Punjab-Haryana High Court
Om Parkash Through His Spa Namely Raj ... vs State Of Haryana And Others on 15 February, 2018
Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal
Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal, Anupinder Singh Grewal
CWP-5868-2017 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-5868-2017
Date of Decision: 15.2.2018
Om Parkash
....Petitioner.
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents.
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
PRESENT: Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the respondent-HUDA.
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 mandamus directing respondents No.2 to 4 to make allotment of plot for which the petitioner had applied vide application dated 28.11.2011 (Annexure P-6) in view of advertisement dated 30.11.2011 (Annexure P-5) as vide order dated 28.2.2017 (Annexure P-11), the petitioner had been asked to apply afresh in future as and when applications would be invited from the oustees and even in the advertisement dated 16.1.2017 (Annexure P-10), a condition has been imposed that in future no application would be invited from the oustees as the respondents are still having number of plots lying vacant of various sizes as depicted in the RTI reply dated 6.3.2017 (Annexure P-12).
1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2018 05:45:12 ::: CWP-5868-2017 -2-
2. The petitioner along with other co-sharers was owner of the land measuring 3 kanal 7 marlas to the extent of his share situated within the revenue estate of village Patti Taraf Afgan, Tehsil and District Panipat as per the oustee certificate dated 21.11.2011 (Annexure P-1). Government of Haryana framed a policy dated 10.9.1987 (Annexure P-2) for the allotment of residential plots/commercial sites to the oustees whose land was compulsorily acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The said policy was amended from time to time vide policies dated 9.5.1990 and 18.3.1992 (Annexures P-3 and P-4, respectively). Government of Haryana acquired the said land for the development of Sector 25, Part II, Panipat. The HUDA vide advertisement dated 30.11.2011 (Annexure P-5) invited applications for the allotment of residential plots from the oustees/landowners whose land was acquired for the development of Sector 25, Part II, Panipat. In pursuance thereto, the petitioner applied for the allotment of a plot under oustees category vide application dated 28.11.2011 (Annexure P-6) and also deposited the required amount of 10%. When no response was received, the petitioner moved an application dated 26.4.2016 under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and vide reply dated 6.5.2016 (Annexure P-7), the petitioner was informed that since the land of the co-sharers of the petitioner was released, the petitioner was not entitled to the allotment of a plot under the oustees quota. A bunch of 33 cases was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 4.4.2016 (Annexure P-8) passed in CWP-6684-2014 by directing the respondents to reconsider the claim of the petitioners therein whose claim was also rejected on the ground that since the land of the co-sharers had been released from the acquisition. Thereafter, the HUDA framed another 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2018 05:45:14 ::: CWP-5868-2017 -3- policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-9) and as per the said policy, all the co- sharers were entitled to the allotment of separate plots according to their share in the acquired land. In pursuance to the said policy, the HUDA invited applications from the oustees whose land was acquired for the development of Sector 25, Part II, Panipat and from the oustees of adjoining sectors vide advertisement dated 16.1.2017 (Annexure P-10). The HUDA vide order dated 28.2.2017 (Annexure P-11) advised the petitioner to apply in future as and when the applications would be invited from the oustees. Further, in the advertisement, Annexure P-10, it has been mentioned that no application would be invited in future from the oustees as the respondents are having enough number of plots lying vacant with them. Hence, the present writ petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted 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 3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2018 05:45:14 ::: CWP-5868-2017 -4- 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. The petitioner shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim before the concerned authority.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
JUDGE
February 15, 2018 (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
gbs JUDGE
Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes
Whether Reportable Yes
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 04-03-2018 05:45:14 :::