JUDGMENT Uma Nath Singh, J, (Oral):- Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the writ records. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that State did not consider her claim for a plot under the ‘oustees quota’ proportionate to the land acquired nor her application was processed in general category. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for HUDA, submitted that after receipt of petitioner’s application, she was asked to exercise option and she opted for consideration of her application under ‘oustees quota’. Learned State counsel referred to Annexure P13 to show that petitioner’s application was considered under oustees quota and was rejected. 4. This is also a submission of learned counsel for HUDA that petitioner purchased the land in question after Section 4 Notification issued on 16.3.1999, thus, her case could not have been considered for allotment of a plot under ‘oustees quota’. 5. We have carefully considered rival submissions and also examined the policy. 6. Para 1 of Policy (Annexure P-1/C) reads that “plots to the oustees would be offered if the land proposed to be acquired is under the ownership of the oustee prior to the publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act”………………Besides, object of this policy is to give a plot under oustees quota only to rehabilitate the owner of land who has no place to stay after his land was acquired for a public purpose. This petitioner knowing well that Notification under Section 4 had been issued for acquisition of land in question, purchased the land by taking risk with some opaque motive. In the writ petition also, we do not find a mention about the date of Section 4 notification and purchase of land after that. Position being clear that this petitioner would not be entitled to get a plot under the ‘oustees quota’, we are not inclined to accept this writ petition. Hence, it is dismissed. —————————