Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1128 (PNJ)

Dharam Singh v. State of Haryana

2018-03-01

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. CM-2928-2018 Annexures P-5 to P-8 filed along with the application are taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CM stands disposed of accordingly. CWP-5330-2017 1. In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-4) along with communication dated 21.9.2016 (Annexure P-3). Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to allot a plot to the petitioner under the oustees quota. 2. The petitioner was owner in possession of the land situated within the revenue estate of village Sultanpur, District Sonepat. The said land was acquired by the respondents vide award dated 5.11.1995 for the development of Sectors 3 and 7, Sonepat. The petitioner applied for the allotment of a plot under the oustees quota vide application dated 20.12.2011 (Annexure P-1) along with demand draft of Rs. 50,000/-. Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 2.12.2013 (Annexure P-2) informed the petitioner to appear before the office on 9.12.2013 at 11 AM for oustees claim and as such he appeared on the said date. Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 21.9.2016 (Annexure P-3) informed the petitioner that the claim would be considered under the new policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-4). Vide public notices (Annexures P-5 and P-6, respectively), the respondents invited the applications for the allotment of plots to the landowners whose land was acquired for the development of Sectors 7 and 8, Sonepat. Under the oustees claim, a plot has been allotted to Rishal Singh and Sube Singh vide allotment letter dated 3.8.2010 (Annexure P-7). However, no plot has been allotted to the petitioner till date. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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. The petitioner shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim before the concerned authority.