Civil Writ Petition No.1305 of 1992 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.1305 of 1992 Date of Decision:02.05.2011 Garja Singh ......Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Administration and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amar Vivek, Advocate, for the respondents. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) A residential-cum-milk dairy plot bearing No.770, situated in Milk Colony of village Dhanas, was allotted to the petitioner by the U.T., Administration, vide allotment letter dated 28.06.1976. The allotment was cancelled on account of some violations, by way of impugned order dated 12.05.1989(Annexure P-1). The appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the Appellate Authority, by virtue of impugned order dated 08.04.1991(Annexure P-2) and the revision petition filed by him was dismissed as well by the Revisional Authority, by means of impugned order dated 16.12.1991(Annexure P-3). The petitioner still did not feel satisfied and preferred the instant writ petition, challenging the impugned orders(Annexures P-1 to P-3), invoking the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. At the very outset, instead of arguing the matter on merits, learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the controversy involved in the instant writ petition is squarely covered and is liable to be disposed of in the same terms of the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court, rendered in Civil Writ Petition Civil Writ Petition No.1305 of 1992 2 No.9987 of 2004 titled as Sh.Ram Kumar Jain etc. Versus Chandigarh Administration etc. , decided on 05.10.2005, the operative part of which is, as under: “Keeping in view the overall interest of all the parties concerned, we are of the opinion that the matter can be remanded back to the highest authority, as a one time measure, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of these cases. Since, we are remanding the matter back to enable the highest authority to review all the cases, it would not be necessary to set aside the impugned orders. In case, the review applications of individual petitioners are accepted, undoubtedly, the impugned orders would be set aside by the highest authority. In case, the review application is dismissed in a particular matter, naturally, the impugned order will be maintained. It has been however, pointed out by Mr.Ram Saran Dass, learned counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, that eviction proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 are pending on the basis of the orders of resumption. The petitioners are at liberty to move an application for stay of the aforesaid proceedings by bringing to the notice of the Court of competent jurisdiction the orders passed by us today. With the above observations, the matter is remanded back to the highest authority. Let the exercise of review be completed within a period of three months. Needless to say that the petitioners will be heard before the orders are passed by the highest authority.” In this view of the matter and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, going through the record with their valuable help and after considering the entire matter deeply, the instant writ petition is accepted. The impugned orders (Annexures P-1 to P-3) are hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back for its fresh decision in the same terms of the judgment in Sh.Ram Kumar Jain's case (supra). May 02, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE Civil Writ Petition No.1305 of 1992 3 Civil Misc.No.5814 of 2011 in Civil Writ Petition No.1305 of 1992 Present: Mr.Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Amar Vivek, Advocate, for the respondents. **** Civil Misc. application is allowed as prayed for and the additional affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner, is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. May 02, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE