Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 703 (PNJ)

Baljeet 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 mandamus directing respondents No. 2 and 3 to make allotment of a plot to him under the oustees category for which the petitioner had already served a legal notice dated 22.5.2017 (Annexure P-5). 2. The petitioner purchased the land measuring 15 kanal (430 square yards) vide registered sale deed dated 19.4.2005 (Annexure P-1) along with his co-share and raised some construction thereon. Government of Haryana vide notification dated 5.12.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) followed by a notification dated 25.5.2006 (Annexure P-2) issued under Section 6 of the Act acquired the said land. A policy dated 7.12.2007 (Annexure P-3) was framed by the respondents for rehabilitation of the landowners whose land had been acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) or Haryana State Industrial Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) for development of a sector. The HSIIDC invited applications for the allotment of plots to the oustees whose land was acquired. Accordingly, the petitioner moved a representation dated 17.12.2014 to respondent No. 3 for the allotment of a plot under oustees category, but to no effect. Thereafter, the petitioner served a legal notice dated 22.5.2017 (Annexure P-5) upon respondents No. 2 and 3 for the allotment of a plot under the oustees category, but no response has been received. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has moved a representation dated 17.12.2014 (Annexure P-4) followed by a legal notice dated 22.5.2017 (Annexure P-5) to respondents No. 2 and 3, but no action has so far been taken thereon. He, however, 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. He, however, 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.