Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 216 (PNJ)

Baljeet Singh v. Vikas Gupta, Ias

2025-08-13

ALKA SARIN

body2025
JUDGMENT : ALKA SARIN, J. CM-14169-CII-2025 1. This is an application for listing the application being CM-914-2019 filed for revival of the main contempt petition, which was dismissed on 22.11.2018. 2. Notice of the application. 3. Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and states that he has no objection if the present application is allowed. 4. In view of the above, the present application is allowed. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the application being CM-914-2019 is taken on Board today itself. CM-914-2019 5. This is an application for revival of the main contempt petition which was dismissed on 22.11.2018. 6. Notice of the application. 7. Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and states that he has no objection if the present application is allowed. 8. In view of the above, the present application is allowed, and the main contempt petition is restored to its original number and status. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the main contempt petition is also taken on Board today itself. COCP-672-2017 9. Brief facts relevant to the present contempt petition are that the same has been filed for willful disobedience of the order dated 26.04.2012 passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in CWP-16393-1995. 10. In a nutshell, in CWP-10941 of 2010 titled as Bhagwan Singh & Ors. V/s State of Haryana & Ors. decided on 26.04.2012, it was directed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court, relying upon the judgment passed in LPA-2096-2011 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. V/s Sandeep & Ors. decided on 25.04.2012, that the claim of all the co-sharers for allotment of a plot would be considered keeping in view their holding. 11. In LPA-2096-2011 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. V/s Sandeep & Ors. decided on 25.04.2012 the following directions were passed : ‘Thus, the present appeal as well as the other connected matters are disposed of with the following directions, in addition to the decision on the questions of law discussed above. 11. In LPA-2096-2011 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. V/s Sandeep & Ors. decided on 25.04.2012 the following directions were passed : ‘Thus, the present appeal as well as the other connected matters are disposed of with the following directions, in addition to the decision on the questions of law discussed above. (i) That date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act , 1894 is relevant to determine the eligibility of a land-owner for allotment of a residential plot, even if the acquisition is for the purposes of commercial, industrial or institutional; (ii) That the entitlement of the size of the plot and the procedure for allotment shall be as on the date of allotment in pursuance of an advertisement issued inviting application from the oustees; (iii) That the HUDA or such other authority can reserve plots up to 50% of the total plots available for all reserved categories including that of oustees. As to what extent there would be reservation for the oustees, is required to be decided by the State Government and/or by HUDA or any other authority, who is entitled to acquire land; (iv) That the oustees are entitled to apply for allotment of plot along-with earnest money in pursuance of public advertisement issued may be inviting applications from the general public and the oustees through one advertisement. If an oustee is not successful, he/she can apply again and again till such time, the plots are available for the oustees in the sector for which land was acquired for residential/commercial purposes or in the adjoining sector, if the land acquired was for institutional and industrial purposes etc. The plots to the oustees shall be allotted only by public advertisement and not on the basis of any application submitted by an oustee; (v) That the price to be charged from an allottee shall be the price mentioned in the public advertisement in pursuance of which, the plot is allotted and not when the sector is floated for sale for the first time; (vi) That the State Government or the acquiring authority shall not advertise any residential plot for sale without conducting an exercise in respect of plots ear-marked for reserved categories and after identification of the plots available for the oustees in each sector. Thereafter, the State Government or the acquiring authority shall publish an advertisement inviting applications from such oustees to apply for allotment of plots in accordance with law: and (vii) If in any sector, more than 50% plots have been allotted by way of reservation including to the oustees, then such allotment shall not be cancelled or reviewed in view of the judgment of this court.’ 12. Vide order dated 26.04.2012 the writ petition being CWP-16393- 1995 filed by the petitioner herein was decided and the following order was passed : ‘In view of the above, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of plot as an oustee keeping in view the law laid down in Bhagwan Singh’s case (supra) and the principles laid down in Haryana Urban Development Authority and others V/s Sandeep and others (LPA No.2096 decided on 25.04.2012).’ The directions, as noted above, are to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a plot as an oustee keeping in view the law laid down in Bhagwan Singh’s case (supra) and Sandeep’s case (supra). The case of the petitioner was considered and it transpired that the earlier allotment in favour of the petitioner had been made by the Estate Officer, HSVP, Panipat by deleting the names of three other co-sharers and retaining the plot in the individual name of Baljeet Singh against the HSVP policies dated 11.08.2016 and 08.05.2018. Notice was issued to the Officer concerned for initiation of disciplinary proceedings. Reconsidering the case of the petitioner, in compliance of the order dated 26.04.2012, a detailed speaking order was passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner on 18.10.2019. Infact, in the said order, in para No.20, it has specifically been stated that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity of hearing on 05.08.2019 and he had stated that he had already given a representation dated 17.07.2019 to the Chief Administrator, HSVP which may be considered as his submissions and his claim may be decided. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Sandeep’ case (supra) and Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in Rajiv Manchanda & Ors. V/s HUDA & Anr. Relying upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in Sandeep’ case (supra) and Hon’ble Full Bench of this Court in Rajiv Manchanda & Ors. V/s HUDA & Anr. [2018 (2) PLR 422] , the representation of the petitioner was decided holding that the earlier allotment be treated as cancelled and the amount would be refunded along with simple interest @ 5.5% per annum. However, the petitioner was granted liberty to apply as and when oustees claims are invited and his claim would be considered as per the policies dated 04.12.2015, 11.08.2016 and 08.05.2018 as may be amended from time to time. Admittedly, the petitioner chose not to challenge the said order. 13. Learned counsel for the respondents has pointed out that an advertisement was given in all leading newspapers inviting applications from the oustees and that the petitioner was free to apply for allotment of a plot under the oustee quota till June 2025, however, the petitioner chose not to exercise his right to apply under the said category. Learned counsel for the respondents has further pointed out that the three co-sharers whose names were deleted, while allotting the plot to in favour of the petitioner, have also approached this Court by filing separate writ petitions. 14. As far back as 28.02.2020 this Court had noticed that the present contempt petition had been rendered infructuous as the remedy with the petitioner was to challenge the order dated 18.10.2019. However, the petitioner insisted on pursuing the present application being CM-914-2019 for revival of the main contempt petition which was then finally admitted vide order dated 07.02.2023. 15. Heard. 16. In the present case the writ petition being CWP-16393-1995 filed by the petitioner was on the ground that the petitioner was entitled for allotment of a plot as an oustee and the allotment letter was not issued in the absence of the consent of the other co-sharers. The said writ petition was disposed off by observing that the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a plot site as a co-sharer is required to be examined keeping view the extent of his land holding. The said writ petition was disposed off by observing that the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a plot site as a co-sharer is required to be examined keeping view the extent of his land holding. In view of the law laid down in the case of Bhagwan Singh’s case (supra) and Sandeep’s case (supra), the matter was duly reconsidered and since the other co-sharers have been deleted by the Estate Officer concerned while allotting the plot exclusively in favour of the petitioner, the said allotment was cancelled vide a detailed speaking order, which the petitioner opted not to challenge despite the order dated 28.02.2020 passed by this Court. The petitioner also has not opted to apply for allotment of a plot under the oustee scheme which was advertised this year. 17. In view of the above, I do not find any merit in the present contempt petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed off. 18. Needless to say that the petitioner would always be at liberty to avail his remedies as available in law.