Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ved Pal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 18 November, 2011
Author: Paramjeet Singh
Bench: Satish Kumar Mittal, Paramjeet Singh
CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 1
16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision:- 18.11.2011
(1) C.W.P. No. 17208 of 2010
Ved Pal .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
(2) C.W.P. No. 17292 of 2010
Ram Gopal .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
(3) C.W.P. No. 16755 of 2010
Hirdey Ram .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
(4) C.W.P. No. 16760 of 2010
Shiv Narain .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .....Respondents
(5) C.W.P. No. 16807 of 2010
Om Parkash .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and other .....Respondents
CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 2
16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010
(6) C.W.P. No. 17217 of 2010
Bharat Singh .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ....Respondents
CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL,
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH.
Present:- Mr. Narender Sura, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. Ajay Kumar Gupta, Addl. AG Haryana.
Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and
3-HUDA.
****
Paramjeet Singh, J This order shall dispose of Civil Writ Petitions No. 17208, 17292, 16755, 16760,16807 and 17217 of 2010 which have been filed by various oustee farmers of Village Wazirabad (in CWP Nos.17208 and 16755 of 2010), and Village Haiderpur Viran (in CWP Nos. 17292, 16760, 16807 and 17217 of 2010), Tehsil and District Gurgaon, whose land was acquired for establishment and development of residential area as Sector 55 and 56, Gurgaon by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short 'HUDA'). For brevity, facts are taken from C.W.P. No. 17208 of 2010.
The petitioners are the persons who have been affected by the paradigm of development resulting to their displacement. The rehabilitation and resettlement policy CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 3 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 appears to be ill-equipped to counter the attitude of the instrumentality of State. The displacement of petitioners witnessed in law has resulted from the acquisition of land by the State of Haryana in the year 1989 for development of residential, commercial and institutional Sectors 55 and 56, Gurgaon by the instrumentality of State i.e. Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the `HUDA'). The entire holdings of the petitioners and other co-sharers have been acquired. In recognition of the displacement of the petitioners and the related persons, rehabilitation and resettlement policy was framed by the HUDA and the Government of Haryana and amended from time to time. More than two decades had passed, the petitioners are unable to get plot under the Oustee's Quota Policy. It appears that the State machinery is ill-equipped to do justice to such persons. Every day this Court is flooded with petitions whereby the petitioners approach this Court for seeking allotment of plots under the "Oustee Quota" or alternate plot and possession of the plots carved out by the HUDA. HUDA, now is not an institution providing infrastructure and affordable housing to the persons, rather is working as profit making organization. CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 4 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 All the petitioners claim that being oustees, they are/ were entitled for residential plots as per the oustee policies framed by HUDA from time to time. Till date HUDA has framed policies dated 10.9.1987, 9.5.1990, 18.3.1992, 12.3.1993, 22.1.1997, 28.8.1998, 27.03.2000, 10.7.2002, 8.12.2003, and Govt. of Haryana had notified polices dated 7.12.2007 and 09.11.2010. The petitioners claim as per policy dated 18.3.1992 as well as the subsequent policy dated 12.3.1993 modifying the earlier policy. It would be appropriate to reproduce the extract from relevant policies framed by HUDA as were applicable when the land was acquired . First Policy dated : 10.9.1987 "....... the plots to the oustees will only be offered if they were owners of the land proposed to be acquired for one year before the issue of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the plots will be made available only if 75% of the total land owned by the landowners is acquired. The plots will be allotted to such persons as under:
i) Among others, those who own land up to 500 sq. yards, should be offered a plot of 100 sq. yards, those who owns more than 500 sq. yards and owner of larger land should be offered plots of 350 Sq. yards.
ii) If there are a number of owners for particular kind efforts should be made to accommodate them subject to the limit of one plot of 250 sq. yards for CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 5 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 every acre of land acquired. Such plots should be offered to the person when he filed an affidavit to the effect that he does not hold any house/shop or plot in that town. This condition will be in conformity with the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pista Devi's case.
The land owners will be given compensation for their land which is acquired while they will have to pay for these plots at the normal allotment rate of Haryana Urban Development Authority. Those, whose constructed houses are released will pay Development cost for their portion of land.
The persons whose part of the land of some houses have been released from the acquisition and the remaining land stands acquired, should not be considered in the category of oustees for allotment of plots under this category....."
Policy dated 9.5.1990 provided as under:-
".... In order to move these ambiguities, the Authority has amended the decision taken on 14.8.87 as under:-
i) Plots to the oustees may be offered if the land proposed to be acquired as under the ownership of oustees for a continuous period of 5 years before the publication of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and if 75% of the total land owned by the landowners in that Urban Estate is acquired.
ii) Oustees whose land acquired is :
a) Less than 500 sq. yards should be offered 40 sq. yards plot.CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 6
16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010
b) Between 500 sq. yards and one acre should be offered a plot of 250 sq. yards.
c) More than one acre should be offered a plot of 350 sq. yards.
iii) In case, there are a number of co-sharers for the land acquired such co-sharers be accommodated by offering one plot each of 250 sq. yards subject to the condition that the land acquired is at least one acre. In case acquired land of the co-sharer is less than one acre, then only one plot of 250 sq. yards may be allotted in the joint name of the co-sharers.
iv) Such plots should be offered to the oustees only if he does not own any house/shop/plot in any of the Urban Estates of that town.
v) The persons whose house or part of land has been released from acquisition shall not be considered under the category for allotment of such plots.
vi) Allotment of plots to the oustees will be made at the normal sector rate of HUDA.
As regards allotment of commercial sites to the oustees, the matter is under re-examination and the decision as and when arrived at would be communicated.
Claims of the oustees shall be invited before the Sector is floated for sale."
Another policy was issued on 18.3.1992.
"....the plots to the oustees will only be offered if they were owner of the proposed land to be acquired on the following terms and conditions:-
i) Plots to the oustees would be offered if he the land proposed to be acquired is under the ownership CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 7 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 of the oustees prior to the publication of the Notification under Section 4 of the Act and if 75% or more of the total land owned by the landowners in that Sector is acquired.
ii) Oustees whose land acquired is:
a) Less than 500 sq. yards would be offered a plot
of 50 sq. yards.
b) between 500 sq. yards and one acre would be
offered a plot of 250 sq. yards.
c) From one acre and above would be offered a
plot of 500 sq. yards or where 500 sq. yards plot are not provided in the layout plan, two plots of 250 sq. yards each may be given.
iii) the above policy shall also apply in case there are a number of co-sharers of the land, which has been acquired. If the acquired land which has one acre, then for the purpose of granting benefits under this policy, the determining factor would be the area owned by each co-sharer respectively as per his/her share in the joint holding. In case the acquired land of the co-sharer is less than one acre, only one plot of 250 sq. yards would be allotted in the joint name of the co-sharers.
iv) If the land of any landowners is released from acquisition, he/she would not be eligible to avail of any benefit under this policy (irrespective of the area of land released).
v) As per the policy, the oustees shall be entitled to a developed plot/plots, the size of which would depend upon the area of his acquired land, subject to a maximum of 500 sq. yards. The oustee shall be entitled to this benefit under this policy only once in CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 8 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 the same town where his land was situated/located.
However, in case where the land is acquired in pockets at different times, the owner shall be entitled to claim the benefit on account of the entire area acquired (at different times) for purpose of claiming the benefit under this policy.
vi) Allotment of plots to the oustees will be made at the allotment rates advertised by the Haryana Urban Development Authority for that sector. Land owners will be given compensation for their land which is acquired.
vii) Claims of the oustees for allotment of plots under this policy shall be invited by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority concerned before the sector is floated for sale.
viii) The commercial sites/building are sold by auction. The sites/buildings be also allotted to oustees on reserve price as and when the auction of the same is held. While putting such sites/buildings to public auction, the oustees who want to purchase the sites/building could represent before hand for allotment, so that requisite number could be reserved for them. However, if the area acquired of the commercial site is equivalent or less to the area of booth/shop-cum-flat being auctioned by HUDA, they may be given a booth/SCO sites keeping in view the size of acquisition under this policy." Policy dated 12.03.1993 "Further to it, Authority while laying down the procedure to settle such claims, have decided, in partial modification of the earlier policy as under:- CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 9
16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010
i) Benefit under oustees policy is not to be allowed to those oustees who have got residential/commercial plots from HUDA in that Urban Estate. However, this restriction will not supply to those oustees who might have acquired property there otherwise.
ii) Benefit under oustees policy shall be restricted to one plot according to the size of the holding irrespective of the number of co-sharers."
Annexure `A' "Procedure for inviting, scrutinizing, deciding of claims and mode of allotment to the oustees.
"(i) Filing of Claims.
L.A.O. concerned will prepare a list of eligible oustees at the time of announcement of award and send the same to the Estate Officer for reference and record. The Estate Officer concerned shall invite the claims through press/newspapers for allotment of plots under the oustees policy much before floatation of the sector. Each applicant would be required to send the application in the prescribed proforma, alongwith the supporting documents and earnest money equivalent to 10% of the cost of the plot of the sector in question and if the price has not been determined till then, of the previous sector floated in the same urban estate.
(ii) The allotment of plots under oustee policy be restricted to the claimants within the sector for which the land has been/is being acquired.
(iii) The past claims which have also been received in different offices of HUDA/Urban Estates for allotment of residential plots under Oustee policy be scrutinized CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 10 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 by the proposed Committee in terms of the policy applicable at the relevant time. Such past claims will be considered and got decided within a time-frame of 4 months, as one time measure.
(iv) The onus to file the claims under oustee policy shall rest with the claimants and Estate Officer concerned will publish a public notice through press/New Paper for inviting such claims within one month of taking possession of the land.
However, the record of LAO's office will be consulted for verification of these claims by a Screening Committee, constituted for the purpose.
(v) Scrutiny and acceptance of claims. The documents received with the application will be scrutinized with reference to the record supplied by LAO. For the purpose a Screening Committee is proposed to be constituted, which will make its recommendations within one month of the last date of filing of the claims:-
1. Zonal Administrator Chairman (concerned)
2. Land Acquisition Officer Member of the area
3. District Town Planner Member of the area
4. Estate Officer of the Member Urban Estates Secretary The Committee shall forward its recommendations to the Chief Administrator for accepting the claims of such applicants.
(vi) Mode of allotment After the claims have been finally accepted by the Competent Authority, the applicant's claim will be kept in a live register and applicants shall be asked CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 11 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 to deposit the earnest money equivalent to 10% of the cost of the plot as and when sector scheme is to be floated. The allotment of plots to such claimants shall normally be done prior to or atleast alongwith other applicants, who have been declared successful in the draw of lots after the floatation of the scheme. By doing so, the number of plots, which are to be offered in general draw will be identified after the claims of the oustees have been scrutinized/accepted and the residual plots are earmarked for the general draw. Those allottees who do not prefer their claims within the stipulated period alongwith requisite information will have no right for consideration of their claims after the general draw is over in respect of that sector."
Policy dated 28.08.1998 "..... if the plot under the oustees policy cannot be offered to the oustees in the same sector then they should be offered residential/commercial plots in the next residential sector of that Urban Estate, which may be floated and developed by HUDA". This amendment/provisions will be made applicable prospectively. All other terms and condition, shall however remain the same."
Policy dated 27.03.2000 "The existing policy laws down that only the land owners, whose land was acquired on or before 10.9.1987 are eligible to acquire a residential plot.
As a follow-up to the decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court given in CWP No. 14708 of 1990 titled as "Suman Aneja vs. State of Haryana"
circulated vide memo referred to above, the matter CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 12 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 was placed before the Authority in its 77th meeting held on 24.2.2000. It has accordingly been decided that in view of the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court, where the land was acquired prior to 10.9.87 and plots are still available. While floating the plots on such land, the oustees claims shall also be invited and they will have the prior right for the allotment of plots."
Policy dated 08.12.2003 "The amendment in the oustees policy proved by the Authority, for allotment of plots to the oustees in the various urban estates developed by HUDA, as circulated vide memo/circular referred to above specifically states that if the plot under the oustees policy cannot be offered to the oustees in the same sector (developed as "Non-residential") then they shall be offered only a residential plot, in the next residential sector of the Urban Estates which may be floated & developed by HUDA. Meaning thereby, the land owner whose land is acquired for the development of a sector shall be entitled for a residential plot only, as per laid down eligibility/entitlement criteria". The word commercial wherever figured in the circular dated 28.08.1998 referred to above, inadvertently, may be treated as withdrawn."
The Government has formulated and notified a policy for rehabilitation and resettlement of landowners - land acquisition oustees dated 07.12.2007 and thereafter, notified a comprehensive revised policy dated 09.11.2010. CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 13 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 In the light of the above policies of the relevant period, we have examined the case of the petitioners:
Clause (i) of the oustee policy dated 18.3.1992 provides that the plot would be offered to the oustee if his land has been acquired.
Clause (ii) of the said policy provides that an oustee whose acquired land is less than 500 sq. yards, he will be offered a plot of 50 sq. yards. If the acquired land is between 500 sq. yards and 1 acre, then a plot measuring 250 sq. yards will be offered and if acquired land is 1 acre and above, then a plot of 500 sq. yards or where 500 sq. yards plots are not provided in the layout plan, two plots of 250 sq. yards each will be given.
Clause (vii) of the said policy specifically provides that the claim of the oustees for allotment of plot under the said policy shall be invited by the Estate Officer before the Sector is floated for sale.
The petitioners have alleged that in gross violation of the aforesaid clauses the respondent-HUDA advertised and floated scheme for allotment of free hold residential plots to general public in Sector 55 and 56, Gurgaon in the year 1992, vide advertisement/brochure (Annexure P/11). Admittedly in the said advertisement, applications were not invited from the oustees for allotment of plot under the oustee policy, therefore, CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 14 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 the petitioners, who are rustic villagers and farmers, could not have an opportunity to get the plots under the oustee policy. As per the oustee policy it is incumbent upon the HUDA to prepare a list of oustees and to inform them that they are entitled for plots and invite applications from them for allotment of plots. The Land Acquisition Collector concerned is required to prepare list of eligible oustees at the time of passing the award and send the same to the concerned Estate Officer. As per clause (vii), Estate Officer is required to invite the claim of the oustees through press or newspaper for allotment of plots much before floating the said scheme.
In this case inspite of availability of list of eligible oustees the Estate Officer, HUDA never made any attempt to invite applications/claims from the oustees for allotment of plots. In gross violation of the aforesaid oustee policy, respondent-HUDA invited applications from general public for allotment of plots by draw of lots. It is pertinent to mention that vide aforesaid advertisement (Annexure P/11), more than 700 plots were floated and put to general public for allotment, but applications were not invited from oustees to apply for allotment of plots under the oustee policy. In the year 2003 also, respondent-HUDA invited applications for residue plots which were only two in number from general public. The advertisement/brochure (Annexure R/3) with the written CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 15 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 statement of HUDA is with respect to application invited for allotment of residential plots in Sector 51. No plots were offered in Sectors 55-56 Gurgaon to the oustees. In the affidavit filed by Mukesh Kumar Estate Officer-II, HUDA, Gurgaon, dated 8.10.2011, it has been stated that in the years 2003 and 2004, plots were advertised in Sector 51, Gurgaon for the oustees but the newspapers are not readily available on record. During the course of hearing, another affidavit dated 09.11.2011 has been filed by Mukesh Kumar Estate Officer-II HUDA, Gurgaon showing that vide advertisement dated 1.1.2003 published in Times of India and vide advertisement dated 13.2.2004 published in the Indian Express Chandigarh with respect to Sector 55-56, Gurgaon, oustees were also asked to apply. It is also pertinent to mention here that vide advertisement dated 1.1.2003 only 18 plots were advertised in Sector 56 and in second advertisement regarding Sector 56 only 10 plots were advertised. The respondents have averred that in the said advertisement though the oustees were asked to apply but the petitioners did not make applications against those advertisements.
In the year 2007, the petitioners made representations to the respondents for allotment of residential plots of suitable size to them according to their entitlement as per the policy, but the respondents did not take any action on CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 16 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 those representations and kept silent. Thereafter the petitioners served a legal notice dated 29.8.2008 upon the respondents. In response to the said legal notice the respondents informed that whenever the plots are floated by HUDA in future, the petitioners may apply for the same and if found eligible then action for allotment shall be taken and then the petitioners will be allotted plots according to the policy. Then the petitioners wrote when the respondents are proposing to advertise for allotment of plots to the oustees. The respondent HUDA vide letter dated 8.1.2010 rejected the prayer, stating that they had not submitted applications for allotment of plots under oustee category at the time of floating of Sectors 55 and 56, therefore their request for allotment cannot be considered. Thereafter, the petitioners approached this Court by filing the instant writ petitions.
In the written statement the respondent-HUDA has taken a stand that the land of the petitioner was acquired in 1989 and award No. 8 dated 5.7.1990 had been passed. Petitioners have filed the writ petition(s) after 20 years, so are liable to be dismissed on the grounds of delay and latches and are not maintainable. HUDA has taken an objection that the petitioners are not owners of the acquired land. This fact has been clarified that at the time of acquisition of land fathers' of the petitioners were owners and during the course of hearing CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 17 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 this fact has been admitted and the objection has been withdrawn by HUDA.
In the written statement it is not the stand of the HUDA that the petitioners are not oustees and are not eligible for allotment of plots. HUDA has taken a stand that the plots could not be allotted to them because they did not apply for allotment of plots when HUDA offered the same to the general public by the aforesaid advertisements.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the land of the petitioners has been acquired in the year 1989, but they have not been allotted plots as per the policy existing at the time and policy dated 18.03.1992. The petitioners are eligible oustees and are entitled to allotment of plots and has made reference to clause (vii) of the Policy.
Learned counsel for the respondent - HUDA has opposed the contention of the petitioners by submitting that there is delay in filing the writ petitions. They did not raise any objection nor applied for the plot when plots were offered in the year 1992 (Annexure P/11) to general public and subsequently in the year 2003. Hence, the petitioners are not entitled to the relief claimed on account of delay and laches. CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 18 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 We have considered the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties.
It is not in dispute that the land of the petitioners has been acquired and petitioners are eligible allottees. They have not been allotted any plot till date as per the oustee policy of relevant time and as amended upto date. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents-HUDA is that writ petitions suffer from delay and latches on the part of the petitioners. The Learned counsel for the HUDA submitted that property was acquired in the year 1989 and award was passed 1990, the writ petitions are filed in the year 2010 after lapse of 22 years. Hence, the writ petitions are barred. This contention of the learned counsel for the respondents-HUDA is not sustainable. The cause of action would arise only when the sector is floated and plots are offered for allotment to the oustees as per clause
(vii) of the policy. In the present case, HUDA offered plots for sale to the general public and no offer was made to the oustees as per the policy in the year 1992 (Annexure P/11). The plots offered for sale to the public in the year 2003 vide Annexure R/3, which has been annexed with affidavit dated 08.10.2011 of Mukesh Kumar, Estate Officer-II, HUDA, Gurgaon. Annexure R/3 does not relate to Sector 55/56 Gurgaon for which the land of the petitioners was acquired, advertisement is regarding Sector 51 Gurgaon, as such, this contention of the learned counsel for CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 19 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 the respondent - HUDA is not sustainable. Then the reference has been made to Annexure R/4, which has been annexed with affidavit dated 08.10.2011 where the plots were offered to the public on 12.03.2004, wherein the plots with regard to the other sectors were also offered. However, only 9 plots of 1 kanal and 1 plot of 10 Marla were offered from Sector 56, Gurgaon to the general public including the oustees. No separate advertisement was made for the oustees as per the policy and in the Annexure R/3, (marked twice) which has been annexed with affidavit dated 09.11.2011 of Mukesh Kumar, Estate Officer-II, HUDA, Gurgaon, 2 plots of 1 kanal in Sector 55, Gurgaon and 14 plots of 1 kanal and 4 plots of 10 Marla in Sector 56, Gurgaon were advertised for the general public. Annexure R/4, which has been annexed with affidavit dated 09.11.2011, wherein in Sector 56, Gurgaon, 9 plots of 1 kanal and 1 plot of 10 marlas were offered to the general public and not for the oustees specifically. As per the policy, the plots were required to be specifically offered to the oustees. Till date, no specific advertisement exclusively for the oustees has been issued.
In Smt. Suman Aneja versus the State of Haryana and others, reported in 1993 PLJ 623, a Division Bench of this Court held that the relevant date for determining the eligibility of oustees would be the date on which the sectors delineated after development are floated and offered for sale. The change CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 20 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 in the policy was affected in the year 2002-03 and the petitioners have not applied under the policy applicable at that point of time. They had applied only subsequent to the change of policy of 2002. This contention was rejected on the ground that the oustee is not required to apply. It was the duty of the authority i.e. HUDA itself to offer a plot to the oustees before putting it to the general public.
Learned counsel for the respondents-HUDA has relied upon a judgment in the case of Smt. Bhagwanti Versus The Haryana Urban Development Authority, reported in 2002(4) RCR (Civil) 21, to contend that the authorities are not expected indefinitely consider the claim of the petitioners. The said decision is distinguishable. In that case, the Court was considering the time limits prescribed under the policy and the application was filed beyond the prescribed period. In those circumstances, this Court came to the conclusion that authority was not expected to wait for more than four years for an oustee to apply at his convenience. In the present case, the petitioners were not breaching any particular time prescribed for the applications. On the other hand, they had never been offered plot at the earliest possible before floating the plot as per the policy of the HUDA. A list of eligible oustees is required to be framed and plots are required to be offered to the oustees first before offering to the general public. Another factor important in CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 21 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 this case is that the affected persons are rustic villagers, belong to uneducated strata of the society and the offer has not been made in the local language which they can understand. Any offer made in a language unknown to the residents of the area cannot be considered as a valid offer. Rather, the reading of the advertisements make it clear that plots have never been offered to the oustees as is the requirement of the policy.
In view of this, the question of delay and latches in the present case does not arise. This Court specifically asked the learned counsel for the respondent-HUDA to provide the data and the documents how many plots were carved out from Sectors 55 and 56, Gurgaon and how many were the oustees eligible for the same, but they failed to provide the empirical data to this Court nor the HUDA could show any exclusive advertisement for oustees. This contention of HUDA pales into insignificant aspect specifically when even in those advertisements, no plots were offered to the oustees. Reference to the advertisement of 2003 had already been made wherein the number of plots is much less as compared to the demand of oustees/the eligible oustees. Learned counsel for the respondents-HUDA failed to point out from the documents on record that in the year 1992, any offer was made to the oustees. Merely on the ground of delay, the rights cannot be defeated. Acquisition provides process, compensation is a CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 22 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 limited replacement of the rights of the displaced persons. Nature of legal imagination and finality is an integral part of character of justicing and the development of law and justice. In fact, the rights of the persons specifically displaced depend on individual determinations made by a state functionary. A working paper of the oustee problems is needed as a part of its information gathering activity, so that in future, the problems can be seen in that prospective. It would be appropriate to mention here that displacement is the initial stage, thereafter, compensation is paid. The intervening part is re-settlement of the oustees. Transition stage is more important. In the transition, the oustee being poorly educated has lack of disposition that modern industry requires. So, they are not in a position to adjust in the new environment. Acquisition of land results in snatching the source of livelihood of the families, compel them to switch over to the new field of work, it is very difficult, which may be anything. For an oustee transition is of critical importance and has a cost. The management of oustee problems is lackadaisical and involves too many agencies. Everybody feels pains at the thought of giving away his land. The displacement under unfair conditions, specifically rehabilitating them spill over to generations in many ways, such as loss of traditional means of employment, change of environment, disrupted community life and relationships, CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 23 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 marginalization, a profound psychological trauma and loss of cultural and many more. Underlying problems is due to the existing laws regarding land acquisition and rehabilitation policy. Psychological assurance to the displaced persons is very important. Acquisition and re-settlement, rehabilitation and participation in negotiations, can mitigate the darker side of land acquisition for development. It is bounded duty of the State and its instrumentalities to take legal, moral and policy alternatives regarding displacement due to large projects specifically urbanization. The need of the public participation specifically the victims is one of the major concern which must be taken care in all the policies. Though the policy is in existence but its implementation is as per the will of the bureaucrats which is affecting the scheme of oustees settlement. The conduct of the respondents-HUDA does not apparently appears to be development, rather appears to be commercial. It is ill-kept legal secret that original intent of the HUDA is to serve the commercial interest of the organisation not the development and welfare of residents of the State in true prospective. This fact has been lost sight, how it will affect the lives of displaced persons. The reluctance on the part of the officials to acknowledge the responsibility make the law and the policy suspect.
CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 2416760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 In such circumstances, it is clear that till date no exclusive advertisement/offer has been made to the oustee petitioners in the various writ petitions. As such, this contention of the learned counsel for the respondents-HUDA is rejected. The writ petitions do not suffer from delay and latches.
Learned counsel for the respondents-HUDA has argued that the petitioners have been paid compensation, as such, they cannot be considered oustees. Perusal of the policies from 1987 onwards does not spell out any economic criteria for denying allotment to the oustees. It is not the spirit of the policy for rehabilitation of the oustees. The learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.P. No. 21758 of 2008 titled as "Gurcharan Singh and others vs. Secretary Urban Development, Government of Haryana, Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others, decided on 03.02.2010 and C.W.P. No. 19927 of 2009 titled as "Sandeep versus State of Haryana and others", decided on 16.05.2011 has categorically dealt with the issues raised in the present writ petitions and have exhaustively dealt with the oustee policies. Both the judgments rendered by the learned Single Judges lay down good law. We are in agreement with the views in both the aforesaid judgments. The thrust of oustee policies is to aid the development of local economies and to provide oustees with opportunity to improve their livelihoods while residing in the urban areas. Payment of monetary CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 25 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 compensation is not the solution. Ousting of a person leaves unsolved burden of social, economic and environmental problems. The basic purpose of the policy apparently appears to be that before displacing the persons for development reasons, they must be settled or their settlement must be made. In the present cases, settlement of the oustees received scant attention. The oustee poor farmers have become improvished. The figure of such persons has yet to be officially updated, although in present day technology, figures are a click away. Absolute majority of the displaced persons are small farmers. They are seldom consulted in advance and always inadequately compensated. Overwhelming number of displaced/oustees farmers become considerably poorer than before. The settlement should have been carried out like battle action. In the present case, organizational problems include the lack of coordination between different organs of the HUDA, incompatibility of institutional functions. Mis-management and mis-using the position appears to have hampered the oustees settlement. The basic purpose of quickly settling the oustees appears to be a complete failure. The escalating crisis of displacement have been aggravated by the displacement of wholesale communities and houses of village is invariable part of implementation of the urban projects. The unimaginative and inadequate remedies are provided by law and the State policy. CWP Nos.17208, 17292, 16755, 26 16760, 16807 & 17217of 2010 The displacement is enabled by law, rehabilitation is scratched by policy, resultant inequities give to multi-dimension problems and it would need a change in law to lend it enforceability.
In view of the above, all the aforementioned writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to specifically float allotment scheme before putting it to the general public for allotment of plots and the size as may be available depending upon the oustee policies. If the plots are not available in the sector for which the land has been acquired, special efforts be made to settle the oustees in other nearby sectors and also specifically enforce the oustee policies to avoid unnecessary future litigation.
(PARAMJEET SINGH)
JUDGE
November 18, 2011 (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL)
vkd JUDGE
1. Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgment?
2. To be referred to reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?