Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 828 (PNJ)

Bane Singh 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 a direction to the respondents to allot a plot. Further, a prayer has been made for quashing the policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-7). 2. The petitioner was owner of the land measuring 7 kanal 11 marla situated at village Dhorka, District Gurgaon. The said land was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide notification dated 11.2.2010 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short “the Act”) followed by the notification dated 18.8.2011 under Section 6 of the Act for the construction of sector road 81 to 95 at Gurgaon. As per the policy dated 9.11.2010 (Annexure P-1), the petitioner cannot be dispossessed from the land unless alternative sites are allotted to them. The respondents vide public notice dated 28.9.2013 (Annexure P-2) invited applications for the allotment of plots to the landowners whose land had been acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). In pursuance thereto, the petitioner applied for a plot vide application dated 24.10.2013 (Annexure P-3) along with the earnest money. Vide letter dated 21.4.2014 (Annexure P-4), the assessment of the structure was done. The draw of lots was held on 6.9.2016 and the plots were allotted to the persons as per the list (Annexure P-5). 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). As per the photograph (Annexure P-8), the petitioner has constructed a house on the land in question. Further, the petitioner made a representation dated 17.1.2017 (Annexure P-9) to respondent No.3 for the allotment of a plot under the oustees category, but no response has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has moved a representation dated 17.1.2017 (Annexure P-9) to respondent No.3, 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 his claim before the concerned authority.