Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 825 (PNJ)

Amrit Lal v. State of Haryana

2018-02-19

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 mandamus directing the respondents to allot a plot as per the oustees policy dated 18.3.1992 (Annexure P-1). Further, a writ of certiorari has been sought for quashing the policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-10) and public notice dated 13.1.2017 (Annexure P-11). 2. Shri Rattan Lal was owner of the land measuring 3 kanal 11 marla situated within the revenue estate of village Saketri, District Panchkula. The said land was acquired by the respondents for the development of sectors 1 to 3, 5-B, 5-C and 6 for Panchkula Extension (MDC) as residential, commercial, institutional and recreational. The award was passed on 9.10.2003. Government of Haryana framed the policies dated 18.3.1992 (Annexure P-1) for the allotment of plots to the landowners whose land had been compulsorily acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The said policy was amended vide policies dated 28.8.1998 (Annexure P-2) and 27.3.2000 (Annexure P-3). Said Shri Rattan Lal died on 26.5.2005 as is clear from the death certificate dated 25.11.2008 (Annexure P-4). After his death, his wife Phool Rani became owner of the acquired land and she had also died on 26.3.2016. She applied for a plot in Sector 6, MDC, Panchkula along with the earnest money on 27.4.2012. The respondents vide public notice dated 4.3.2012 (Annexure P-5) invited applications for the allotment of plots under oustees category from the landowners whose land had been acquired for Sectors 2 and 6, MDC, Panchkula. As per certificate dated 25.4.2012 (Annexure P-7), the land of Smt. Phool Rani fall in Sector 1, MDC, Panchkula. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner applied for a 10-Marla plot vide application dated 27.4.2012 (Annexure P-6) along with earnest money vide receipt (Annexure P-8). As per the Vide proceedings dated 18.7.2014 (Annexure P-9), the petitioners were declared eligible for the allotment of a 10-Marla plot in Sector 6, MDC, Panchkula. The respondents had called the petitioners for draw of lots to earmark the plots out of oustees quota on 5.11.2014. Further, vide policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-10), the respondents had decided to refund the earnest money. Respondent No.4 vide public notice dated 13.1.2017 (Annexure P-11) had started the e-auction of 10-marla plots in Sectors 2 and 6, MDC, Panchkula. The respondents had called the petitioners for draw of lots to earmark the plots out of oustees quota on 5.11.2014. Further, vide policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-10), the respondents had decided to refund the earnest money. Respondent No.4 vide public notice dated 13.1.2017 (Annexure P-11) had started the e-auction of 10-marla plots in Sectors 2 and 6, MDC, Panchkula. However, till date no plot has been allotted to the petitioners. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners prayed 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. 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.