JUDGMENT : AMIT RAWAL, J. 1. This order of mine shall dispose of two sets of Regular Second Appeals, one set at the behest of Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “HUDA”), and another set of Regular Second Appeals bearing Nos. 6089 and 186 of 2015 and cross objections No.35 to 37-C of 2012 are at the instance of the landowners, whose land had been acquired and had been denied the allotment on the ground of oustee quota. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from RSA No.2915 of 2012. 3. The HUDA is aggrieved of the decreetal of the suit, whereby, it has been directed to release the free-hold residential developed plot of 50 square yards in view of the fact that the land of the owner was acquired for the purpose of development of Sectors 19 and 20 of HUDA, Kaithal. 4. The case set out by the plaintiff before the Court below was that she was absolute owner in possession of the land measuring 225 square yards being 15/1518 share out of total land measuring 37 kanals which had been acquired by the defendants for development of Sectors 19 and 20 of HUDA, Kaithal. The plaintiff pleaded that defendants in terms of policy dated 18.03.1992 reserved certain plots for the oustees in Sector 20 HUDA, Kaithal in pursuance of which she had applied for release of free hold residential plot, but no plot was allotted. The claim of the plaintiff had been on the parity as few oustees had been allotted the plots under oustee policy quota of defendants. 5. HUDA contested the cases regarding maintainability, jurisdiction of the Civil Court, much less, the claim being barred by law of limitation. Though the trial Court dismissed the suit but the Lower Appellate Court has allowed the appeal. 6. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, learned Advocate General, Haryana, assisted by Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate, in support of grounds of appeal has raised the multi-fold arguments which read thus:- (i) The pre-requisites of the policy dated 18.03.1992 had not been fulfilled by the plaintiff for allotment of a plot under the oustee policy as the Court below has not gone into that question and without any reason ordered for allotment of plot to the plaintiff. (ii) The Court below has failed to take into consideration the fact that the case of the plaintiff was not considered due to con-compliance of Rule 5 of Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land & Buildings) Regulations 1978 (hereinafter referred to “as 1978 Regulations”) which deals with the procedure in case of sale or lease of land or building by allotment, in essence, the purchaser is required to make an application to the Estate Officer concerned and it should be accompanied by 10 percent of the price/premium in the form of a demand draft payable to the Estate Officer. (iii) The intended allottees under the oustee policy had not fulfilled the essential terms and conditions of the advertisement, brochure and 1978 Regulations. In the instant case there was no advertisement against which the plaintiff had sought allotment of the plot. 7. During the course of arguments, Mr. Mahajan has relied upon the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority and others vs. Sandeep and others 2012 (1) L.A.R. 475 to contend that the cases of the oustees will be considered as per the directions contained therein and the Government is already contemplating to frame a policy. The plaintiff had not been diligent in approaching the Court and the suit had been filed much later in the year 2007 as the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1992 and thus, urged this Court for allowing the appeals in terms of the directions given in Sandeep's case (supra). 8. The plaintiff had not been diligent in approaching the Court and the suit had been filed much later in the year 2007 as the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1992 and thus, urged this Court for allowing the appeals in terms of the directions given in Sandeep's case (supra). 8. Per contra, Mr.Rajesh Sethi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landowners submitted that similar controversy arose before the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court while deciding identical Regular Second Appeal bearing No.3603 of 2008 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority and others vs. Uday Singh, along with other connected RSAs, decided on 11.02.2014, wherein, this Court had held that the ratio decidendi culled out in Sandeep' case (supra) would not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case in view of the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1 of 2011 titled as Brij Mohan and others vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another and the aforementioned judgment has attained finality in the Hon'ble Supreme Court as per the decision rendered in SLP No.31363 of 2014 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority and another vs. Bhagwan Singh and others, which has been tagged along with other SLPs and the same has been dismissed, vide order dated 24.11.2015. He further submitted that 1992 policy pertaining to Kaithal came to be debated in RSA No.83 of 2005 titled as Estate Officer Haryana Urban Development Authority and another vs. Kavinder Parkash and the aforementioned appeal was dismissed by the Single Judge of this Court, vide order dated 17.01.2005, wherein, this Court held that as per the policy dated 18.03.1992, the land owners are entitled to allotment of individual plot being oustees. The aforementioned judgment and decree was challenged by the HUDA before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave to Appeal bearing No.7273 of 2005 and the same was dismissed vide order dated 21.04.2005 and thus, urged this Court that the case is squarely covered as per the ratio decidendi culled out by the Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court in Uday Singh's case (supra) and upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority and others vs. Uday Singh. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. 10. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and appraised the judgments and decrees of the Courts below. 10. The directions contained in Sandeep's case (supra) read thus:- “(i) That date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is relevant to determine the eligibility of a land-owner for allotment of a residential plot, even if the acquisition is for the purposes of commercial, industrial or institutional; (ii) That the entitlement of the size of the plot and the procedure for allotment shall be as on the date of allotment in pursuance of an advertisement issued inviting application from the oustees; (iii) That the HUDA or such other authority can reserve plots up to 50% of the total plots available for all reserved categories including that of oustees. As to what extent there would be reservation for the oustees, is required to be decided by the State Government and/or by HUDA or any other authority, who is entitled to acquire land; (iv) That the oustees are entitled to apply for allotment of plot along-with earnest money in pursuance of public advertisement issued may be inviting applications from the general public and the oustees through one advertisement. If an oustee is not successful, he/she can apply again and again till such time, the plots are available for the oustees in the sector for which land was acquired for residential/commercial purposes or in the adjoining sector, if the land acquired was for institutional and industrial purposes etc. The plots to the oustees shall be allotted only by public advertisement and not on the basis of any application submitted by an oustee; (v) That the price to be charged from an allottee shall be the price mentioned in the public advertisement in pursuance of which, the plot is allotted and not when the sector is floated for sale for the first time; (vi) That the State Government or the acquiring authority shall not advertise any residential plot for sale without conducting an exercise in respect of plots ear-marked for reserved categories and after identification of the plots available for the oustees in each sector. Thereafter, the State Government or the acquiring authority shall publish an advertisement inviting applications from such oustees to apply for allotment of plots in accordance with law: and (vii) If in any sector, more than 50% plots have been allotted by way of reservation including to the oustees, then such allotment shall not be cancelled or reviewed in view of the judgment of this court.” 11. I have also gone through the judgment rendered by the learned Single Judge of this Court which pertains to acquisition of the land for development of Sectors 19 and 20, Kaithal and of the view that present case is squarely covered by the judgments aforementioned, wherein, point of limitation, application being accompanied by 10% of the price/premium and particularly, whether the case is covered by Sandeep's case (supra) has already been dealt in extenso. 12. For the sake of brevity, policy dated 18.03.1992 reads thus:- “(i) Plots to the oustees would be offered if the land proposed to be acquired is under the ownership of oustees prior to publication of the notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and if 75% of the total land owned by land owners in that sector is acquired. (ii) Oustees whose land acquired is:- (a) Less than 500 sq. yards, would be offered 50 sq. yards plot (b) Between 500 sq. yards and one acre would be offered a plot of 250 sq. yards. (c) From one acre above, would be offered a plot of 500 sq. yards or where 500 sq. yards plots are not provided in the layout plan, two plots of 250 sq. yards each may be given. (iii) That the above policy shall also apply in case there are a number of co-sharers of the land which has been acquired, if the acquired land measure more than one acre, then for the purpose of granting benefit under the policy, the determining factor should be the area owned by each co-sharers respectively as per his/her shares in joint holding. In case the acquired land of the co-sharer is less than one acre, only one plot of 250 sq. yards would be allotted in the joint name of cosharers. (iv) If the land of any landowners is released from acquisition, he/she would not be eligible to avail of any benefit under this policy (irrespective of the area of land released). In case the acquired land of the co-sharer is less than one acre, only one plot of 250 sq. yards would be allotted in the joint name of cosharers. (iv) If the land of any landowners is released from acquisition, he/she would not be eligible to avail of any benefit under this policy (irrespective of the area of land released). (v) As per the policy, the oustees shall be entitled to a developed plot/plots, the size of which would depend upon the area of his acquired land, subject to a maximum of 500 sq. yards. The oustee shall be entitled to this benefit under this policy only once in the same town where his land was situated/located. However, in case where the land is acquired in pockets at different times, the owner shall be entitled to claim the benefit on account of the entire area acquired (at different times) for purpose of claiming the benefit under this policy. (vi) Allotment of plots to the oustees will be made at the allotment rates advertised by the Haryana Urban Development Authority for that sector. Land owners will be given compensation for their land which is acquired. (vii) Claims of the oustees for allotment of plots under this policy shall be invited by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority concerned before the sector is floated for sale. (viii) The commercial sites/building are sold by auction. The sites/buildings be also allotted to oustees on reserve price as and when the auction of the same is held. While putting such sites/buildings to public auction, the oustees who want to purchase the sites/building could represent before hand for allotment, so that requisite number could be reserved for them. However, if the area acquired of the commercial site is equivalent or less to the area of booth/shop-cum-flat being auctioned by HUDA, they may be given a booth/SCO sites keeping in view the size of acquisition under this policy.” 13. From the aforementioned policy, question arises whether HUDA can charge the actual costs plus development charges over the plots allotted to the oustees and not the market price or the normal price. As per the policy dated 18.03.1992, which was modified on 12.03.1993, whether all the co-owners, as per Clause 6(V) of the policy would be entitled to allotment of plots or not. 14. As per the policy dated 18.03.1992, which was modified on 12.03.1993, whether all the co-owners, as per Clause 6(V) of the policy would be entitled to allotment of plots or not. 14. The question with regard to applicability of Clause 6(V) of the policy has already been pondered upon by the Full Bench of this Court in Jarnail Singh and others vs. State of Punjab and others 2011(1) RCR (Civil) 915, wherein, it has been held that every co-sharer is entitled to plot as per the entitlement, although his land is joint with others, for, the Clause 6(V) of the policy has been struck down having no reasonable nexus with the objective to be achieved, as the basic purpose of the policy of HUDA is to rehabilitate the oustees. 15. As regards the limitation, even the Division Bench of this Court in Sandeep's case (supra), in direction (iv) has said that if the oustees remained unsuccessful, they can apply again and again till such time, the plots are available for the oustees in the sector for which land was acquired, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth of HUDA to allege the plea of delay and laches, much less, the limitation. Even otherwise, in a suit for mandatory injunction, point of limitation cannot be taken into consideration, for, the plaintiff is seeking the enforcement of the obligation as per the policy dated 18.03.1992. 16. Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act enables the party to vindicate the grievance by seeking mandatory injunction when there is breach of obligation. The question of delay and laches has already been pondered upon by the Division Bench of this Court in Sandeep's case (supra) and held that it would not apply to such matters. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brij Mohan's case (supra), had elaborately interpreted the policy dated 18.03.1992 and answered the aforementioned questions as such which read thus:- In Brij Mohan and others (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately interpreted the policy dated 18.03.1992 and answered the aforesaid questions as such: “10. No doubt, the contention that allotment of plots to land losers should be at actual cost (acquisition cost of land plus development cost), appears to be reasonable and attractive. That should be the ultimate goal in a changing scenario favouring acquisitions which are land loser-friendly. No doubt, the contention that allotment of plots to land losers should be at actual cost (acquisition cost of land plus development cost), appears to be reasonable and attractive. That should be the ultimate goal in a changing scenario favouring acquisitions which are land loser-friendly. The arguments of the appellants do certainly make out a case for such a scheme to create a better settlement and rehabilitation policy in regard to land acquisitions. If there was any statutory provision in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (`Act' for short) or other scheme, providing for allotment at cost price, a land loser could certainly claim allotment in terms of the scheme. But the Statute contemplates only benefits like solatium, additional amount and higher rate of interest to the land losers and not allotment of plots at cost price. Nor does the State Government or HUDA have any scheme providing for allotment of plots at actual cost to land losers. We are informed that State of Haryana is now proposing to introduce a more attractive and land-loser friendly rehabilitation and resettlement policy, which contemplates allotment of bigger residential/commercial/industrial plots to land losers and oustees. But that is for the future. 11. Where there is a scheme but it does not regulate the allotment price, it may be possible for the court to direct the State Government/Development Authority to allot plots to land losers at a reasonable cost, and in special and extraordinary circumstances, it may also indicate the manner of determining the allotment price. But where the scheme applicable specifies the price to be charged for allotment, its terms cannot be ignored. If any land loser has any grievance in regard to such scheme, he may either challenge it or give a representation for a better or more beneficial scheme. But he cannot ask the court to ignore the terms of an existing or prevailing scheme and demand allotment at cost price. The scheme of HUDA contemplates allotment of plots only in terms of the scheme, that is at normal allotment rates. This benefit is extended in addition to the benefits under sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act, and therefore the scheme provides for allotment at normal allotment rate. Necessarily, the allotment and the price to be charged, will have to be strictly in accordance with such HUDA Scheme. This benefit is extended in addition to the benefits under sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act, and therefore the scheme provides for allotment at normal allotment rate. Necessarily, the allotment and the price to be charged, will have to be strictly in accordance with such HUDA Scheme. In this case the HUDA scheme requires the land loser-allottee to pay the normal allotment rates for the plots to be allotted to them under the scheme. Therefore, a land loser cannot claim allotment of a plot at acquisition cost of land plus development cost or at any other lesser price. The decision in Hansraj H. Jain was a case where the scheme did not provide for any allotment price, and the price demanded was Rs.13,200/- per sq.m. as against the compensation of Rs.4 per sq.m. which in effect was 3300 times the acquisition price. It was on those peculiar facts and circumstances, this court thought it fit to direct the respondents therein to adopt the acquisition cost plus development cost as the allotment price. That principle will not apply where there is a specific scheme which provides the rate of allotment. Re : Question (ii) 11. As noticed above, the scheme requires the allottees under the scheme for land-losers/oustees, to pay the normal allotment rates for the allotted plots. The question is what is the meaning of the term `the normal allotment rate'. No doubt, the term would ordinarily refer to the allotment rate prevailing at the time of allotment. If an acquisition is made in 1985 and the developed layout in the acquired lands is ready for allotment of plots in 1990, and allotments are made in the years 1990, 1991, 1992, 1993, 1994 and 1995 at annually increasing rates, a landloser who is allotted a plot in 1990 will naturally be charged a lesser price. But if his application is kept pending by the Development Authority for whatsoever reason and if the allotment is made in 1992, he may have to pay a higher price; and if the allotment is made in 1995 he may have to pay a much higher price. The question is whether any discrimination should be permitted depending upon the whims, fancies and delays on the part of the authority in making allotments. To take this case itself, the application for allotment was made in 1990. The question is whether any discrimination should be permitted depending upon the whims, fancies and delays on the part of the authority in making allotments. To take this case itself, the application for allotment was made in 1990. On 9.9.1991, HUDA advertised the residential plots in the sectors developed from the acquired lands for allotment, wherein the allotment rate was shown as Rs.1032 per sq.m. (Rs.863/- per sq.yd) for plots of 300 sq. m. In the year 1993, the allotment price was increased to Rs.1342/- per sq.m. (Rs.1122/- per sq.yd.) and the appellants are required to pay the 1993 price instead of paying the rate in vogue when the layout was ready for allotment. Should the land loser who promptly made the application in 1990 be made to suffer, because of the inaction on the part of HUDA in making the allotment? We get the answer in the HUDA scheme itself.” 17. Since the aforementioned policy has already been interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Brij Mohan's case, (supra), thus, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Division Bench in Sandeep's case (supra) would not be directly applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The question with regard to normal rate has already been answered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment cited supra. 18. It is conceded position on record that the land had been acquired and oustees had not been allotted the plots. In Sandeep's case (supra), the plea was that HUDA was accepting the applications on the basis of oustee quota without causing any advertisement which resulted into disgruntlement amongst the similarly situated persons, in essence, HUDA had been adopting the pick and choose policy. It is in this background of the matter, this Court had directed HUDA to cause an advertisement. The claim of the oustees cannot remain undecided for infinite period, there has to be an adjudication. HUDA cannot take the oustees on tenterhook, i.e., on the premise that there has been non-compliance of the Regulations, ibid. The oustees are a different class from the normal allottees, who apply for allotment of the plots. The oustees cannot be deprived of the benefits bestowed upon them as per terms and conditions of the policy. 19. HUDA cannot take the oustees on tenterhook, i.e., on the premise that there has been non-compliance of the Regulations, ibid. The oustees are a different class from the normal allottees, who apply for allotment of the plots. The oustees cannot be deprived of the benefits bestowed upon them as per terms and conditions of the policy. 19. In my view, the present case is squarely covered by the ratio decidendi culled out in Uday Singh's case (supra) as noticed above, which has attained finality. The judgment and decree rendered by the Lower Appellate Court issuing a direction to HUDA to allot the plot is perfectly legal and justified. No ground for interference is made out. The appeals of HUDA are dismissed and appeals/cross objections of landowners, are allowed. Similar directions are issued as have been issued in the judgment assailed in RSA No.3603 of 2008.