R.S.A.No. 891 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 891 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 11.12.2009 Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ......Appellants Versus Inder Singh and another .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA Present: Mr.Nilesh Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr.Siddharth Batra, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr.Shailender Jain, Advocate, for the respondents. **** SABINA, J. Plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit for declaration, which was decreed by the Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 27.2.2008. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were upheld by the District Judge, Hisar vide judgment and decree dated 6.9.2008. Hence, the present appeal by the defendants. Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate R.S.A.No. 891 of 2009 (O&M) 2 Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:- “2. Brief facts of the plaintiff's case are: that plaintiff No.1 was exclusive owner in possession of land measuring 28 kanal falling in khasra No.163//2/2/2(3-10), 3/2(3-16), 4/2(1-10), 7/2(3-4), 8 (8-0), 9(8-0) and plaintiff No.2 is exclusive owner in possession of land measuring 5 kanal falling in khasra No.163//13/3(2-3), 14/2/2(2-17). These lands have fallen to their share in a partition vide mutation No.8182 sanctioned on 31.12.1990. This land was acquired by the State of Haryana for development of residential and commercial Section No.1 and 4 by HUDA vide Notification No.Lac (H)-NTLA-92/16 dated 28.2.1992 and Award was announced on 19.1.1995. It is alleged that the defendants have framed a policy for allotment of residential/commercial plots of the oustees i.e. whose land has been acquired in the said urban area. The policy provides among others that the plots would be offered if the land proposed to be acquired is under the ownership of the oustee prior to the publication of notification under Section 4 and oustees whose acquired land is between 500 square yards to one acre and above would be offered a plot of 500 sq. yards plots are not provided in the layout plan then two plots of 250 sq.yards each may be given. In case of joint land, only one plot R.S.A.No. 891 of 2009 (O&M) 3 would be allotted in the joint name of co-sharers. However, if the land of any owner is released from acquisition, then the landowner is not eligible to avail the benefit under the policy. The defendants in the newspaper in Dainik Jagran on 1.1.2008 made offers to the owners whose land had been acquired in the concerned sectors including sector 1 and 4 Hisar, to apply for plots under oustee quota upto 7.3.2006 which was later on extended up to 23.3.2006, along with 10% advance money. Since the plaintiffs were oustees and fulfilled the criteria laid down in the policy, therefore, they applied for allotment of the plot in Sector 1 and 4 Hisar within time, along with 10% advance price and necessary proof of acquisition of their land for these sectors. The plaintiff in response to their applications have received identical letters bearing No.4017 and 4018 dated 21.3.2006 stating therein that screening committee has observed that all the co-sharers namely Smt.Chander etc. as per LAO record for khasra No.163//1-12/1-13/1,14/1 has not applied jointly. One plot of one kanal size is reserved if all the co sharers jointly applied within sixty days. These letters based upon observations of screening committee are against policy, illegal, without application of mind and have been given with malafide intention just to deprive the oustee of their rightful due. It is further alleged that the R.S.A.No. 891 of 2009 (O&M) 4 plaintiffs had no where stated nor had applied for claiming any share in the joint land as mentioned in the impugned letter, rather they have specifically detailed their exclusive land in the application, of which they are exclusive owners in possession prior to notification issued under Section 4 of the act which was subsequently acquired for development of Sector 1 and 4 by State Government for HUDA. It is further alleged that the Land Acquisition Collector after acquisition had awarded compensation to the plaintiffs for their land described in para No.1 of the plaint separately and they have also detailed themselves to be exclusive owners in their application. So, grounds made by screening committee of the defendants is ex facie wrong and without substance. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs had filed reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act for enhancement of the compensation in respect of their lands and they have paid enhanced compensation, so these letters have been made illegally without affording an opportunity of hearing to the plaintiff before issuing these letters. It is further alleged that the plaintiffs are entitled to plots as per oustee policy and defendants have no right to reject their claim on flimsy and made out grounds. The defendants were asked many times to allot the plots to the plaintiffs R.S.A.No. 891 of 2009 (O&M) 5 but to no avail and hence, the suit was filed. 3. Suit was resisted on behalf of the defendants inter alia with the averments that admittedly department of HUDA has floated a policy for the allotment of plots to the oustees. The plaintiffs have applied for the allotment of plots but their application was dismissed by Estate Officer, HUDA as the plots were not applied jointly. In fact, the plaintiffs were not entitled to the allotment of any plot under oustees policy because they were joint owners of the acquired land with Smt.Chander, Ratten Singh, Ramesh Chand, Om Parkash, Balwant, Jaswant, Umesh Kumar and Ram Kumar. As such, the plaintiffs should have applied for the allotment of plot under oustee policy along with rest of co-owners. It is alleged that the plaintiffs are not entitled to allotment of any plots as has been claimed as they were not exclusive owner in possession of the land at the time of acquisition. The other assertions have been denied and prayed for dismissal of the suit.” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial Court:- 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get one plot of 10 marlas and 250 square yards in Sector 1 and 4 in Hisar under oustees quota? OPP R.S.A.No. 891 of 2009 (O&M) 6 2. Whether the letter No.4017 and 4018 dated 21.3.2006 are illegal, null and void and liable to be set aside? OPP 3. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in the present form? OPP 4. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction to try and entertain the present suit? OPD 5. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD 6. Relief After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I am of the opinion that the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. The case of the appellants was that as per the policy, plots were to be allotted to oustees. The land of the plaintiffs had been acquired for development of HUDA sector. The plaintiffs, being oustees, had applied for allotment of plots and had deposited 10% of the requisite amount. Their applications were dismissed on the ground that the other co-sharers had not filed an application jointly with them for allotment of plots. Undisputedly, the plaintiffs are exclusive owners to the extent of some land and are also co-sharers in some land, which has been acquired by the appellants. plaintiff Inder Singh is exclusive owner to the extent of 28 kanals of acquired land, whereas, plaintiff Lal Chand is exclusive owner to the extent of 5 kanals of acquired land. In these circumstances, the applications R.S.A.No. 891 of 2009 (O&M) 7 filed by the plaintiffs could not be ignored merely on the ground that the other co-sharers had not signed the application because the plaintiffs had a right to apply individually for allotment of plots as they were exclusive owner of some part of the land, which had been acquired. The Courts below had, thus, rightly decreed the suit of the plaintiffs. No substantial question of law arises in this regular second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE December 11, 2009 anita