IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 16480 of 2008. Date of Decision: 3rd February, 2009. Pawan Kumar Petitioner through Mr. Ashok Sehgal, Advocate Versus Chandigarh Administration & Ors. Respondent through Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 24.10.2007 and 8.8.2008 [Annexures P-5 and P-12 respectively] and seeks a direction to transfer House No. 2569, Sector 38-C, Chandigarh in his favour. The aforementioned house was allotted to one Dev Murti son of Shri Sowatma Ram on lease-hold basis by the Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh. The original allottee unfortunately expired on 4.1.1980. According to the petitioner, after the death of Dev Murti, the house was inherited by his wife – Smt. Maya Devi, who is claimed to have executed a registered will in favour of the petitioner in respect of the allotted tenement. The petitioner claims that late Shri Dev Murti was his maternal grand-father and during his life time had adopted the petitioner as his son. Suffice it to say that the petitioner could not produce cogent and convincing evidence before the authorities to prove that he is the grand child of late Shri Dev Murti or that he was adopted by the latter during his life time. In the absence of such an evidence, the respondents have cancelled the allotment vide the impugned orders. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and keeping in view the stand taken by the petitioner, especially his plea that he is ready and willing to apply and obtain probate also, I am of the considered view that the petitioner deserves to be granted one more opportunity to conclusively prove that he is the grand child of late Shri Dev Murti and/or that there is a validly executed Will in his favour, in terms whereof he is entitled to inherit the properties of Shri Dev Murti or Smt. Maya Devi to the exclusion of other legal heirs of Dev Murti. Consequently, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned orders are set aside and the Estate Officer, UT, Chandigarh is directed to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to produce the material to show that he is entitled to inherit the estate of late Shri Dev Murti. Suffice it to say that the Estate Officer shall also consider the claim of Smt. Maya Devi's daughters/other legal heirs, if they come forward to stake such claim. The other legal heirs can be asked to come forward and take a stand regarding the claim of the petitioner. It is further made clear that the petitioner shall not be granted more than two opportunities to produce the entire material in support of his claim and the matter shall be decided afresh as early as possible but not later than three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. February 3, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE