Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 803 (PNJ)

Maya Ram v. Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran

2023-02-21

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, VIKRAM AGGARWAL

body2023
JUDGMENT Vikram Aggarwal, J. The petitioners were owners of 114th share each of total land measuring 65 Kanals 8 marlas situated in Village Ratgal and Devdaspura, Tehsil Thanesher, District Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question'). They seek allotment of individual plots measuring 10 marlas each under the oustees policy, in terms of advertisement dated 07.01.2003 (Annexure P-lA) on account of compulsory acquisition of their land. 2. The land in question was acquired in the year 1992 and awards were passed in 1995. In 2003, vide Annexure P-lA advertisement was issued for allotment of plots. The petitioners applied individually for allotment of separate plots but were allotted only one 10 marla plot jointly. Initially, the petitioners approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula which allowed their complaint vide order dated 11.09.2007 (Annexure P-6). However, this judgment was reversed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula vide judgment dated 08.02.2012 (Annexure P-7) primarily on the ground of territorial jurisdiction. The petitioners then approached the District Consumer Redressal Forum at Kurukshetra but withdrew the complaint with liberty to challenge the action of the respondents before the Civil Court. The Civil Court also rejected the plaint, after which, the petitioners approached the Oustees Adalat of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) at Panchkula. Vide order dated 14.08.2019 (Annexure P-16), the claim of the petitioners was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court. 3. The respondents have opposed the writ petition. They have placed reliance upon the policies dated 18.03.1992 and 12.03.1993 (Annexure R-1) as per which, co-owners would be allotted only one plot. Reliance has also been placed upon various judgments and the policies dated 11.08.2016 and 08.05.2018 and have averred that no individual plots can be allotted to the petitioners. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. 5. It is sad that the petitioners have been running from pillar to post for the last 30 years seeking plots in lieu of their land which was compulsorily acquired by the State. It speaks volumes about the conduct of the State. It does not, in any manner, show fairness in its action. 5. It is sad that the petitioners have been running from pillar to post for the last 30 years seeking plots in lieu of their land which was compulsorily acquired by the State. It speaks volumes about the conduct of the State. It does not, in any manner, show fairness in its action. The State has deliberately denied the benefit of individual plots to the petitioners despite law having been settled by this Court in the Full Bench judgment titled as 'Rajiv Manchanda and others v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another' 2018(2) PLR 422. 6. Admittedly, the total land of which the petitioners were co-owners in equal shares was 65 Kanals 8 marlas. The petitioners, therefore, individually were owners of more than 16 kanals of land. As per the policy dated 18.03.1992 (Annexure R-1), an owner who was having land of more than one acre or above could be allotted a plot of 500 sq. yds. and where 500 sq. yds. were not available, he was entitled to two plots of 250 sq. yds. each. If the land of the owner was between 500 sq. yds. and one acre, he was entitled to a plot measuring 250 sq. yds. As per Clause III, all co-owners would be entitled to individual plots. The petitioners, despite being eligible for 500 sq. yds. of land each applied only for 250 sq. yds. of land each. Their receipts are on record as Annexure P-2 (colly). The State, however, allotted a 10 marla plot (250 sq. yds.) jointly to all the petitioners vide allotment letter dated 12.07.2006 (Annexure P-3). They were relying upon the notification dated 12.03.1993 (Annexure R-1) wherein it had been laid down that the benefit under the oustees policy would be restricted to one plot according to the size of the holding irrespective of the number of co-sharers. They opposed the case of the petitioners all through on the basis of this policy and then on the basis of the subsequent policies of 2016 and 2018 wherein it was laid down that when one plot had been allotted, no further plot could be allotted. All this is contrary to the principles laid down in the judgment in Rajiv Manchanda's case (supra). All this is contrary to the principles laid down in the judgment in Rajiv Manchanda's case (supra). Question No.10 in the said judgment was as follows:- "Question No.10 Q. Which policy is applicable to an oustee-the policy in force on the date of entitlement, the date of acquisition, the date of offer the date when the sector is floated or the date of exercise of option?" 7. The answer was given in para 72 of the judgment as under:- "72. In the circumstances, the policy applicable to an oustee is the one which is in force when an application is made pursuant to an advertisement issued by HUDA and in pursuance of which the plot is allotted." 8. Question No.13 dealt with the rights of the co-sharers. After discussing, the polices dated 09.05.1990, 18.03.1992, 12.03.1993, 07.12.2007 and various judgments on the subject, the Hon'ble Full Bench gave its opinion in para 88 of the judgment wherein, it was laid down as under:- "88.In our view, once a person establishes his right to be allotted a plot under the oustee quota as a co-sharer, his application must be decided in the same manner in which the application of any other oustee is considered. All the policies and the principles governing any other persons would also apply to co-sharers. For instance, a co-sharer would also be entitled to the benefit of an alternative plot in the next/adjoining plot if he is not allotted a plot in the sector from which his lands were acquired. The co-sharers rights would be determined based on his individual share. For instance, a co-owner may not loose 75% of his independent holding. In that event he would not be entitled to be allotted a plot under the oustee quota." 9. The aforementioned findings clearly show that all petitioners would be entitled to individual plots and that the subsequent policies would not be applicable to them and, therefore, the action of the State in allotting a joint plot to all four petitioners is totally illegal and arbitrary. Keeping in view the settled law on the subject as has been referred to above, the present writ petition is allowed. The State is directed to allot plots individually to the petitioners as per policy within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.