Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 710 (PNJ)

Sanjay 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 petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 20.3.2008 (Annexure P-11) vide which the claim of the petitioners was rejected on the ground that the petitioners as well as their co-sharers are entitled to only one plot and the order dated 1.12.2016 (Annexure P-16). Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to allot a plot to the petitioners for which they had already applied vide application No. 06395 being oustees. 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). The father of the petitioners was owner of the land measuring 9 kanal 1 marla situated within the revenue estate of village Taraf Afgan, Tehsil and District Panipat as per the oustee jamabandi for the year 1993-94 (Annexure P-7). Government of Haryana acquired the said land vide notification dated 2.3.1993 (Annexure P-8) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) followed by notification dated 1.3.1994 under Section 6 of the Act for the development of Sector 24, Panipat. The award was passed on 28.2.1996. The HUDA invited applications for the allotment of residential plots from the general public as well as from the oustees/landowners whose land was acquired by the HUDA. In pursuance thereto, the petitioners applied for the allotment of a plot under oustees category vide application No. 06395 along with 10% earnest money. The petitioners challenged the oustees policy by way of CWP No. 19740 of 2006 and this Court vide order dated 14.12.2006 (Annexure P-9) disposed of the said writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioners to raise all the issues regarding allotment of plot to all the co-sharers before the HUDA. The draw of lots was held by respondent No. 4 in the year 2006 and the father of the petitioners was shown in the list of successful candidates. Respondent No. 4 issued allotment letter dated 24.5.2007 (Annexure P-10) in the name of the father of the petitioners. The draw of lots was held by respondent No. 4 in the year 2006 and the father of the petitioners was shown in the list of successful candidates. Respondent No. 4 issued allotment letter dated 24.5.2007 (Annexure P-10) in the name of the father of the petitioners. In compliance with the order, Annexure P-9, respondent No. 2 vide order dated 20.3.2008 (Annexure P-11) rejected the claim of the petitioners for the allotment of plot to all the co-sharers. Thereafter, the petitioners filed CWP No. 6147 of 2011 which was disposed of along with CWP No. 10941 of 2012 vide order dated 26.4.2012 (Annexure P-12) with directions to the respondents to make the allotment of plot to all the co-sharers. When no information was received, the petitioners served legal notice notice dated 28.2.2013 (Annexure P-13) upon the respondents. 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. When the respondents failed to take any action, the petitioners filed COCP No. 2081 of 2016 in which the respondents filed reply along with copies of policies dated 4.12.2015 and 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-15 Colly) pleading that the petitioners were not entitled to the allotment of separate plot. In compliance with the order, Annexure P-12, the respondents vide order dated 1.12.2016 (Annexure P- 16) rejected the claim of the petitioners. As a result thereof, COCP No. 2054 of 2016 was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 13.1.2017 (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.