Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 707 (PNJ)

Anil 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 letter dated 26.11.2009 (Annexure P-8) vide which the claim of the petitioner for the allotment of residential plot under oustees category has been declined on the ground that some piece of land from the khewat has been released from acquisition in favour of M/s Indo Art Fashion. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to make allotment of a 10 Marla or 1 kanal plot for which the petitioner had already applied vide application dated 7.3.2008, to conduct the draw of lots within 30 days from the last date of submission of application form by including the name of the petitioner as per policy dated 11.8.2016 and to charge the rate of allotment as applicable in the year 2008 and not of the year 2016-17 as demanded vide advertisements dated 16.1.2017 and 6.2.2017 (Annexure P-12 and P-13, respectively). 2. Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) framed the policies 10.9.1987, 9.5.1990, 18.3.1992, 12.3.1993 and 28.8.1998 (Annexure P-1 to P-5, respectively) for the allotment of residential plots to the landowners whose land had compulsorily been acquired by the HUDA. The petitioner purchased the land measuring 15 kanal 19 marlas vide registered sale deed dated 6.4.1998 and mutation thereof was sanctioned on 7.6.1998 (Annexure P-6). As per the jamabandi for the year 2001-02 (Annexure P-7), there is no other co-sharer in the khewat of the petitioner except one Shri Vishal Singh. Government of Haryana acquired the said land vide notification dated 12.9.2001 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the development and utilization of land for development of Sector 29, Part II, Panipat and the award was passed. The HUDA vide advertisement dated 7.1.2008 invited applications for the allotment of residential plots to the oustees as well as to the general public. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner applied for a 14 Marla plot vide application dated 7.3.2008 and deposited 10% amount of the total tentative cost of the plot. However, the name of the petitioner was not included in the draw of lots held on 28.8.2008. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner applied for a 14 Marla plot vide application dated 7.3.2008 and deposited 10% amount of the total tentative cost of the plot. However, the name of the petitioner was not included in the draw of lots held on 28.8.2008. The petitioner sought information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (in short “the 2005 Act”) vide application dated 28.10.2009 that as to why his name was not included in the draw of lots. In response thereto, the petitioner received a reply dated 26.11.2009 (Annexure P-8) that due to the release of a piece of land from khewat No. 168/242 from the acquisition in the name of M/s Indo Art Fashion, his name was not included in the draw of lots held on 28.8.2008. The petitioner vide application under the 2005 Act sought information about the co-sharers in his khewat and the Tehsildar, Panipat vide letter dated 17.9.2010 informed the petitioner that there is no other co-sharer except one Shri Vishal Singh. The petitioner filed CWP No. 20342 of 2013 after withdrawal of CWP No. 18208 of 2010 and this Court vide order dated 15.1.2014 (Annexure P-9) dismissed the said writ petition as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh one on the same cause of action. A bunch of 33 cases was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 4.4.2016 (Annexure P-10) passed in CWP No. 6684 of 2014 by directing the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioners therein whose claim was also rejected on the ground that since the land of the co-sharers had been released from the acquisition. Thereafter, the HUDA framed another policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-11) and as per the said policy, all the co-sharers were entitled to the allotment of separate plots according to their share in the acquired land. In pursuance to the said policy, the HUDA invited applications from the oustees whose land was acquired for the development of Sector 25, Part II, Panipat and from the oustees of adjoining sectors vide advertisement dated 16.1.2017 (Annexure P-12). The HUDA vide advertisement dated 6.2.2017 (Annexure P-13) invited applications for the allotment of plots from the oustees whose land was acquired for the development of Sector 12 (Residential), Panipat and in response thereto, the petitioner submitted his application dated 2.3.2017 (Annexure P-14). Hence, the present writ petition. 3. The HUDA vide advertisement dated 6.2.2017 (Annexure P-13) invited applications for the allotment of plots from the oustees whose land was acquired for the development of Sector 12 (Residential), Panipat and in response thereto, the petitioner submitted his application dated 2.3.2017 (Annexure P-14). 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. 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.