Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 691 (PNJ)

Shri Inder Singh v. State of Haryana

2018-02-15

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 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 order dated 20.3.2008 (Annexure P-11) vide which the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the petitioner as well as his co-sharers are entitled to only one plot and the order dated 1.12.2016 (Annexure P-16). Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to allot a plot to the petitioner for which he had already applied vide application No.12396 being oustee. 2. Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) framed a policy dated 10.9.1987 (Annexure P-1) for the allotment of a plot to the landowners whose land had compulsorily acquired by the HUDA. The said policy was amended from time to time vide policies dated 9.5.1990, 18.3.1992, 12.3.1993, 28.8.1998 and 23.3.2006 (Annexures P-2 to P-6, respectively). The petitioner was owner of the land measuring more than 28 kanals to the extent of his share situated within the revenue estate of village Taraf Afgan, Tehsil and District Panipat as per the oustee jamabandi for the year 1993-94 (Annexure P-7). Government of Haryana acquired the said land vide notification dated 2.3.1993 (Annexure P-8) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) followed by notification dated 1.3.1994 under Section 6 of the Act for the development of Sector 24, Panipat. The award was passed on 28.2.1996. The HUDA invited applications for the allotment of residential plots from the general public as well as from the oustees/landowners whose land was acquired by the HUDA. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner applied for the allotment of a plot under oustees category vide application No. 12396 along with 10% earnest money. The petitioner challenged the oustees policy by way of CWP-19735-2006 and this Court vide order dated 14.12.2006 (Annexure P- 9) disposed of the said writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to raise all the issues regarding allotment of plot to all the co-sharers before the HUDA. The draw of lots was held by Respondent No.4 in the year 2006 and the petitioner was shown in the list of successful candidates. Respondent No.4 issued allotment letter dated 15.5.2007 (Annexure P-10) in the name of the petitioner. The draw of lots was held by Respondent No.4 in the year 2006 and the petitioner was shown in the list of successful candidates. Respondent No.4 issued allotment letter dated 15.5.2007 (Annexure P-10) in the name of the petitioner. In compliance with the order, Annexure P-9, respondent No.2 vide order dated 20.3.2008 (Annexure P-11) rejected the claim of the petitioner for the allotment of plot to all the co-sharers. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP-6885-2011 which was disposed of along with CWP-10941-2012 vide order dated 26.4.2012 (Annexure P-12) with directions to the respondents to make the allotment of plot to all the co-sharers. When no information was received, the petitioner served legal notice dated 28.2.2013 (Annexure P-13) upon the respondents. Similar matter came up before this Court in various writ petitions including CWP-6684-2014 and this Court vide order dated 4.4.2016 (Annexure P-14) quashed the orders and directed the respondents to re-consider the claim of each of the petitioners. When the respondents failed to take any action, the petitioner and co-sharers filed COCP-2081-2016 in which the respondents filed reply along with copies of policies dated 4.12.2015 and 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-15 Colly) pleading that the petitioner was not entitled to the allotment of separate plot. In compliance with the order, Annexure P-12, the respondents vide order dated 1.12.2016 (Annexure P-16) rejected the claim of the petitioner. As a result thereof, COCP-2081-2016 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13.1.2017 (Annexure P-17) granting liberty to the petitioner to challenge the order, Annexure P-16. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted 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. 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.