Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1062 (PNJ)

Sachin v. State of Haryana

2018-02-27

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-3). Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners for the allotment of plots in lieu of acquisition of the land. 2. The petitioners were co-owners of the land to the extent of their respective shares situated within the revenue estate of village Rewari, Tehsil and District Rewari as is clear from Statement No.18 (Annexure P-2). State of Haryana vide notification dated 6.1.2006 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) followed by a notification dated 9.8.2006 under Section 6 of the Act acquired the said land for the development and utilization of land as residential and commercial Sectors 6 and 7, Rewari. The award was passed on 7.12.2006 (Annexure P-1). The respondents framed a policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-3) and as per the said policy, the landowners were advised to apply for allotment of plot in fresh advertisement which would be issued after determination of reservation and the earnest money would be refunded along with interest. As per the policy dated 7.12.2007 (Annexure P-4), the petitioners were entitled to the allotment of plots under the oustee quota. However, no plot was allotted to the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners sent a legal notice dated 16.3.2017 (Annexure P-5) to respondents No.2 to 4 for the allotment of plots under the oustees category, but no response has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the relief claim in the writ petition, the petitioners have served a legal notice dated 16.3.2017 (Annexure P-5) upon respondents No.2 to 4, but no action has so far been taken thereon. He, however, prayed that liberty be granted to the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority by incorporating the grievance as raised in the present writ petition and direction be issued to the authority concerned to decide the representation expeditiously in a time bound manner in accordance with law. 4. He, however, prayed that liberty be granted to the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority by incorporating the grievance as raised in the present writ petition and direction be issued to the authority concerned to decide the representation expeditiously in a time bound manner in accordance with law. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the present writ petition before the appropriate authority. It is directed that in the event of a representation being filed by the petitioners within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the same shall be decided in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the representation. The petitioners shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate their claim before the concerned authority.