Ram Adhar vs Union Territory Administration and Others

Mahavir S. Chauhan, J.—Chandigarh, ""The City Beautiful"", was conceived and developed as a planned city by Le Corbusier, the legendary

architect. However, as the city grew over the years, there came up large number of slums in and around it. Thus, the city witnessed growth of a

number of colonies of such slums where construction was raised unauthorizedly and in haphazard manner. Chandigarh Administration, respondent

No. 1, keeping in view the guiding principles of a welfare State as the Republic of India is, conceived a plan to rid the city of such unplanned and

haphazard colonies and at the same time to provide for rehabilitation of the inhabitants of such colonies in the event of the colonies being removed.

To translate this plan into reality, the 1st respondent got a bio-metric survey conducted so as to identify the encroachments and to assess the

requirements of a total area of land etc. to accommodate the persons to be rehabilitated in consequence of removal of the colonies. Survey was

conducted in the month of March, 2006 and 18 colonies were identified where there were encroachments over public land and the habitation had

come up in an unplanned and haphazard manner. Clearance of these slums was bound to visit many with unenviable circumstances in the form of

displacement. Chandigarh Administration, with a view to rehabilitate such persons, floated a scheme, namely, ""Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme

2006"" (hereinafter referred to as ''the Scheme''). Clauses 2 and 6 of the Scheme reads as under:-

The Chandigarh Administration after conducting a Biometric survey in March 2006 has identified 18 colonies where unplanned habitations have

encroached upon public land. Only those included in the bio-metric survey will be eligible for license fee based accommodation under this Scheme.

D. Eligibility and mode of allotment:-

6 (a) with respect of every block of a notified colony selected for clearance, allotment of a flat shall be made as under:-

i) All persons whose name appear in the Bio-Metric Survey and voter list as on 01.01.2006. The name of the person should also appear in the

latest voter list of the year in which allotment is to be made and as amended in the year 2009 in which allotment is to be made.

Provided that any person whose name appeared in Bio-Metric Survey but does not appear in the voter list as on 01.01.2006 shall also be eligible

for allotment of flat under the scheme if his name appears in the voter list as on 01.01.2004, 01.01.2005 and 01.01.2007 or 01.01.2008.

ii) A person who owns more than one habitations in any of the notified colonies in his own name or in the name of any dependent member of his

family shall be entitled to the allotment of only one flat under this scheme.

iii) A family unit shall be entitled to one flat, provided it fulfills all the conditions under this scheme.

b) All allotment of flats under this scheme will be on monthly license fee basis consisting of One room flat in a multi story building.

From a reading of the above cited clauses of the Scheme, it is manifestly clear that under the Scheme only those persons were eligible for allotment

of flats whose names appeared in the bio-metric survey report and in the voters list as on 01.01.2006, as also in the latest voters list of the year in

which the allotments were to be made. The Scheme also provided that those persons, whose names did not appear in the voters list as on

01.01.2006 but did appear in the voters list as on 01.01.2004, 01.01.2005, 01.01.2007 or 01.01.2008 were also eligible for such allotments.

When process of such allotments was in progress, petitioner Ram Adhar made representations dated 04.10.2010, 06.10.2010, 20.10.2010

and 16.11.2010 before the authorities of Chandigarh Administration alleging therein that he is named Ram Adhar son of Ram Bali, resident of

Jhuggi No. 1073/2, Labour Colony No. 5, Block-K, U.T., Chandigarh, and had been residing on this address since the year 1991 and was

registered as a voter vide voter identity card No. CH/01/000/395/11-82603 but in the bio-metric survey his name was inadvertently mentioned as

Ram Morya instead of Ram Adhar. On that account, he claimed allotment of flat/tenement under the Scheme in lieu of his jhuggi referred to above.

On his representations Secretary, Chandigarh Housing Board, Chandigarh, vide letter dated 04.03.2011 (Annexure P-2), asked the Estate

Officer, U.T., Chandigarh, to take necessary action in the matter. When nothing happened in the matter, petitioner served a notice of demand of

justice dated 12.07.2011 (Annexure P-3) upon the respondents. However, even the notice dated 12.07.2011 (Annexure P-3) remained un-

answered and faced with the situation, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition with a prayer for issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the

respondents to rectify the error committed by the staff conducting bio-metric survey and to allow the petitioner the benefit of re-settlement under

the Scheme.

Respondents have filed written statements wherein claim of the petitioner has been said to be untenable and it has been pointed out that the

particulars of the petitioner do not tally with the particulars of the person whose name has come on record in the bio-metric survey as a resident of

House No. 1073/2, Colony No. 5, Chandigarh, which the petitioner claims to be his residence.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record very minutely.

It is argued on behalf of the petitioner that Ram Adhar and Ram Morya is one and the same person and name of the petitioner was wrongly

recorded as Ram Morya in the bio-metric survey and that being so, the petitioner is entitled to allotment of flat/tenement under the Scheme.

However, a perusal of the records shows that the petitioner is not entitled to such allotment.

Respondent Nos. 1 and 3 have placed on record affidavit of Shri Rahul Gupta, PCS, Assistant Estate Officer, exercising the powers of the

Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh. It has been stated in the affidavit that the petitioner submitted an application vide Form No. 20058 to dispute

correctness of bio-metric survey No. 8607 in the name of Ram Morya son of Shri Bali Morya, against Jhuggi No. 1073/2, Block K, Colony No.

5, Chandigarh. However, at the time of scrutiny, the bio-metric survey No. 8607 was found to exist in the name of Ram Morya son of Bali Morya

against the aforesaid jhuggi and that at the time of bio-metric survey the petitioner produced his voter identity card bearing No.

CH/01/000/507/1518302. When the voter identity card was verified from the Election Department, an authenticated verified miniature sheet from

Card No. 1518297 to 1518336 was supplied by the Election Department, according to which name of Ram Adhar son of Ram Bali was not

registered against Jhuggi No. 1073/2, Block K, Colony No. 5, U.T. Chandigarh, as an elector in the Electoral Rolls from the years 2004 to 2009

rather name of one Sheela daughter of Kartar Chand resident of House No. 1182, Village Burail, stands enrolled against vote number 806 of

Booth No. 395 and the name of one Smt. Komal daughter of Rakesh Sethi, resident of House No. 3223, Sector 46C, Chandigarh, finds

mentioned there against vote number 779 of Booth No. 302 in the year 2009. Even the voter identity card No. CH/01/000/507/1518302 which

had been issued to Ram Morya C/o Bali Morya, House No. 1073/2, Block K, Labour Colony No. 5, Chandigarh, on the basis of Photo Electoral

Rolls-1999, published on 21.07.1999. It may be added here that petitioner has filed a counter affidavit to the affidavit of Shri Rahul Gupta,

Assistant Estate Officer, Chandigarh and has reiterated therein that he was enlisted as a voter against vote No. 806, Booth No. 395 in the year

2004 and against vote No. 779, Booth No. 302 in the year 2009.

From the response received from the Election Department, which is appended with the affidavit of Shri Rahul Gupta, Assistant Estate Officer,

Chandigarh, as Annexure R-1, it is clear that the petitioner is not the same person whose particulars appear in the bio-metric survey against No.

8607. It may be worthwhile to point out here that the respondents have also appended photocopy of form which was filled in at the time of bio-

metric survey, by one Ram Morya son of Bali Morya, aged 44 years, resident of House No. 1073, Labour Colony No. 5, Chandigarh. The

petitioner has given his particulars in the instant writ petition as Ram Adhar son of Ram Bali, resident of Jhuggi No. 1073/2, Labour Colony No. 5,

Block K, U.T., Chandigarh. Similar particulars are found to have been given by the petitioner in his representation dated 06.10.2010 (Annexure

P-1), therefore, Ram Morya son of Bali Morya and Ram Adhar son of Ram Bali (the petitioner) are two different persons with different identities.

In the consequence, we hold that the petitioner is not the same person, who filled in the form against bio-metric survey No. 8607 and, as such, is

not entitled to allotment of a flat/tenement under the Scheme. The petition, therefore, fails and is dismissed. However, in the facts and

circumstances of the case, the parties are left to bear their own costs.