JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot a plot to the petitioner under the oustees quota. Further, a writ of certiorari has been sought for quashing the order dated 30.1.2017 (Annexure P-11) passed by respondent No.3, oustees policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-12) and the scheme dated 17.11.2016 (Annexure P-13). 2. The petitioner along with other landowners was owner in possession of the land situated within the revenue estate of Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar as per the jamabandi for the year 1994-95 and mutation (Annexure P-1 Colly). Some of the land was acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 10.5.1996 issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) for the development and utilization of land for Sectors 9 and 9-A, Bahadurgarh. The respondents framed the policies dated 18.3.1992 and 12.3.1993 (Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively) for the allotment of plots/sites to the oustees in lieu of acquisition of land. Vide broacher dated 5.1.2006 (Annexure P-5), the respondents invited the applications for the allotment of residential plots in Sector 9 and 9-A, Bahadurgarh from general public as well as from the oustees along with 10% amount of the plot as earnest money. In response thereto, the petitioner vide application dated 2.3.2006 (Annexure P-6) applied for the allotment of a plot under the oustees quota. The draw of lots was held on 18.9.2006 by respondent No.2 but the application of the petitioner was not considered and the refund was made to the petitioner vide refund advice dated 20.9.2006 (Annexure P-7). This Court vide order dated 26.4.2012 (Annexure P-8) passed in CWP-10941-2010 issued various directions to the HUDA for settlement of the claim of the oustees. The petitioner along with co-sharers filed CWP-13618-2007 which was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 10.8.2009. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 1.8.2016 (Annexure P-9) to the respondents vide postal receipts dated 2.8.2016 (Annexure P-10) for the allotment of a plot under the oustees quota. In response thereto, respondent No.3 vide order dated 30.1.2017 (Annexure P-11) decided the matter in terms of the policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-12). Thereafter, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 1.8.2016 (Annexure P-9) to the respondents vide postal receipts dated 2.8.2016 (Annexure P-10) for the allotment of a plot under the oustees quota. In response thereto, respondent No.3 vide order dated 30.1.2017 (Annexure P-11) decided the matter in terms of the policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-12). On the basis of the said policy, Annexure P-12, respondent No.3 issued a scheme dated 17.11.2016 (Annexure P-13) whereby the oustees had been asked to apply for allotment of plot on prescribed proformas along with 10% earnest money of the current value of the plot. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the Full Bench judgment of this Court in CWP-22252-2016 (Rajiv Manchanda and others v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others) decided on 22.11.2017, the matter is required to be revisited by the authorities. Accordingly, it was prayed that liberty be granted to the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner 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 petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the representation keeping in view the principles of law enunciated by the Full Bench of this Court in Rajiv Manchanda's case (supra). The petitioner shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim before the concerned authority.