Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lilu Ram And Ors vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 8 July, 2016
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Ramendra Jain
CWP No. 13010 of 2016 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 13010 of 2016
Date of Decision: 8.7.2016
Lilu Ram and others
....Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents.
1. Whether the Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see
the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN.
PRESENT: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.
1. The petitioners through the instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, have prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot them the plots under the oustees policy dated 9.11.2010 (Annexure P-1).
2. The respondents have framed oustees policy dated 9.11.2010 (Annexure P-1) providing that the plots would be allotted to the land owners who were owners prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short "the Act"). The respondents have invited applications for oustees claim under R & R Policy (2007 & 2010) vide public notice dated 28.9.2013 (Annexure P-2) from the land owners 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2016 00:02:57 ::: CWP No. 13010 of 2016 -2- whose land had been acquired under the said policy and their awards had been announced on or after 5.3.2005. In pursuance thereto, the petitioners applied vide applications dated 17.10.2013 (Annexure P-3 Colly) for allotment of an oustees category residential plot under the R&R Policy. The petitioners were owners of the land situated in village Sihi, District Gurgaon which was acquired by the respondents for the development of 150 meter road wide periphery road linking Dwarka Township Delhi from Haryana Boundary to NH-8 near Kherkidaula and Sector Road 81 to 95. The awards (Annexure P-4) were passed. This Court vide order dated 25.4.2012 (Annexure P-5) passed in LPA No.2096 of 2011 held that the fixation of different dates in different policies lead to conflicting rights and interests and, therefore, to have uniformity in respect of applicability of the policies for allotment of plots to the oustees, the date of notification under Section 4 of the Act was a reasonable date. As per the proceedings dated 18.5.2015 (Annexure P-6), the respondents have no objection to allot the plot to the GPA/SPA/Agreement to Sell/Will holders in Sectors 110A and 37C, Gurgaon and were ready to allot plots to approximately 250 ineligible oustees. The petitioners moved various representations including representation dated 5.4.2016 (Annexure P-7) to respondent No.1 for allotment of alternative plot under the oustees policy, but no response has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioners have sent a representation dated 5.4.2016 (Annexure P-7) to respondent No.1, but no action has so far been taken thereon.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, perusing the 2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2016 00:02:58 ::: CWP No. 13010 of 2016 -3- present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.1 to take a decision on the representation dated 5.4.2016 (Annexure P-7), in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
July 8, 2016 (RAMENDRA JAIN)
gbs JUDGE
3 of 3
::: Downloaded on - 12-07-2016 00:02:58 :::