Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 706 (PNJ)

Vijay Kumar @ Vijender Kumar 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 31.7.2014 (Annexure P-12) passed by respondent No. 4 rejecting his claim for the allotment of residential plot under the oustees category. Further, a writ of Mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for the allotment of plot under oustees category against the advertisement (Annexure P-7, P-7/A and P-10, respectively) for which the petitioner had applied along with 10% amount of the total tentative cost of the plot. 2. Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) framed a policy dated 10.9.1987 (Annexure P-1) for the allotment of residential plots/commercial sites to the oustees whose land was compulsorily acquired by the HUDA. The said policy was amended from time to time vide policies dated 9.5.1990 and 28.8.1998 (Annexure P-2 and P-3, respectively). The petitioner purchased the land measuring 5 kanal 15 marlas situated within the revenue estate of village Kheri Nangal, Tehsil and District Panipat vide registered sale deed dated 27.6.1981 and the mutation thereof was sanctioned on 27.9.1984 (Annexure P-4). The name of the petitioner was incorporated in the jamabandi for the year 1986-87 (Annexure P-4/A). Government of Haryana acquired the said land vide notification dated 15.12.1982 (Annexure P-5) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) followed by the notification dated 20.6.1984 (Annexure P-5/A) under Section 6 of the Act for the development and utilization of land for residential/commercial and industrial sectors in Sectors 11, 12 and 25, Part II, Panipat. The award was passed on 18.3.1985 (Annexure P-6). The respondents vide advertisements (Annexure P-7 and P-7/A, respectively) invited applications for the allotment of residential plots from the oustees/landowners whose land was acquired for the development of Sectors 25, Part II and 29 Part II, Panipat. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his application vide receipt dated 7.12.2011. The award was passed on 18.3.1985 (Annexure P-6). The respondents vide advertisements (Annexure P-7 and P-7/A, respectively) invited applications for the allotment of residential plots from the oustees/landowners whose land was acquired for the development of Sectors 25, Part II and 29 Part II, Panipat. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his application vide receipt dated 7.12.2011. This Court vide order dated 25.4.2012 (Annexure P-8) passed in LPA-2096-2011 directed the respondents to make the allotment of plots to the displaced landowners even the land acquired was prior to framing of the policy for the allotment of plot under oustees quota and that the date of issuance of notification under Section 4 was the relevant date for determining the eligibility of an oustee. Accordingly, the petitioner moved a representation dated 22.4.2013 (Annexure P-9) to respondents No. 3 and 4 for the allotment of residential plot under the oustees quota in Sector 25, Part II, Panipat. In pursuance to the order dated 25.4.2012 (Annexure P-8), the respondents issued another advertisement dated 22.9.2013 (Annexure P- 10) inviting applications from the landowners whose land was acquired for the development of Sectors 29 and 25 (Industrial), Panipat vide award of the years 2006 and 2009 and Sectors 7, 8, 36-38 Kabri and Sectors 13-17, Panipat vide awards of the years 2011 and 2012. When no action was taken on the representation of the petitioner, the petitioner filed CWP No. 3342 of 2014 and this Court vide order dated 2.12.2014 (Annexure P-11) disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. In response thereto, the respondents vide order dated 31.7.2014 (Annexure P-12) rejected the claim of the petitioner. 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 an application vide receipt dated 7.12.2011 to the respondents, 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.