Punjab-Haryana High Court
Estate Officer Huda And Ors vs Sanjay Kumar on 10 March, 2026
RSA-3409-2010 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
212
Date of decision: 10.03.2026
1.RSA-3409-2010 (O&M)
The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority,
Kaithal and others ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Sanjay Kumar ...Respondent(s)
2. RSA-3190-2010 (O&M)
Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority,
Kaithal and others ...Appellant(s)
Vs.
Subhash Chander ...Respondent(s)
CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Som Nath Saini, Advocate and
Mr. Amit Saini, Advocate
for the appellant-HUDA in both cases.
Mr. Bikram Choudhary, Advocate for
the respondent in RSA-3409-2010.
******
NIDHI GUPTA, J.
RSA-3409-2010 (O&M) Defendants are in Second Appeal against the judgment of reversal; whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for mandatory injunction, although dismissed by learned Trial Court, has been decreed by learned First Appellate Court vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.05.2010.
DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 19:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-3409-2010 (O&M) -2-
RSA-3190-2010 (O&M)
Defendants are in Second Appeal against the concurrent judgments and decrees of the learned District Courts; whereby suit filed by the plaintiff/respondent for mandatory injunction has been decreed by both the District Courts.
2. Both the above said Second Appeals are being disposed of by this common order as the facts and issues involved in both appeals are identical. For the sake of facility, facts are being drawn from, and parties are being referred to as per their status in RSA-3409-2010 titled as 'The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kaithal and others vs. Sanjay Kumar.'
3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff had filed the present suit for mandatory injunction seeking a direction to the defendants to deliver a free-hold residential development plot of 500 sq.yds. to the plaintiff in view of the fact that his land holding had been acquired by the defendants in the year 1992 for development of Urban Estate, Sectors 19 and 20, HUDA, Kaithal. It was pleaded in the plaint that there was a Policy No. 2-92/2082 dated 18.03.1992 issued by the defendants according to which if there are number of co-sharers in the land which has been acquired and the acquired land measures more than one acre, then for the purpose of granting benefit, determining factor would be the area owned by each co-sharer respectively as per his/her share in the joint holding. Accordingly, applications have been invited in 1992. It was pleaded that plaintiff had applied for free-hold residential DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 19:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3409-2010 (O&M) -3- development plot vide registered notice dated 20.06.1992 and 12.11.2005 but the defendants had failed to take action on the said applications. Hence, present suit was filed on 15.12.2005.
4. Upon appraisal of the pleadings and the evidence led by the parties, the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal has dismissed the suit of the plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2008 inter alia holding that in pursuance to the Advertisement issued by the defendant in the year 1992, plaintiff had never applied for the said plot in prescribed format before closing date; nor plaintiff had deposited 10% earnest money as specified in the advertisement. It was noted that this fact had been admitted by the plaintiff in his cross-examination while appearing as PW1 that he did not deposit 10% earnest money as required. It was further held that the advertisement being of the year 1992, present suit, which had been filed in the year 2005 in respect of a cause of action which purportedly arose in 1992, was also barred by limitation. Consequentially suit of the plaintiff came to be dismissed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kaithal vide judgment and decree dated 18.11.2008.
5. However, the Civil Appeal filed by the plaintiff was allowed by the learned District Judge, Kaithal vide impugned judgment and decree dated 29.05.2010 on the ground that as the suit had been filed within a period of 14 years of acquisition, the same was within limitation. Learned First Appellate Court further held that in the Policy itself, it was mentioned that defendant No.3 would offer plot to the oustee according to his/her entitlement under the Policy; and as such, plaintiff was not required to DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 19:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3409-2010 (O&M) -4- apply; rather the defendants ought to have offered him a plot. On this reasoning, the civil appeal came to be accepted. Hence, present Second Appeal by the defendants.
6. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the plaintiff is not entitled to plot as he has not applied as per the terms and conditions of the Policy dated 18.03.1992. It is submitted that as per the Policy, the plaintiff was required to deposit of earnest money along with the application. However, as found by learned Trial Court, no earnest money was deposited. Thus, plaintiff cannot claim allotment of plot. It is submitted that the issue of oustee quota stands settled by a Full Bench judgment of this Court in Rajiv Manchanda v. Haryana Urban Development Authority (P&H)(F.B.) : Law Finder Doc Id # 1000524.
7. He, accordingly, prays for dismissal of present second appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff is unable to dispute the above said contentions of learned counsel for the appellants and the legal position as noted above.
9. No other argument is raised on behalf of the parties. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file in great detail. I find merit in the submissions made on behalf of the appellants.
10. It is the clear and categoric finding of the learned Trial Court that for allotment of plot in the oustee category, the plaintiff was required to pay 10% of the sale amount alongwith application. It is admitted fact that plaintiff had paid no such amount. Learned First Appellate Court was in patent error in holding that it was for the appellants themselves to offer DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 19:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3409-2010 (O&M) -5- plot to the oustee. It was ignored that there is a categoric condition in the Policy that application for grant of plot under the oustee category has to be made in a specified format; which application has to be submitted with 10% of the sale amount as earnest money. Even as per the Advertisement and Brochure, persons belonging to the general as well as oustee category has to deposit application form alongwith 10% of the total cost of the plot. It is admitted case of the plaintiff that he had not deposited the said earnest money. Thus, as the plaintiff had not applied as per the rules and regulations, he cannot be held entitled to allotment of plot.
11. In this regard, reference may be made to a Division Bench of this Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Sandeep (Punjab and Haryana (DB): Law Finder Doc Id # 633787. The relevant para of the said judgment reads as under: -
"56. 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 DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 19:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3409-2010 (O&M) -6-
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. The above view has been upheld by a Full Bench of this Court in case of Rajiv Manchanda (supra), wherein it is held as under:-
"C.Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977- Allotment of plot to oustee- Requirement to make application- Claims of oustees required to be invited through newspapers and not by individual notices to oustees DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 19:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document RSA-3409-2010 (O&M) -7- personally- It is for oustee to make application for allotment of plot under oustee quota- Obligation of respondents will be there only if application is made by ouster."
13. Even Hon'ble Supreme Court in Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority vs. Nirmala Devi, Law Finder Doc Id # 2750426 dated 14.07.2025, has held as follows:-
"Oustees Quota - Oustees are not entitled as a matter of legal right to allotment of plots at the price fixed in the 1992 policy if they failed to apply in prescribed format with earnest money - Allotment must be governed by the 2016 policy and applications must be made online with requisite deposit within stipulated time."
14. Lastly, it cannot be ignored that against the Policy of 18.03.1992, plaintiff has instituted the present suit on 15.12.2005 i.e. after a gap of more than 13 years. Clearly therefore, suit of the plaintiff is also barred by limitation.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent is unable to dispute or controvert the above said legal and factual position.
16. In view of the above, both the present Regular Second Appeals are accordingly allowed; and the judgment dated 29.05.2010 passed by learned District Judge, Kaithal in RSA-3409-2010 is set aside; and judgments and decrees dated 18.12.2008 of learned Civil judge (Senior Division), Kaithal and 08.04.2010 of learned District judge, Kaithal respectively, are set aside and suit of the plaintiff is dismissed. DIVYANSHI 2026.03.13 19:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
RSA-3409-2010 (O&M) -8-
17. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed of.
10.03.2026 (NIDHI GUPTA)
Divyanshi JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
DIVYANSHI
2026.03.13 19:50
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document