Sardar Mohan Singh v. State of Bihar — 1993 DIGILAW 248 (PAT)

JUDGMENT : R. N. Sahay, J. - This writ proceeding relates to three writ petitions involving common questions of law and fact and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. This litigation is in the nature of a triangular contest, the bone of contention being house no.114 at Lohianagar at Patna which has vexed this Court and the parties for more than a decade. The contestants are (1) Sardar Mohan Singh (C.W.J.C.) no.9200/1992) (2) Rajendra Sharma (C.W.J.C.) no.6195/1990) and (3) Sachindra Nath Dubey (C.W.J.C. no.9150/1991). 3. The precise questions for adjudication is as to which of the three contestants is legally entitled for allotment of the house in question. Sardar Mohan Singh, the petitioner in C.W.J.C. no. 9200 of 1992 had virtually succeeded in obtaining a favourable order from this Court in C.W.J.C. no.4228 of 1981 disposed of on 18.1.1982 but a casual remark made by this Court in C.W.J.C. no.2844 of 1982 disposed of on 3.3.1984 which extended the life of the litigation for another six years. 4. For the sake of convenience, I shall take up C.W.J.C. no. 392 of 1980 first because it was petitioner Mohan Singh who set the ball of litigation in motion by filing a writ petition which was disposed way back in the year 1980. 5. The petitioner Sardar Mohan Singh is a refugee from West Pakistan having migrated to Patna in the year 1947. The house in question had been allotted by the Housing Board to one Sardar Sukhdeo Singh Grewal on rental basis. The petitioner was inducted as a subtenant in 1969. In 1970 Grewal departed from Patna for good and the house remained in occupation of the petitioner. 6. On 8.12.1972 the Bihar State Housing Board (for the sake of brevity the "Board") invited applications through Newspaper advertisement (Annexure- 2) for registration for the purpose of allotment of houses constructed by the Board. The Board had taken a policy decision to settle the house occupied by subtenants. The Board asked the petitioner to supply certain informations. The petitioner complied with the direction (Annexure-4). 7. The Board vide resolution dated 28.11.1975 (Annexure-5) resolved to allot house No. 114 to the petitioner. The resolution, however, was not communicated to the petitioner. The Board had taken a policy decision to settle the house occupied by subtenants. The Board asked the petitioner to supply certain informations. The petitioner complied with the direction (Annexure-4). 7. The Board vide resolution dated 28.11.1975 (Annexure-5) resolved to allot house No. 114 to the petitioner. The resolution, however, was not communicated to the petitioner. The entire resolution of the Board adopted in the meeting on 27.11.1975 was forwarded to the State Government for its approval as prescribed by Section 11 (4) Bihar State Housing Board Ordinance. 8. The claim of the petitioner is based on the aforesaid resolution which has not been annulled by the State Government till date. 9. The petitioner vide Annexure-6 was directed to furnish necessary information in compliance of the resolution aforesaid. The petitioner complied with the direction on 26.12.1975. The petitioner, however, despite his earnest endeavour was not supplied with the prospectus for depositing earnest money till 1981. The petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C. no.4228/81 which was disposed of with a direction to the Board to supply prospectus to the petitioner to enable him to deposit the earnest money for allotment of the house. The Board was further directed by this Court to decide the matter of allotment within three months from the order which was passed on 18.1.1982. The petitioner was asked to give undertaking that he would vacate the house in the meantime. The order of this Court directing the petitioner to vacate the house had far reaching consequences which complicated the mailer as will appear from the facts to be stated hereafter in the judgment. 10. At this juncture, a significant development occurred. Although the Boaru had taken decision to allot the house to Mohan Singh, Rajendra Sharma (Petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.6195 of 1990) managed to get the house allotted to him, The Housing Board on 7.11.1981 cancelled the allotment of Sardar Mohan Singh and resolved to allot the house to Sharma by its resolution dated 7.11.1981. This allotment to Shama was made on the basis of a buffsheet order issued by the then Chief Minister. An agreement was also executed between Sharma and the Board within 10 days of the aforesaid resolution. The State Government, however, cancelled the resolution of the Board dated 7.11.1981 and thus the allotment of house in question in favour of Sharma was also cancelled. 11. An agreement was also executed between Sharma and the Board within 10 days of the aforesaid resolution. The State Government, however, cancelled the resolution of the Board dated 7.11.1981 and thus the allotment of house in question in favour of Sharma was also cancelled. 11. The petitioner filed a Second Writ petition (C.W.J.C.No. 2844 of 1982) for a mandamus to the Board to allot the house to him on the plea that despite deposit of earnest money in terms of the order passed in C.W.J.C.No. 4228 of 1981 the Board had not allotted, the house to him. 12. The writ application was disposed of on the following terms : "That the allotment has to be made according to the regulation, we think that the proper direction in this case would be to direct that the Board should first consider whether on the basis of the resolution of the Board dated 27/28th November, 1975 the petitioner is entitled to allotment of house No. 114 and further whether the petitioner had complied with the requirements of the resolution. On the decision in favour of the petitioner, this house will not be available for allotment in the general pool, If, however, the decision be adverse to the petitioner, his case for allotment, should be considered along with those of others in accordance with the regulation. In the result, this application, is accordingly disposed of, but without costs. Sd/- S. Sarwar Ali. Sd/-Syed Haider Shaukat Abidi. 13. Rajendra Sharma, in the meantime, filed C.W.J.C. No. 4096 of 1982 challenging the cancellation of his allotment on 16.1.1982. The aforesaid writ petition filed by Shri Sharma was dismissed by S. Ali and Abidi, JJ. on the ground that Shri Sharma was not entitled on the basis of the buffsheet order of the then Chief Minister. Shri Sharma moved before the Hon'ble the Supreme Court of India but failed to obtain Special Leave. 14. The Housing Board, thereafter resolved to allot the house to Mohan Singh and order for allotment was passed in the 89th meeting of the Board held on 22.4.1984. This decision was taken as per direction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2844 of 1982. The competent authority of the Board executed a registered agreement with Mohan Singh. The Board vide Annexure-11 dated 12.6.1984 directed Kankarbagh Authority to deliver possession of M.I.G .house to the petitioner. This decision was taken as per direction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.2844 of 1982. The competent authority of the Board executed a registered agreement with Mohan Singh. The Board vide Annexure-11 dated 12.6.1984 directed Kankarbagh Authority to deliver possession of M.I.G .house to the petitioner. On 13.6.1984 the competent authority directed Kankarhagh police to hand over the key of the house to the petitioner Sardar Mohan Singh. 15. Shri Sharma, prior to the aforesaid event had tiled C.W.J.C. No. 2641/84 challenging the allotment of house to Mohan Singh. Although the matter was set at rest up to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2844 of 1982, the said application of Shri Sharma was disposed of on the following terms: Respondent no.3 was allotted a house in pursuance of a decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2M4/82, disposed of on 3.3.1984. The order of allotment, therefore, so far as this court is concerned is unassailable. Nevertheless the State Govt. has the power to annul any resolution of the Housing Board, as stated by Mr. Ram Balak Mahto, learned Additional Advocate General. "The petitioner, may therefore, move the State Government so that the latter may act under the terms of section 23 of the Bihar State Housing Board (Management and Disposal of Housing Control) Act (sic) if it considers appropriate. "The application is dismissed with the above observations." 16. The court in no uncertain terms held that the allotment of house to Shri Mohan Singh was unassailable as it was made in pursuance of decision of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 2844/82. The order of the High Court presupposes that the allotll1ent was in accordance with law and hence unassailable. Shri Sharma, however, was given option to move the State Govt. under Section 23 of the Bihar Housing Board Act. The course of the litigation was altered because of the above remark which was nothing more them casual. 17. It is significant to mention here that Shri Sharma had also filed C.W.J.C.No.1916 of 1984 which was disposed of by the following orders : "Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this application the petitioner is trying to obtain the same relief as was denied to him in C.W.J.C. No. 4096 of 1982 on 3rd March 1984. 17. It is significant to mention here that Shri Sharma had also filed C.W.J.C.No.1916 of 1984 which was disposed of by the following orders : "Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this application the petitioner is trying to obtain the same relief as was denied to him in C.W.J.C. No. 4096 of 1982 on 3rd March 1984. The earlier writ application was dismissed for the reason that the petitioner not having prayed for cancellation of the relevant Government Notification, the application had no merit. It was dismissed also on the ground that the order of allotment to the petitioner was invalid act of the officers of the Board. The petitioner wants quashing of Annexure (1' and 2'). The petitioner is trying to obtain the same relief which can not be allowed as it is barred by the principle of constructive res-judicata. We find no merit in this application and it is accordingly dismissed." Thus the door was closed on all sides for Sharma at this point and he was out of the race but he took full advantage of the observation of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. no. 2641/84 and how this happened will be discussed at the appropriate stage. 18. Shri Sharma having failed to get any relief from this Court adopted a dubious device to circumvent the judgment of this Court in favour of Sardar Mohan Singh. He filed an application before the S.D.M. Patna for initiation of a proceeding under section 144 Cr. P.C. Later on section 145 proceeding was commenced. In the meanwhile, Shri S. N. Dubey, petitioner in C.W.J.C. no. 9150/91 who is a police officer trespassed into the house. He had already been allotted a house by the Board hut he was not satisfied as he wanted M. I.G. house. His Entry in the house is Utterly mysterious. 19. This court quashed the 145 Cr. P.C. proceeding in Cr. Misc. no.421 of 1985. The competent authority of the Board requested the Senior S.P. and the Superintendent of Police for taking steps to get Dubey evicted from the house in question. 20. Shri Sharma in May, 85 filed a representation purporting to be under section 23 of the Act for setting aside the allotment in favour of Sardar Mohan Singh. On 25.6.1984 the State Govt. directed the Housing Board to stay delivery of possession to Sardar Mohan Singh. 20. Shri Sharma in May, 85 filed a representation purporting to be under section 23 of the Act for setting aside the allotment in favour of Sardar Mohan Singh. On 25.6.1984 the State Govt. directed the Housing Board to stay delivery of possession to Sardar Mohan Singh. Then another round of litigation insured with Sardar Mohan Singh filing C.W.J.C. no. 465/84 in which Dubey intervened. This Court after hearing the parties disposed of C.W.J.C. no. 4115/84 on submissions made by the counsel for the parties without touching the merit of the claim of any of the parties. The matter was remitted to the State Govt. for disposal of the representation of Sharma filed under section 23 of the Act after hearing the parties. The possession of Dubey was not disturbed. 21. The then Cabinet Minister Shri Mehabir Choudhary by his order dated 3.2.1986, set aside the allotment to Sardar Mohan Singh and further directed the D.M. Patna to hand over possession of the house to. Shri Sharma who was also awarded compensation under section 78 of the Bihar Housing Board Act. 22. The Minister passed the following orders on the representation of Shri Sharma (Annexure-7 of C.W.J.C. no. 6195 of 1990: I. After regularising the allotment under the Govt. quota from 7.11.1981 and confirming the allotment of Middle Income Group house no.114 at Lohiya Nagar, Patna in the name of Shri Rajendra Sharma, Shri Sharma be handed over physical possession after following the due procedure without any further delay. 2. The item no.8 of Misc. items of the agenda of the meeting of the Board dated 27.4.1984 is set aside under Section 23 of the Act. On compassionate grounds the Board will allot another house under Middle Income Group to Sardar Mohan Singh either at Hanuman Nagar or at Bahadurpur. 3. The order of the SDM, Patna Sadar dated 14.5.85 is also set aside because the order in Misc. petition no.39/27/85 is not in conformity with law." It is evident from the order extracted above that the Minister went behind the order of this Court in C.W.J.C. no. 4228/81 and C.W.J.C. No.2844/82 which was patently impermissible. Under section 23 of the Act, the State Govt. is no doubt empowered to decide any resolution hut it is doubtful, if it can pass order of allotment in favour of a person who has been nun-suited by this court on merits. 4228/81 and C.W.J.C. No.2844/82 which was patently impermissible. Under section 23 of the Act, the State Govt. is no doubt empowered to decide any resolution hut it is doubtful, if it can pass order of allotment in favour of a person who has been nun-suited by this court on merits. The Minister was not entitled to validate allotment by adopting a novel device by directing regularization of the allotment to Sharma. The Minister was, however, justified in directing eviction of Dubey who had absolutely' no semblance of any claim. It is not necessary to comment on the order of the Minister in view of the subsequent development. It is, however, clear that the Minister failed to appreciate the legal implications of the order passed by this Court in favour of Shri Mohan Singh and against Sharma. 23. Sardar Mohan Singh filed C.W.J.C. No. 9408 of 1986 against the order of the Minister dated 3.2.1986. Dubey also filed C.W.J.C. No.3835 of 1986 against the same order of the Minister. Both the above writ petitions were disposed of by order dated 30.4.1987. The learned Single Judge quashed the order of the Minister (Annexure-7, C.W.J.C. No.9408/86 and a direction was issued to the Minister to rehear the matter. 24. Against the aforesaid judgment and order, Mohan Singh and Rajendra Sharma preferred L.P.As before this Court. Mohan Singh tiled L.P.As nos. 60 and 61 of 1987 on the ground that the learned Single Judge ought to have directed the Board to deliver possession of the house in question to him by virtue of resolution dated 27/28.11.1975 and 27.4.1984 and on the basis of the agreement registered in pursuance of the above resolution. Rajendra Sharma filed L.P.A. no. 54 of 19S7 on the ground that the house ought to have been allotted to him on the basis of the decision of the Minister 'which was a legal order. 25. The appeals filed by Mohan Singh and Sharma were disposed of by a Bench comprising of Udai Sinha and B.P.Singh, JJ. Their Lordships after a minute analysis of the entire controversy upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter to the Minister for re-hearing with further directions. 25. The appeals filed by Mohan Singh and Sharma were disposed of by a Bench comprising of Udai Sinha and B.P.Singh, JJ. Their Lordships after a minute analysis of the entire controversy upheld the judgment of the learned Single Judge and remitted the matter to the Minister for re-hearing with further directions. About the claim of .Sharma and the order of the Ministn (Annexure-7, C.W.J.C. No.6195/91 the learned judges made following pertinent observations : "30 From the impugned order passed by the Minister it is apparent that one of the important factors taken into consideration by the Minister was that Sharma had been allotted the house in question by resolution of the Board dated 7.11.81 pursuant to the hull-sheet issued by the Chief Minister. Thereafter, a" deed of conveyance was also executed and registered in his favour. Since such an allotment had been made in favour of Sharma from out of Government quota, the Minister thought that Sharma's claim could not be defeated. Treating the resolution of the Board as also the agreement entered into pursuant thereto as valid and legal, the Minister decided in favour of Sharma and confirmed the allotment made to him out of Government quota. In coming to this conclusion, the Minister completely ignored the judgment and order of this court dated 3.3.84 in C.W.J.C. no. 4096/82. In that judgment, this Court considered all the relevant fads relating to the allotment made in favour of Sharma. On the facts it was held that there was no allotment made to Sharma out of the quota reserved for allotment on the basis of special recommendation of the State Government. The buffsheet dated 24.7.81 addressed to the Chairman of the Board by the then Chief Minister only mentioned that the case or Sharma may he considered for allotment out or Government quota. But it was held that a mere buffsheet by a Minister or Chief Minister cannot be deemed to be a Government decision that the allotment be made out of Government quota. There was no communication addressed by a duly authorised person containing any Government decision in that regard. It was also found that in terms of the resolution of the Board dated 15.7.81, an allotment could be made only on the basis of the report of the subcommittee constituted for the purpose. The report or the sub-committee did not contain the signatures of all the members. It was also found that in terms of the resolution of the Board dated 15.7.81, an allotment could be made only on the basis of the report of the subcommittee constituted for the purpose. The report or the sub-committee did not contain the signatures of all the members. It was, therefore, held that the officers of the Board had no authority or legal right to make an allotment on the basis of the report of the sub-commit tee which was signed only by some of the members. Consequently, it was held that the execution of hire purchase agreement was an invalid act of the officers of the Board and the Board was not hound by such illegal action of its officers. No right, therefore, accrued to the petitioner on the basis or the hire purchase agreement. It will, thus, appear from the aforesaid judgment of this Court that all facts relating to the allotment made in favour of Sharma were considered in detail by this Court and on facts this Court came to the conclusion that the allotment made in. favour of Sharma was invalid for the reasons contained in that judgment. Admittedly, this judgment was not appealed against and has attained finality. It was therefore, not open to the petitioner to contend and the Minister to hold that the allotment made in favour of Sharma and the agreement executed, with him were legal, and valid. That would amount to overlooking the judgment of this Court by ignoring the findings recorded therein. This jurisdiction the Minister did not have and, therefore, it is apparent that he acted in excess of jurisdiction virtually ignoring the findings recorded by this Court and setting aside the judgment of this Court by holding that the allotment made in favour of Sharma was illegal and valid. The Board as well as Sharma were bound by the judgment of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4096/82 dated 3.3.84 and it was not open to the Minister, therefore, to proceed on the basis that the allotment in favour of Sharma was a valid allotment. 31. The other reason given by the Minister in support of his order is that the learned Single Judge of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in the case reported in 1986 B.B.C.J. 417 had quashed the decision of the State Government dated. 31. The other reason given by the Minister in support of his order is that the learned Single Judge of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court in the case reported in 1986 B.B.C.J. 417 had quashed the decision of the State Government dated. 16.1.82 and the notification of the Bihar State Housing Board, dated 24.2.82 cancelling the allotments made during a specified period. He therefore, concluded that the allotment made to Sharma by resolution of the Board dated 7.11.81 got revived by reason of the aforesaid judgment, since the orders or notifications cancelling that resolution, had themselves been quashed. This ground is also wholly untenable in law and in my view it was not open to the Minister to rely upon the aforesaid judgment of the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court for deciding the issues before him. It is not in dispute that none of the claimants who are parties in the appeals before us were parties in the writ applications decided by the Ranchi Bench of the Patna High Court. On the other hand, the Bihar State Housing Board, Sharma and Mohan Singh were parties in C.W.J.C. no. 4096/82 in which a judgment was rendered by a Division Bench of this Court holding that the allotment made in favour of Sharma and the agreement executed in his favour were illegal and invalid and conferred no right or title upon Sharma. The decision of a Division Bench of this Court was, therefore, binding as between the parties and it was not open to them to rely upon any other judgment of the Ranchi Bench of this court in which they were not even parties." 26. Their Lordships directed the Minister to decide the rival claims of the parties on the following terms: "The Minister shall First consider the case of Mohan Singh in the light of the directions contained in the judgment of this. Court dated 3.3.84 in C.W.J.C. 3844/82. If he comes to the conclusion that Mohan Singh is entitled to a allotment of the house in question on the basis of the resolution of the Board dated 27th/28th November 1975. and that he had complied with the requirement of the resolution, he shall pass an order refusing to set aside the order of allotment made in favour or Mohan Singh (Annexure-1) and the agreement executed pursuant thereto on 1.6.84. and that he had complied with the requirement of the resolution, he shall pass an order refusing to set aside the order of allotment made in favour or Mohan Singh (Annexure-1) and the agreement executed pursuant thereto on 1.6.84. However, if he comes to the conclusion that Mohan Singh is not so entitled to the allotment of the house in quest ion, he shall consider his claim as also the claim of all other eligible registered applicants including Sharma and Dubey in accordance with the Regulations which lay down the procedure for allotment of house by the Board." 27. The Housing Minister was directed to hear the parties including the Housing Board. This time, a new pica was advanced by Sharma that the original resolution dated 27/28-11-1975 had not been signed by the members and the Chairman who attended the meeting. The Board failed to produce the original minutes as the relevant resolution was not available. The Board stated that the said resolution was transmitted to the State Government vide members letter dated 3/12/1975 and the same had been approved in accordance with Section 11(4) of the Housing Board ordinance. It was also stated by the Board that the letter of proceeding contained the signature of the Chairman and the Secretary of the Board. M. Singh, in his writ petition has annexed the copy of the written statement filed by the Board before the Minister (Annexure-16, C.W.J.C. no. 9200/1991). 28. It was submitted before the Minister on behalf of Mohan Singh that the resolution on 27th meeting was final and had taken its effect. The resolution in question had dealt with of her several important matters apart from allotment of houses. The parties also filed their documents in support of their claims. M. Singh filed documents establishing that he had paid the required amount and he was given symbolic possession of house in terms of the agreement. 29. The Housing Minister considered the claims of the parties and vide his order dated 9/8/1991 (Annexure-1) rejected the claims of all the three petitioners. The Minister rejected claim of Mohan Singh on the ground that the resolution of the Board by which the house was allotted to Sardar Mohan Singh had not been signed by the Chairman and the Members who attended the meeting. 30. The Minister rejected claim of Mohan Singh on the ground that the resolution of the Board by which the house was allotted to Sardar Mohan Singh had not been signed by the Chairman and the Members who attended the meeting. 30. The Minister rejected the claim of Sharma in view of the decision of this Court passed in C.W.J.C. no, 4096 of 1982. The Minister found that the petitioner Dubey had applied for allotment of a house in 1967 and renewed his application in 1972. He had deposited Rs. 6500/- in 1979. The Minister has held that the claim of Dubey was justified on the basis that he had applied earlier than Mohan Singh and Sharma. He however, rejected his claim also because of his conduct in entering into the house in 1984, when dispute was going on between Mohan Singh and Sharma with regard to House No.114. The Minister also held that Dubey had already been allotted flat at Bahadurpur which was not acceptable to him. The Minister has also held that Dubey was entitled to a house of his choice. The resolution was that the claims of all the three contestants was rejected by the Minister. The Minister further directed the Board to make allotment to Mohan Singh, Sharma and Dubey in accordance with the rules. 31. The claim of Sharma cannot be sustained because as stated earlier, this Court in C.W.J.C. no.4096, of 1982 has given a categorical finding that the allotment in his favour was invalid. The subsequent writ petition filed by him with regard to his claim is barred by res-judicata. The Minister has rightly held that Sharma has no claim. Sharma had argued this case in person and raised several questions which he cannot be permitted to raise as his claim is barred by res-judicata. 32. I am surprised that the Minister has held that Dubey's claim was justified. In my opinion, Dubey has not an iota of claim. It is significant that he was allotted a flat at Bahadurpur which he did not accept. He is asserting his claim over house no.114 only on the basis of the fact that he was the earliest applicant amongst the three for allotment of a house. It is significant that Dubey never approached the authorities of the Board or this Court if he had any legitimate grievance. He is asserting his claim over house no.114 only on the basis of the fact that he was the earliest applicant amongst the three for allotment of a house. It is significant that Dubey never approached the authorities of the Board or this Court if he had any legitimate grievance. His claim is based on the fact that he is in possession of the house since 1984. It is established beyond doubt that he illegally entered into the house in between a proceeding under Section 107 Cr.P.C. was going in between Sharma and Mohan Singh. He has no where stated that he has made any payment for the price of the house. There is no resolution of the Board in his favour. The resolution of the Board is sinequa-non for a valid allotment. It is surprising that all these salient facts were ignored by the learned Minister. In my opinion, Dubey has no claim over the house. The finding of the Minister upholding the claim of Dubey cannot he sustained. Since the Minister has rejected his claim also on another ground, there is no necessity of quashing that part of the order of Minister. In this view of the matter, C.W.J.C. 9150/1991 filed by Dubey is also dismissed. 33. Now the question that remains to be considered as to whether the Minister was right in dismissing the claim of Sardar Mohan Singh, petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 9200/92. As stated in earlier part of the judgment, this petitioner was allotted the house vide resolution of the Board dated 28.11.1975. The petitioner filed C.W.J.C. no. 4228/81 when he was not supplied with the prospect us. This court in C.W.J.C.no.4228/81, directed the Board to decide the matter of allotment within three months of the order dated 18.1.1982 but nothing happened. The petitioner again moved in C.W.J.C.3822/82 and again a direction was issued to the Board to decide whether on the basis of the resolution dated 28.11.1975 the petitioner Sardar Mohan Singh was entitled for allotment. The Board in pursuance of the direction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.3844/84 in 89th meeting of the Board dated 28.4.1984 resolved to allot the house. The authorities also executed registered agreement with the petitioner. An order was passed In deliver possession to him. 34. The Board in pursuance of the direction of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.3844/84 in 89th meeting of the Board dated 28.4.1984 resolved to allot the house. The authorities also executed registered agreement with the petitioner. An order was passed In deliver possession to him. 34. The Board in the affidavit filed before the Supreme Court in S.L.P.no.12664/85 (filed by Rajendra Sharma) had stated as follows: "That as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court dated 3.3.1984 contained in C.W.J.C. no. 3844/1982, the Housing Board found that the directions of the Board dated 27/28-11-1975 had been complied with by the respondent no.4. Therefore, the Board by its resolution dated 27.4.1984 found that the said respondent Board thereafter on 28.5.1984 issued an order of allotment in favour of the respondent no.4 herein and an agreement was executed between the respondent no.4 and the Board, and the said agreement was registered. The Board also gave directions to the police that possession of the house in question be given to the respondent no. 4. 35. It is clear from the aforesaid fact that the petitioner had a legitimate claim for allotment. The order of the Minister rejecting his claim suffers from errors apparent, on the face of the record. The Minister has not taken into consideration these salient facts. It was too late to the parties to contend that the 75th resolution on the basis of which the house was allotted to Sardar Mohan Singh was invalid and the State Govt. had approved the resolution as appears from Annexure-16 of C.W.C. 9200/92. The Minister was not justified in permitting this question to be raised as this question was never raised earlier. The order of the Minister, therefore, must be quashed by grant of writ of certiorari. 30. In the fact and circumstances of this case, it is accordingly held that Sardar Mohan Singh is entitled to allotment of House no.114 al Kankarhagh. The writ of mandamus is issued to the Board to deliver possession of the house to Sardar Mohan Singh. S.N. Dubey, petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 9150/1991 is directed to give vacant possession 10 Sardar Mohan Singh within two months from the date of this order. In the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs.