RAM AVTAR Vs. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A writ of certiorari is prayed for to quash the order dated 20.09.2006 (Annexure P18), rendered by the Estate Officer (respondent No. 3), vide which the petitioner was held ineligible for allotment of a residential plot; orders dated 26.05.2010 (Annexure P21) and 07.05.2012 (Annexure P23) whereby the appeal as also the revision petition preferred by the petitioner against the order (Annexure P18), declining his claim, were also dismissed. Further, a direction is prayed to the respondents to issue a letter of allotment qua the site in question to the petitioner.

(2.) A brief narration of facts that have led the parties to the current stage would be expedient. A model housing scheme for allotment of residential sites was floated by the Chandigarh Administration in the year 1971 -72, for people who belonged to lower income group. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted an application for allotment of a residential site, admeasuring 5 marlas, on 12.01.1972 (Annexure P2). However, he remained unsuccessful in the draw of lots on two successive occasions i.e. in the year 1972 and thereafter in 1975. The scheme was disbanded in the year 1976 -77. For, the Administration revived the scheme in the year 1979, the petitioner was informed to convey his acceptance, if he was still willing for an allotment, but at a current price i.e. @ Rs. 110/ - per sq. yard, which he did by furnishing an affidavit dated 10.12.1979. Later, the Estate Officer vide letter dated 28.08.1981, asked the petitioner to submit an affidavit in the prescribed format and deposit a sum of Rs. 1,395/ - by way of demand draft. However, the said letter was received by Rama Devi, who too was residing in the same house and was closely related to the petitioner. Petitioner and Rama Devi's husband was also named Ram Avtar who was suffering from a mental disorder and undergoing medical treatment. Rama Devi, under an impression that her husband might have applied for allotment in the year 1972, when he was still normal, in response to the letter dated 28.08.1981, appeared before the authorities. She apprised the respondents of the mental state of her husband, and was permitted to deposit the requisite amount for inclusion of her husband's name in the draw that was held on 15.10.1981. For, he was found successful, a plot measuring 5 marlas, bearing No. 3028 in Sector 40D, Chandigarh was allotted in his name. Subsequently, Rama Devi appeared before respondent No. 3 on 30.04.1982, and as required by the authorities, submitted an affidavit of her husband, wherein he was stated to be son of Onkar Mal. And, the said affidavit was found to be at variance with original application submitted by the petitioner, wherein he was purported to be son of Mam Raj. Authorities, being suspicious of the claim and credentials of Rama Devi, vide order dated 20.07.1988, and 16.08.1989, rejected the claim of Ram Avtar for allotment. The order of cancellation of allotment was assailed by the petitioner and vide order dated 31.01.1995 (Annexure P4), the appellate authority allowed the appeal and set aside the said order. The matter was remitted to the Estate Officer. However, again the petitioner was held to be ineligible for allotment under the scheme and his claim was rejected by the Estate Officer vide order dated 16.08.1995 (Annexure P5). And, once again, the appellate authority vide its order dated 20.03.1998 (Annexure P6), set aside the said order and the matter was remanded to the Estate Officer. The Estate Officer summoned the necessary parties. Rama Devi furnished an affidavit dated 21.07.1999 (Annexure P7) and gave up her claim for allotment in favour of the petitioner. Resultantly, the Estate Officer, vide order dated 27.10.1999 (Annexure P8) accepted his claim. However, for a new Officer joined as Assistant Estate Officer, he vide order dated 21.06.2002 (Annexure P10), again rejected the claim of the petitioner, and ordered refund of the amount that was lying with the Administration to Rama Devi. Once again, in an appeal filed by the petitioner, the said order was set aside by the appellate authority, vide order dated 26.12.2002 (Annexure P11). It was observed that once, vide order dated 27.10.1999, the claim of the petitioner was accepted and the said order was still in existence, it was not open to the Estate Officer to pass yet another order. Therefore, it was concluded that the order dated 27.10.1999 still stands. But, despite that being so, petitioner was not issued the letter of allotment. Rather, respondents now raked up a dispute qua his identity and he was asked to furnish various documents. In compliance, petitioner furnished his Voter ID card, ration card and driving licence etc. So much so, he also furnished an affidavit dated 12.04.2006 (Annexure P17), executed by his Advocate, vide which he identified the petitioner as Ram Avtar son of Mam Raj and affirmed that he knew him since 1982. As if this was not enough, respondent No. 3 again, despite orders dated 27.10.1999 (Annexure P8) and 26.12.2002 (Annexure P11), rendered by the appellate authority, once again rejected the claim of the petitioner vide order dated 20.09.2006 (Annexure P18). Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved an application before the District Consumer Forum -I, Chandigarh, which was dismissed on 19.03.2008. The appeal preferred against the said order was dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 01.05.2008 (Annexure P19), with liberty to the petitioner to pursue the remedy admissible in law. Faced with the situation, the petitioner assailed the order dated 20.09.2006 (Annexure P18) vide an appeal before the appellate authority, which was dismissed on 26.05.2010 (Annexure P21). The revision petition preferred against the said order was also dismissed by the Adviser to the Administrator (respondent No. 2), vide order dated 07.05.2012 (Annexure P23). That is how, as indicated above, the petitioner is before this court.

(3.) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that vide order dated 27.10.1999 (Annexure P8), claim of the petitioner was accepted, for he was found entitled to an allotment, and once the said order had become final, it was not open to the authorities to re -determine the eligibility of the petitioner and pass a fresh order. He submits that subsequent orders were clearly vitiated by the principle of res judicata. Further, he contends that name of the petitioner was included in the two successive draws, which is why his consent was sought to include his name in the subsequent draw held on 15.10.1981, which show that his eligibility was never an issue. In fact, he submits, that the authorities having found the petitioner eligible included his name in the draw, therefore, it was no longer open to the respondents to question his entitlement, once he had succeeded in the draw, for allotment of a site under the scheme. In so far as the identity of the petitioner, he contends that Voter ID card, ration card and driving licence conclusively proved that he happened to be the original applicant i.e. Ram Avtar son of Mam Raj.