Punjab-Haryana High Court
Haryana Urban Development Authority vs Partap Singh on 29 May, 2000
Equivalent citations: (2000)126PLR829
Author: M.L. Singhal
Bench: M.L. Singhal
JUDGMENT M.L. Singhal, J.
1. Partap Singh filed suit for declaration against Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short "HUDA"), Jind through its Estate Officer to the effect that he was entitled to the allotment of a commercial plot in the Urban Estate, Jind on reserve price. It is alleged in the plaint that land measuring 136 kanal 17 marla situated in the revenue estate of Jind as recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1974-75 was acquired by the State of Haryana for a public purpose namely the planned development in the area of Jind. In the revenue record, the land was standing in the name of Moti Ram who was father of plaintiff Partap Singh. Moti Ram died on 9.10.88. It is further alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff comes within the definition of ouster in the wake of the acquisition of the land belonging to his father for use by HUDA. As son of Moti Ram he is entitled to the allotment of commercial site in Urban Estate, Jind. Commercial sites are still available in Urban Estate, Jind and they are being sold by HUDA in open auction from time to time. Plaintiff owns no commercial site in Urban Estate, Jind, as such he is entitled to the allotment of commercial site in Jind Urban area on reserve price. He applied to the HUDA for the allotment of commercial site on reserve price vide application which was received in the office of HUDA on 16.12.1993. HUDA, however, gave no reply to that application.
2. Defendant (HUDA) contested the suit urging that the suit is time barred. Plaintiff is not son of Moti Ram deceased. In view of section 50 of Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, civil court has no jurisdiction. It was further urged that at the time of acquisition of the land of Moti Ram, there was no scheme/provision that an oustee was entitled to allotment of any site. This scheme was introduced by HUDA for the first time in September, 1987. Land of Moti Ram was acquired for residential purposes. It was denied that any application was received from Partap Singh for allotment of commercial plot by HUDA on 16.12.1993. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the allotment of a commercial site in the Urban Estate, Jind on reserved price? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is badly time barred? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
5. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction in view of section 50 of the HUDA Act? OPD
6. Relief.
3. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind decreed the plaintiffs suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to allotment of a commercial plot in Urban Estate, Jind on the present reserve price in view of his findings that he is entitled to the allotment of commercial plot as he is an oustee in the wake of the acquisition of the land for use by HUDA belonging to his father measuring 136 kanal 17 marla for a public purpose. His father expired on 9.10.88. It was found that it was the duty of the HUDA to allot/reserve some commercial site for oustees. Civil court was found to have jurisdiction into the matter. It was found that its jurisdiction was not barred in view of section 50 of the HUDA Act, 1977.
4. HUDA went in appeal. Appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Jind vide order dated 7.2.2000. Still not satisfied, HUDA has come up in appeal to this court. I have heard Shri Ashutosh Mohunta, Advocate, counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record.
5. Learned counsel for HUDA submitted that there was no scheme introduced by HUDA to allot plots to the oustees in the wake of acquisition of their land by HUDA for its use for a public purpose during the days when this land was acquired. HUDA introduced scheme vide letter dated 10.9.87 Ex. Dl providing for the allotments of alternative sites to those whose land was acquired by HUDA for development. In CWP Nos. 3401 of 1993 decided on 11.8.1993 titled Ram Narain v. State of Haryana etc., High Court of Punjab and Haryana relying 'upon the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme in State of U.P. v. Smt. Pista Devi and Ors. AIR 1986 SC 2025 held that to oustees who are rendered oustees on acquisition of their land, there should be allotment of alternative sites to them. Contention of the State that the provision should be applied prospectively, did not weigh with the court. It was observed that the purpose underlying the reservation scheme for oustees is basically one involving an obligation on the State to take care of a touching human problem and if it is at all possible to lean, we must lean in favour of hapless individual whose land has been acquired. It would be anamolous to hold that while acquiring the land for the purpose of land development, to provide house and other facilities to one section of populace, those persons whose land had been acquired should be adversely treated or left homeless and without shelter. It was observed that where in pursuance of a development scheme, if some land has been acquired but the same had not yet been utilized the oustees from that land should have a prior right to be rehabilitated. It was also observed that if plots are still available, oustees should be given chance for rehabilitation. Learned counsel for the appellant drew my attention to the judgment of the Division Bench delivered in CWP 14708 of 1990 titled Smt. Suman Aneja wife of Sh. Lajpal Aneja v. State of Haryana and Ors. where it was held that the scheme was introduced by HUDA on 10.9.87 for provision of allotment of a plot to an oustee and this scheme can be applied only prospectively being in the nature of social welfare measure and taking care of a desperate human problem. In Smt. Pista Devi's case (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that it would be desirable if provision was made to provide alternative house or shop sites to those persons who had been uprooted on acquisition of their land.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that an executive order like the one issued on 10.9.87 should be applicable only prospectively. In support of this submission, he has relied upon Hukam Chand etc. v. Union of India and Ors., AIR 1972 S.C. 2427 and The Income Tax Officer, Alleppey v. I.M.C. Ponnoose and Ors., AIR 1970 S.C. 385. On facts, he submitted that vide communication Nos. A-11-P-76-78/17778 dated May 17, 1988, it had been clarified by HUDA that the policy dated 10-9.1987 was to be made applicable only in future sectors and old applications were not to be considered. It is submitted relying upon Indian Railway Service of Mechanical Engineers Association and Ors. v. Indian Railway Traffic Service Association and Anr., 1993(3) JT S.C. 474 that it is not for this court to lay down a policy as that was a matter entirely within the purview of the Executive Authority and if this Court found that a policy was not fair, it could not substitute a policy of its own instead.
7. In my opinion, the learned courts below took a correct view of the matter. So, this appeal fails and is dismissed in limine.