Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 829 (PNJ)

Bharat Bhushan Singla 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 certiorari for quashing the letter dated 19.12.2014 (Annexure P- 12) and the policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-17) limiting the oustees to apply in the same sector or in adjoining sector and to obtain certificates from Tehsildar, District Town Planner and Land Acquisition Officer; the letter dated 31.10.2016 (Annexure P-18) and the order dated 12.5.2017 (Annexure P-19) whereby the petitioner had been directed to apply against fresh advertisement. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to allot a plot to the petitioner in view of the policy dated 9.11.2010 under the oustees quota. 2. The petitioner was owner of the land measuring 24 kanals to the extent of his share which was purchased vide registered sale deed dated 24.4.1989 and a mutation thereof was sanctioned in his favour on 16.7.1989. Government of Haryana acquired the said land vide notification dated 25.9.1989 (Annexure P-1) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1989 (in short “the Act”) followed by the notification dated 24.9.1990 (Annexure P-2) under Section 6 of the Act for the development of Sector 19, Part III, Kaithal. The petitioner moved an application dated 20.6.1992 (Annexure P-3) to the Director, Urban Estates, Haryana, the Chief Administrator, HUDA and the Land Acquisition Collector, Panchkula for the allotment of one plot under the policy of Haryana Government for the land acquired for HUDA, but to no effect. Thereafter, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 11.5.2004 (Annexure P-4) followed by a notice dated 15.4.2004 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.3 for the allotment of a plot under oustees quota, but all in vain. Again vide letter dated 14.6.2010 (Annexure P-6), respondent No.3 was requested to consider the case of the petitioner for the allotment of a plot. Even the information sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 was not supplied and the petitioner filed an appeal and the said information was supplied by respondent No.3 vide reply dated 20.3.2013 (Annexure P-7). Respondent No.2 vide advertisement dated 22.9.2013 (Annexure P-8) invited the applications under R&R Policies where the awards had been announced on or after 5.3.2005. The petitioner filed CWP-21557-2013 for consideration of his claim in terms of the policy, Annexure P-9. Respondent No.2 vide advertisement dated 22.9.2013 (Annexure P-8) invited the applications under R&R Policies where the awards had been announced on or after 5.3.2005. The petitioner filed CWP-21557-2013 for consideration of his claim in terms of the policy, Annexure P-9. The said writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn by this Court vide order dated 27.9.2013 (Annexure P-10) with liberty to the petitioner to apply against the public notice, Annexure P-8. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner applied for a plot under the oustees quota on 17.10.2013 along with earnest money of Ra. 50,000/-by way of cheque dated 16.10.2013. Respondent No.3 vide letter dated 9.9.2014 (Annexure P-11) referred the mater to respondent No.2. Further, respondent No.2 vide letter dated 19.12.2014 (Annexure P-12) directed respondent No.3 to inform the petitioner that as and when the claim from oustees of Sector 19, Kaithal would be invited, he would apply for consideration of his claim as vide advertisement dated 22.9.2013,no claims were invited from the oustees. The petitioner challenged letter, Annexure P-12, by way of CWP-3518-2015. During the pendency of the said writ petition, respondent No.3 vide letter dated 6.2.2015 (Annexure P-13) returned the application money through cheque. The petitioner replied the said letter through notice dated 16.3.2015 (Annexure P-14) and also filed CM-6383-CWP-2015 (Annexure P-15) for placing on record the letter, Annexure P-13. This Court vide order dated 13.8.2015 (Annexure P-16) disposed of the said writ petition with a direction that the petitioner's claim would be considered for the allotment being an oustees against the advertisement, Annexure P-6. The HUDA issued instructions dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-17) regarding settlement of oustees claims inserting terms and conditions thereof. Vide letter dated 31.10.2016 (Annexure P- 18), the HUDA asked the petitioner to apply against fresh advertisement. Respondent No.3 vide order dated 12.5.2015 (Annexure P-19) directed the petitioner to apply for the plot in future as and when the advertisement would be issued as per the policy, Annexure P-17. As per the revised policy dated 9.11.2010 (Annexure P-20), the petitioner is entitled to the allotment of a plot, but no plot has been allotted to him. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in CWP-22252-2016 (Rajiv Manchanda and others v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others) decided on 22.11.2017. Hence, the present writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance upon the Full Bench judgment of this Court in CWP-22252-2016 (Rajiv Manchanda and others v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others) decided on 22.11.2017. 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 in the light of the principles of law enunciated by the Full Bench Judgment in Rajiv Manchanda's case (supra). The petitioner shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim before the concerned authority.