Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 705 (PNJ)

Sheela Kundu 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 certiorari for quashing the contents of the allotment letter dated 15.5.2007 (Annexure P-8) vide which plot No. 798, Sector 24, Panipat measuring 14 marlas had been allotted to Late Shri Rattan Singh (husband and father of the petitioners) along with number of co-sharers. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to allot a residential plot to the petitioners being the legal heirs of Late Shri Rattan Singh in view of share of Late Shri Rattan Singh in the acquired land. 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 (Annexure P-2 to P-6, respectively). Late Shri Rattan Singh along with his co-sharer were owner of the land measuring 103 kanal 3 marlas to the extent of his share situated within the revenue estate of village Kheri Nangal, Tehsil and District Panipat as is clear from the mutation dated 22.4.2000 (Annexure P-7). Government of Haryana acquired the said land vide notification dated 12.9.2001 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) followed by notification dated 1.3.2002 under Section 6 of the Act for the development of Sector 29, Part II, Panipat. In the draw of lots held in the year 2007, Late Shri Rattan Singh was allotted plot No. 798, Sector 24, Panipat measuring 14 marlas vide allotment letter dated 15.5.2007 (Annexure P-8). Said Shri Rattan Singh approached the respondents for deleting the name of the co-sharer from the allotment letter, but the respondents refused to do so in view of the policy dated 12.3.1993. Accordingly, Shri Rattan Singh filed revision before respondent No. 1 who vide order dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure P-10) directed respondent No. 2 to treat the same as a representation and decide the same as per law. Accordingly, Shri Rattan Singh filed revision before respondent No. 1 who vide order dated 6.4.2011 (Annexure P-10) directed respondent No. 2 to treat the same as a representation and decide the same as per law. Some of the landowners challenged the policy dated 12.3.1993 and this Court vide order dated 26.4.2012 (Annexure P-11) passed in CWP No. 10941 of 2010 disposed of the said writ petition directing the HUDA to make allotment of plot to each and every landowner depending upon their respective entitlement. The said order was upheld by the Apex Court vide order dated 24.11.2013 passed in SLP No. 13375 of 2013. Thereafter, the petitioner moved a representation dated 30.11.2015 (Annexure P-12) for deleting the name of the co-sharer from the allotment letter. However, respondent No. 2 vide letter dated 4.1.2016 (Annexure P-13) referred the matter to respondent No. 3 by directing to decide the claim of the petitioner in view of the order, Annexure P-11. Similar matter came up before this Court in various writ petitions including CWP No. 6684 of 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. On the basis thereof, the HUDA framed a policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-15). When the respondents failed to take any action, Shri Rattan Singh filed COCP No. 1535 of 2016. The respondents vide order dated 29.11.2016 (Annexure P-16) rejected the claim of Shri Rattan Singh. As a result thereof, COCP No. 3095 of 2016 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 6.3.2017 (Annexure P-17) granting liberty to the petitioners to challenge the order, Annexure P-16. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted 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. 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.