Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

21. Thus, we are of the opinion that the Clause restricting the allotment of one plot to all co-owners is irrational, arbitrary and with no reasonable nexus with the objective to be achieved and thus, not sustainable. Therefore, we hold that Clause 6 (V) of the Policy dated 16.9.1994 restricting allotment of one plot to all the co- sharers, is illegal and void."

Whereas, in Sandeep & others (supra), the Division Bench determined the rights of the oustees for allotment of plots/sites, in terms of the policies formulated by HUDA as also the State Government from time to time. And, concluded:

(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 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;

Concededly, the decisions rendered by this court in all the three matters, referred to above, have since attained finality. For, the judgment rendered by the Full Bench in Jarnail Singh and others (supra) was not assailed any further, and in the other two matters, the Special Leave Petitions preferred by HUDA were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

What we deduce from the ratio of law laid down in Jarnail Singh's case (supra) is that a co-owner is as good a landowner as an individual who is the sole owner of his holding. A co-owner holds an absolute title or ownership over a land, in proportion to his share, in a joint Khata. Therefore, it makes no difference in law that a land that was acquired formed part of the joint holding or not. Just because the land that was acquired was joint or un-partitioned would not dilute the title of a co-owner a bit. Rather, what is to be borne in mind is that in either of the situation, a landowner loses his land and is termed as oustee. And it is precisely for that reason he is not only awarded compensation, in proportion to his holding, but is also entitled for allotment of a plot/site in terms of the policies/schemes of the Government as a rehabilitation measure. A co-owner always has an option to seek 11 of 14 partition of the joint holding, for a joint Khata is for the mutual convenience and suitability of the co-owners. Therefore, even a co-owner shall be entitled to seek allotment of a site/plot individually and independently, in proportion to his/her share in a joint Khata, provided he/she meets the eligibility conditions/ criteria set out in the policy/scheme in operation at the relevant time.