LegalFirms.in
LegalFirms.in Judgments · legalfirms.in/judgments/chandigarh-housing-board-vs-tarsem-lal-20240207/ · Printed 07 Nov 2026
Civil · Reportable judgment

Chandigarh Housing Board vs Tarsem Lal

Court
Supreme Court of India
Date
7 February 2024
Case No.
Civil Appeal No. 1788 of 2024
Bench
B.V. Nagarathna
Citation
[2024] 2 S.C.R. 371 : 2024 INSC 119
Acts & Sections
Constitution Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966 Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment…
Supreme Court Reports [2024] 2 S.C.R. 371 : 2024 INSC 119
Issue for consideration
Whether a notification issued by the appellant-Chandigarh Housing Board calling for applications from both Schedule Castes and Scheduled Tribes confer any benefit on the respondent (who belonged to the Schedule Tribes community as recognised in the State of Rajasthan and was living in Chandigarh for twenty years) when there is no Presidential Order u/Art. 342 of the Constitution of India issued with regard to Scheduled Tribes insofar as Union Territory of Chandigarh is concerned.
Headnote

Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979 – Reservation – Allotment of houses – Exclusively for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes – The respondent herein had sought for allotment of HIG house reserved for Scheduled Tribes category in terms of the advertisement issued by the appellant-Chandigarh Housing Board; that being aggrieved by non-allotment of a house, a suit was filed by the respondent – The suit was decreed by the Trial Court and judgment and decree was affirmed by the First Appellate Court as well as in the second appeal by the High Court – Propriety:

Held: The Presidential notification of a tribe or tribal community as a Scheduled Tribe by the President of India u/Art. 342 is a sine qua non for extending any benefits to the said community in any State or U.T. – This implies that a person belonging to a group that is recognized as a Scheduled Tribe in a State would be recognized a Scheduled Tribe only within the said State and not in a U.T. where he migrates if no such Presidential notification exists in the said U.T. – In the instant case, merely because the appellant herein had issued a Notification calling for applications from both Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes did not confer any benefit by that Notification on the respondent herein when there is no Presidential Order u/Art. 342 of the Constitution of India issued with regard to Scheduled Tribes insofar as Union Territory of Chandigarh is concerned – The said basic foundational fact goes against the respondent herein and the invitation given by the appellant/Housing Board to Scheduled Tribes was in fact contrary to the said basic tenets as well as the prevalent law and by that reason, the respondent herein cannot also seek any estoppel as against the appellant herein – The impugned judgment of the High Court affirming the judgment of the First Appellate Court, which in turn affirms the judgment of the Trial Court are all liable to be set aside. [Paras 26, 31]

Keywords: Advertisement for dwelling units · Reservation · Allotment of houses exclusively for Schedule Castes and Schedule Tribes · Presidential Order u/Art. 342 · Presidential notification of a tribe or tribal community · Recognition of Scheduled Tribe in a State · Migration of Schedule Tribe person to another State or Union Territory · Claim of Schedule Tribe status in another State or Union Territory

As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.

Full Judgment Text

Judgment Leave granted. 2. Being aggrieved by judgment dated 10.08.2018 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh, the appellant/Chandigarh Housing Board has preferred this appeal. 3. Briefly stated, the facts pertinent to the adjudication of the present appeal are that the appellant herein, vide advertisement dated 28.06.1983, had called for applications for allotment of houses exclusively for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and a total of 35 houses in the HIG (Upper) and HIG (Lower) categories were reserved for that purpose. This advertisement was issued pursuant
Full text available to subscribers
Subscribe to access complete judgment text, daily digests, and AI-powered legal research tools. For informational and research purposes only.
View Subscription Plans →
Annual plans from ₹1,599 + GST.

This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.

All SC judgments →