JUDGMENT Mr. Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral):- This order will dispose of two writ petitions, i.e., Civil Writ Petitions No. 12070 and 16084, both of the year 2009, involving a common questions of law and facts. To dictate an order, facts are being mentioned from CWP No. 12070 of 2009. 2. Petitioner is a member of the Progressive Cooperative House Building (III) Society Ltd., Chandigarh. The land was allotted to the Society for construction of the residential houses by its members. As per the requirements, petitioner was found eligible and a plot was allotted to him by the Society on March 28, 1985. The petitioner paid the entire price for the said plot and also raised construction of a residential house thereon after getting necessary permission from the competent authority. Occupation certificate was also issued to the petitioner on December 6, 1991. 3. On March 12, 1999, after 14 years of the date of allotment of a plot, a show cause notice, issued by respondent No. 2, was received by the petitioner calling upon him to show as to why allotment of the plot be not cancelled. The said notice is stated to have been issued on the basis of an enquiry, which was conducted at the back of the petitioner. It was an allegation against him that he had filed a false affidavit on 8-6- 1983, stating therein that neither he nor any of his family members own a house/ plot in U.T. Chandigarh, Mohali or Panchakula. It was noticed by the authorities that a house was allotted to his wife at a reserve price on September 26, 1983. 4. Petitioner appeared before the competent officer and stated that the eligibility has to be seen on the date when the applications were invited and an affidavit was filed. Any subsequent event cannot be taken into consideration to declare the petitioner ineligible, to get a plot. However, respondent No. 2 did not agree with the petitioner and cancelled his allotment vide order dated October 15, 2001. Petitioner went in appeal, which was partly accepted vide order dated April 10, 2003 and the matter was remitted back to respondent No. 2 to decide it afresh. The matter was again taken up by respondent No. 2 and vide an order dated January 12, 2005, claim of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner again went in appeal, which was dismissed on September 26, 2007. The matter was again taken up by respondent No. 2 and vide an order dated January 12, 2005, claim of the petitioner was rejected. The petitioner again went in appeal, which was dismissed on September 26, 2007. His revision and review application were also dismissed on August 27, 2008 and November 5, 2008, respectively. Hence this writ petition. 5. When notice of motion was issued, following contention of counsel for the petitioner was noticed by this Court on August 11, 2009: “Vide order dated January 12, 2005 (P-8), plot allotted to the petitioner was cancelled on the ground that before allotment in the year 1985, his wife had acquired a property in Chandigarh on September 26, 1983. It is contention of counsel for the petitioner that eligibility for allotment of plot was to be seen on March 31, 1980 or at the maximum when affidavit was filed by the petitioner on June 8, 1983. To support his contention, reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in Chandigarh Housing Board v. Davender Singh, 2007(2) R.C.R. (Civil) 640. Notice of motion for October 27, 2009. Dispossession of the petitioner shall remain stayed till further orders.” 6. In response to notice issued by this Court, reply has been filed. Para No. 3 of the reply, filed at the instance of respondents No. 1 to 3, reads thus: “That contents of para No. 3 of the writ petition are admitted. However, at this stage, it is submitted that the petitioner had submitted an affidavit through his Society on 8.6.1983 to the effect that he or his dependent family member did not own or possess any other residential allotment of a house in Chandigarh, Mohali or Panchkula. As a matter of fact, wife of the petitioner had been allotted a house at reserve price on 15.9.1983.” 7. Besides, as above, there is no other allegation against the petitioner. A similar matter came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Housing Board v. Devinder Singh and another, (2007(2) RCR (Civil) 640), after noting the relevant provisions, it was opined that the eligibility is to be seen at the relevant date. A portion of the judgment reads thus: “26. A similar matter came up for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Chandigarh Housing Board v. Devinder Singh and another, (2007(2) RCR (Civil) 640), after noting the relevant provisions, it was opined that the eligibility is to be seen at the relevant date. A portion of the judgment reads thus: “26. We will assume that the Scheme framed by the `AWHO’ was to obtain lands either through its own efforts or from the Government or Semi-Government organisations so as to enable it to construct houses for the retired army personnel. The declaration, however, which is required to be given by a Member of the Society must be held to have application which the Scheme seeks to achieve. It applies only when the conditions to allotment are required to be complied with. It does not prohibit any future acquisition. If any declaration is made, which may subsequently be found to be false, the Society may or may not proceed against the allottee. If it does, it again must be confined only to a situation arising within the four corners of the said Scheme.” 8. In the judgment, it is stated that eligibility of an individual to get a plot has nothing to do so far as future acquisitions are concerned. 9. In view of above, we allow these writ petitions and quash the impugned orders cancelling allotment of a plot to the petitioners. --------------