Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 709 (PNJ)

Kamla v. State of Haryana

2018-02-15

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL

body2018
JUDGMENT : AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. 1. By way of instant 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 policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-5). Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to allot a plot to the petitioner under the Oustees Policy. 2. The petitioner was owner in possession of the land measuring 14 kanal 10 marlas to the extent of her share situated within the revenue estate of village Risalu, Tehsil and District Panipat. Government of Haryana has acquired the land vide notifications issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the development of Industrial purposes for Sector 29 Part II, Panipat as is clear from the oustee certificate dated 14.2.2008 (Annexure P-1). The award was passed on 11.4.2002. Various policies were framed for the allotment of plots to the landowners whose land was acquired. This Court vide order dated 25.4.2012 (Annexure P-2) directed the respondents to consider the case of the similarly situated persons. Thereafter, the petitioner moved the representations dated 5.5.2016 and 8.9.2016 (Annexure P-3 and P-4, respectively) to respondent No. 2 for the allotment of a plot under the oustees quota, but to no effect. The respondents issued a policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-5) and as per the said policy, the landowner to apply for allotment of plot in fresh advertisement which would be issued after determination of reservation and their earnest money would be refunded along with interest from the date of deposit till date of payment. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has moved the representations dated 5.5.2016 and 8.9.2016 (Annexure P-3 and P-4, respectively) to respondent No. 2 for the allotment of a plot under the Oustees Policy, 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 her claim before the concerned authority.