JUDGMENT Mr. Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral) - Challenge in the present writ petition is to the communication dated 24.2.2012 (Annexure P-6), whereby the claim of the petitioner for allotment of one kanal plot in Sector 28, Panchkula was declined for the reason that he is one of co-sharers and as a co-sharer he cannot be allotted an exclusive plot in his name. 2. The father of the petitioner late Basanta was exclusive owner of the land measuring 11 kanal 13 marlas comprising in Khewat No. 294/349 in Khasra No. 33//16/2, 59/20, 60//3/5/2, 3/6/2 situated at Village Ramgarh, Tehsil and District Panchkula. The said land was acquired by Urban Estate Department, Government of Haryana for development and utilization of the land for development of Section 28, Urban Estate, Panchkula vide the notification dated 26.6.1988. 3. An advertisement was published by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) inviting applications for allotment of plots on deposit of 10% of the tentative cost as earnest money of Rs. 2,76,276/- for 20 plots of one kanal. The petitioner applied for a plot for allotment. The petitioner applied since, his father -Basanta has died as two of other legal heirs namely Lal Chand and Ramesh Chand gave no objection in favour of the petitioner to seek allotment of plot. Such application was submitted on 2.3.2006 supported by the affidavits of his brothers. Petitioner was successful in the draw of lots and was allotted plot No. 56, Sector 28, Panchkula measuring 1 kanal. But the letter of allotment was not issued for the reason that the petitioner has executed a false affidavit in respect of allotment of plot in favour of Harbans Lal who was successful in respect of plot No. 562, Sector 27, Panchkula. Subsequently, it was clarified that the petitioner is not the person who has given the affidavit in respect of allotment of plot sought by Harbans Lal but still, the petitioner was not allotted the plot. 4. Therefore, he served legal notice on 2.12.2011 (Annexure P- 5). It is in response to such notice, the claim of the petitioner was declined for the reason that the petitioner is entitled to one plot along with other cosharers and not a exclusive plot in his name. 5. 4. Therefore, he served legal notice on 2.12.2011 (Annexure P- 5). It is in response to such notice, the claim of the petitioner was declined for the reason that the petitioner is entitled to one plot along with other cosharers and not a exclusive plot in his name. 5. In the written statement filed, it was pointed out that the land comprising in Khewat/Khasra No. 249/349 was acquired along with three kanal land comprising in Khewat Khatauni No. 295/350 vide the Award No. 6 dated 17.6.1992. There are 8 co-sharers namely Banarsi, Kothi, Yoginder, Bant Lal, Harbans Lal, Lajjo, Basanta and Mothu in land measuring three kanal. The screening Committee clubbed the claims of the petitioner and other co-sharers and found them eligible for allotment of one kanal plot subject to filing either joint application or no objection certificate from other co-sharers in the form of affidavit. But neither the joint application nor the no objection certificate from any of the co-sharers was submitted, therefore, it is decided that the earmarked plot will be allotted subject to completion of formalities and submission of all the documents as per the HUDA policy failing which the allotment/eligibility of plot will be cancelled. 6. Subsequently, another affidavit has been filed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula on 22.9.2014 wherein, the exclusive ownership of the father of the petitioner-Basanta over the land measuring 11 kanal 13 marla is admitted, whereas it was also stated that Basanta was also cosharer in the land measuring 3 kanal. It has been averred to the following effect: - “8. That the petitioner was never held entitled by the Screening Committee for allotment of plot individually. The petitioner was not entitled for any allotment in his sole name as per the applicable policies. Clause I of the policy dated 18.3.1992 provides that plots to the oustees would be offered if the land proposed to be acquired is under the ownership of the land owner prior to publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and if 75% or more of the total land owned by the land-owners in that sector is acquired. Clause II of the policy dated 12.3.1993 provides that benefit under oustees policy shall be restricted to one plot according to the size of the holding irrespective of the number of co-sharers.” 7. Clause II of the policy dated 12.3.1993 provides that benefit under oustees policy shall be restricted to one plot according to the size of the holding irrespective of the number of co-sharers.” 7. When the matter came up for hearing before this Court on 17.11.2014, Mr. Garg, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 was directed to give details of the land owned by Basanta (since deceased) on the day of notification dated 26.6.1988 to determine his eligibility for allotment of plot as an oustee. In response to the said order, Mr. Garg, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has furnished the information pointing out that Basanta was exclusive owner of the land measuring 11 kanal 13 marla and was a co-sharer of the land measuring 3 Kanals. 8. Mr. Garg, learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3 has vehemently argued that the land owned by Basanta either in his individual capacity or as the co-sharer has to be taken into consideration to determine the eligibility of the petitioner for allotment of plot. Since, he is co-sharer in respect of 3 kanals of land, acquired by the same notification, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to an independent plot. 9. We do not find any merit in the arguments raised by learned counsel for respondents No. 2 and 3. Petitioner has sought 1 kanal plot as a legal heir of Basanta who was the exclusive owner of the land measuring 11 kanal 13 marla. His two brothers Lal Chand and Ramesh Chand have given no objection certificate in favour of the petitioner to apply for a plot in his name exclusively. The petitioner is entitled to plot of land measuring 1 kanal in view of his land measuring 11 kanal 13 marla having been acquired. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to a plot of 1 kanal in his individual capacity in lieu of land acquired measuring 11 kanal 13 marla. 10. Basanta is the co-sharer in the land measuring 3 kanal. Though, as per the policy, a landowner is entitled to only one plot but Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall not claim any plot in respect of the land measuring 3 kanal having acquired vide the same notification. 10. Basanta is the co-sharer in the land measuring 3 kanal. Though, as per the policy, a landowner is entitled to only one plot but Mr. Mittal, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner shall not claim any plot in respect of the land measuring 3 kanal having acquired vide the same notification. In view of the said fact, we find that the entitlement of the petitioner cannot be denied only for the reason that his father was co-owner in another portion of land measuring 3 kanal. 11. In view thereof, we allow the present petition. Respondents-HUDA are directed to issue letter of allotment to the petitioner at the same rates as in respect of other applicants of the year 2006 when the plot was earmarked for the petitioner. 12. Writ petition is thus disposed of. ---------0.B.S.0------------ —————————