily<br \/>\nconstruction  of  residential  flat above the  ground  floor<br \/>\ncommercial  plot  is permitted as per the plans.   In  other<br \/>\nwords,\teven  though  the plot is allotted as  a  commercial<br \/>\nplot, if it is permissible to build a residential flat above<br \/>\nthe  commercial\t plot,\tand is so constructed, then  such  a<br \/>\nresidential  flat  will\t come\twithin\tthe  prohibition  in<br \/>\nRegulation 6(1).\n<\/p>\n<p>     We,  are  therefore, of the view that  the\t declaration<br \/>\nmade  by  the  respondent  that her husband did\t not  own  a<br \/>\nresidential  house  was not correct.  It may be\t a  bonafide<br \/>\nstatement by her, but it does not in our opinion reflect the<br \/>\nfacts  correctly.   THe\t cancellation of  the  allotment  in<br \/>\nfavour\tof  the respondent by the authorities on  15.12.1994<br \/>\nwas therefore, justified.\n<\/p>\n<p>     For  the  aforesaid  reasons, we set aside\t the  orders<br \/>\npassed\tby  the District Form, the State Commission and\t the<br \/>\nNational  Commission and uphold the order of cancellation of<br \/>\nallotment.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In\t view  of  the fact that the statement made  by\t the<br \/>\nrespondent in her affidavit is bonafide, it is contended for<br \/>\nthe  respondent\t that  the  amount of deposit  made  by\t the<br \/>\nrespondent should be refunded to her.\n<\/p>\n<p>     But,  learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the<br \/>\nappellant  contends  that  the relevant\t Regulation  permits<br \/>\nforfeither  of the deposit amount.  On the peculier facts of<br \/>\nthe  case, we are permitting the respondent to get back\t the<br \/>\namount deposited by her but without interest.  This will not<br \/>\nbe treated as a precedent in any other case.\n<\/p>\n<p>     For  the  reasons stated above, the appeal is  allowed,<br \/>\nsubject\t to  the direction with regard to the refund of\t the<br \/>\namount as mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n<p>.UP 10 2; Fixed-pitch, printer 1; -n -ml4 -PA4 -dFX-NORMAL -Fx -e -j; dumbp<br \/>\nL&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;.R<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Chandigarh Housing Board &amp; Anr vs Narinder Kaur Makol on 13 July, 2000 Bench: M. Jagannadha Rao, J., D.P. Mohapatra, J. PETITIONER: CHANDIGARH HOUSING BOARD &amp; ANR Vs. RESPONDENT: NARINDER KAUR MAKOL DATE OF JUDGMENT: 13\/07\/2000 BENCH: M. Jagannadha Rao, J. &amp; D.P. Mohapatra, J. JUDGMENT: Leave granted. L&#8230;.I&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T&#8230;&#8230;.T..J This appeal [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-152431","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.0 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Chandigarh Housing Board &amp; Anr vs Narinder Kaur Makol on 13 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chandigarh Housing Board &amp; Anr vs Narinder Kaur Makol on 13 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2000-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2017-03-12T20:33:26+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chandigarh Housing Board &amp; Anr vs Narinder Kaur Makol on 13 July, 2000\",\"datePublished\":\"2000-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-12T20:33:26+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000\"},\"wordCount\":1638,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000\",\"name\":\"Chandigarh Housing Board &amp; Anr vs Narinder Kaur Makol on 13 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2000-07-12T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2017-03-12T20:33:26+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chandigarh Housing Board &amp; Anr vs Narinder Kaur Makol on 13 July, 2000\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chandigarh Housing Board &amp; Anr vs Narinder Kaur Makol on 13 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chandigarh Housing Board &amp; Anr vs Narinder Kaur Makol on 13 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2000-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2017-03-12T20:33:26+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chandigarh Housing Board &amp; Anr vs Narinder Kaur Makol on 13 July, 2000","datePublished":"2000-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-12T20:33:26+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000"},"wordCount":1638,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000","name":"Chandigarh Housing Board &amp; Anr vs Narinder Kaur Makol on 13 July, 2000 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2000-07-12T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2017-03-12T20:33:26+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chandigarh-housing-board-anr-vs-narinder-kaur-makol-on-13-july-2000#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chandigarh Housing Board &amp; Anr vs Narinder Kaur Makol on 13 July, 2000"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152431","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=152431"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/152431\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=152431"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=152431"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=152431"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}