Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 827 (PNJ)

Reham Tula 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 petitioner has 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-9). Further, a writ of certiorari has been sought for quashing the policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-7) and public notice dated 13.1.2017 (Annexure P-8). 2. The petitioner was owner of the land measuring 4 kanal 13 marlas situated at village Saketri, Panchkula. The said land was acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) 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 (Annexure P-1). As per the certificate dated 10.7.2014 (Annexure P-2), the land of the petitioner fall in Sector 1, MDC Panchkula where the respondents had developed Gymkhana Club. The petitioner had applied for a 10-Marla plot in Sector 6, MDC, Panchkula alongwith the earnest money by way of draft dated 30.6.2010 (Annexure P-4). Vide proceedings dated 18.7.2014 (Annexure P-5), the petitioner was declared eligible for the allotment of a 10-Marla plot in Sector 6, MDC, Panchkula. Respondent No.4 vide letter dated 20.10.2014 (Annexure P-6) called the petitioner for the draw of lots to earmark the plots out of the oustees quota on 5.11.2014. However, no plot was allotted to the petitioner. Further, the respondents had decided to refund the earnest money vide policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-7). Respondent No.4 vide public notice dated 13.1.2017 (Annexure P-8) had started the e-auction of 10-marla plots in Sectors 2 and 6, MDC, Panchkula. As per the policies dated 18.3.1992, 28.8.1998 and 27.3.2000 (Annexures P-9 to P-11, respectively), the petitioner was eligible to apply plot under oustees policy in the next residential sector. However, till date no plot has been allotted to the petitioner. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner 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.