Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 702 (PNJ)

Shyam 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 petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot a plot to them as per the oustees policy dated 18.3.1992 (Annexure P-2). 2. The petitioners are co-sharers of the land situated at Bahadurgarh, District Jhajjar as per the jamabandi for the year 1994-95 as well as owners of the land situated at village Sarai Aurangabad, Tehsil Bahadurgarh as per the jamabandi for the year 1991-92 as is clear from the details (Annexure P-1). The said land was acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 12.5.1995 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) for the development of residential sector Nos. 2 and 9/9-A, Bahadurgarh. Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) issued a policy dated 18.3.1992 (Annexure P-2) for the allotment of residential/commercial plots to the oustees. The said policy was modified vide policy dated 12.3.1993 restricting to one plot according to the size of the holding irrespective of the number of co-sharers. The said policy was challenged by way of various writ petitions. This Court vide order dated 26.4.2012 (Annexure P-4) passed in CWP No. 10941 of 2010 disposed of the writ petitions by directing the respondents to consider the claim of each of the co-sharer for allotment of plot keeping in view his holding. State of Haryana also framed a policy dated 7.12.2007 (Annexure P-4) for rehabilitation and resettlement of the landowners whose land was acquired. Another policy dated 9.11.2010 (Annexure P-5) was also issued wherein it was decided that the entitlement to the size of the plot would be determined basing the share of each of the co-sharers as on date of issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Act. Through the information dated 30.7.2012 (Annexure P-6) received under the Right to Information Act, 2005, the details of the allotted and vacant plots have been supplied. However, till date no plot has been allotted to the petitioners under the oustees category. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were entitled to a plot under the oustees category but no plot has been allotted to them. However, till date no plot has been allotted to the petitioners under the oustees category. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the petitioners were entitled to a plot under the oustees category but no plot has been allotted to them. 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.