CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18420 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 17, 2011 Arunesh Aggarwal .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Heman Aggarwal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Ms. Sheenu Sura, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Aggrieved against the action of the respondents in declining the prayer of the petitioner to allot 10 marla plot to him on account of his land having been acquired, the petitioner has filed the present petition. The petitioner had purchased 2 kanals 12 marlas land, in Khasra No.24//16, 24//14, 17/1 and 8/1 from Balwant Singh son of CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18420 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: Inder Singh on 6.3.1995. The mutation was accordingly entered in his name in respect of this land in the revenue record. On 11.9.2003, the State of Haryana acquired this land. As per the petitioner, he was assured that he would be allotted a plot under oustees policy in view of the land so acquired. Reference is made to policy instructions issued by HUDA on 18.3.1992 for allotment of a plot under oustees policy. A person is entitled to an allotment of a 250 Yards plot if his land acquired is between 500 Sq.Yards and 1 acre. This policy was subsequently modified at various stages. The petitioner being fully eligible had applied for allotment of a plot under oustees quota on 20.10.2004 alongwith earnest money of Rs.62,491/-. His earnest money was refunded on 20.2.2007 without assigning any reason. On enquiry, the petitioner learnt that Screening Committee had rejected his application on the ground that there were 8 other co-sharers and so the petitioner was found ineligible for allotment of 10 marlas plot as his claim was clubbed with application at Sr.Nos.43 and 66 being co-sharers. This was advanced as a ground to reject the claim of the petitioner. The petitioner represented against the same and prayed that his case be considered independently. His claim was again rejected on 8.6.2007 on the ground that he was found ineligible on the same ground as was advanced earlier while rejecting his prayer. The petitioner then made a representation to the Chairman of the Oustees Committee on 23.7.2007 and prayed for placing his claim before Oustees Adalat. After filing various representation, the petitioner ultimately was informed about the outcome of the Oustees CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18420 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: Adalat on 25.7.2008 on the same ground that his claim was considered jointly and rejected as claim of one Hawa Singh had been accepted with the observation that he would have to submit a joint application in view of three claimants as a co-sharers. The petitioner thereafter served a legal notice and then approached this Court through writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to decide his legal notice. Legal notice having been rejected, the petitioner has now filed the present writ petition to make a prayer for allotment of 10 marlas plot under the oustees quota. In the reply filed by the HUDA, it is conceded that the petitioner had purchased the land from previous owner but it is stated that he had become co-sharer only to the extent of his share. It is also conceded that this land was acquired but the averment that any assurance was given to the petitioner is denied. Reference is made to the policy, which provides that only one plot of 250 Sq.Yards would be allotted in the joint names of all the co-sharers if the land acquired is less than 1 acre. The petitioner being not the sole owner is held not entitled to allotment of plot independently. Other averments regarding making of representation and the case reaching Oustees Adalat etc. are admitted. It is now to be seen whether the petitioner would be entitled to allotment of 10 marlas plot independently in terms of the policy that will govern his case. Reference in detail has been made to various policies formulated by HUDA from time to time for allotment of a plot to the oustees while deciding Civil Writ Petition No.19927 of 2009, (Sandeep Vs. State of Haryana and others) on 16.5.2011. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.18420 OF 2010 :{ 4 }: The claim of the petitioner, thus, would required to be considered in terms of the law laid down and settled in this judgement. As already noticed, the policy for allotment of plots to oustees has undergone change from time to time. Even in the policy formulated in the year 1987, a provision was made where the land of number of owners was acquired. It is provided that efforts should be made to accommodate them subject to limit of one plot of 250 Sq.Yards for every acre of land acquired. Even in policy issued on 9.5.1990, each co-sharer was to be accommodated by offering one plot each of 250 Sq.Yard subject to the condition that the land acquired was atleast one acre. If the land acquired was less than one acre, then only one plot of 250 Sq.Yard was to be allotted in the joint names of co-sharers. This provision was continued in a policy issued on 18.3.1992. As noticed by this Court in the case of Sandeep (Supra), some noticeable changes were made in this policy qua the rights of co-sharers. Ultimately, 2007 policy has made some drastic changes, which have also been noticed. So far as the issue of allotment of plots to co-sharers is concerned, the relevant policy which was in operation in the year 2003, when the land of the petitioners was acquired will govern the field. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to consider the claim of the petitioners for allotment of plots on the basis of relevant policy prevalent at the time of acquisition of the land belonging to the petitioners and they be informed accordingly. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. May 17, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE