CWP No.6403 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6403 of 2011 Date of Decision: December 01, 2011 Smt. Roopa Singh widow of L. Sh. Kewal Krishan …..Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate for the respondents. Paramjeet Singh, J The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing orders dated 15.09.2010 (Annexure P-13) and 28.03.2011 (Annexure P-15) passed by the Oustees Adalat and Apex Appellate Body, respectively, whereby allotment of plot under Oustees category has been declined to the petitioner. The brief facts of the case are that land of the husband of the petitioner, measuring 38 kanal 17 marla comprising in Khewat No.63/74 Khasra No.6//22/2/2, 23/1, 23/2, 24/1, 24/2, 2//23, 24/1, 19//16/2/1, 16/1/1, 17/1/1, 12//3/2, 12//4/2, 5/2, 18//20/2/1, 21/2/1 situated in the revenue estate of village Maheshpur, Panchkula was acquired by the State Government vide notification dated 06.06.1983 (Annexure P-5) issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, for development and utilization of land for - 1- CWP No.6403 of 2011 development of Sector-21, Panchkula followed by notification dated 27.06.1984 (Annexure P-5/A) issued under Section 6 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Government of Haryana has framed a policy dated 10.09.1987 (Annexure P-1), 09.05.1990 (Annexure P-2) and 18.03.1992(Annexure P-3) for allotment of plots to the land-owners (oustees) whose land has compulsorily been acquired by HUDA. Subsequently, the Estate Officer invited applications for allotment of residential plots to the general public as well as to the oustees. The husband of the petitioner being oustee submitted his application No.72378 dated 30.10.2003 (Annexure P-6) along with earnest money of Rs.2,00,728/- (10% of the total tentative price) as prescribed by the respondent-Authority under oustees category. However, husband of the petitioner expired on 22.08.2007. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that some of the similarly situated persons approached this Hon’ble Court by filing CWP No.15433 of 2006 titled as Amar Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others wherein the Chief Administrator HUDA had appeared before the Court in person and made a statement that an oustees’ adalat would be held and claims of the oustees, which were pending on or prior to 29.11.2006 would be considered by the oustees adalat in accordance with law and the oustees would be allotted plots as per the existing policy within six months. He further stated that if any order adverse to claimants is passed by the oustees adalat, then Apex Appellate Body would be constituted and any order adverse to any claimant can be challenged by him within 30 days. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the similarly situated persons have been allotted plots in adjoining sectors, whereas the petitioner has applied for plot in the sector, for which the land of the petitioner was acquired, but has - 2- CWP No.6403 of 2011 not been allotted any plot. In compliance to orders passed by this Court in some of the writ petitions, the Chief Administrator HUDA, invited applications especially from the oustees who had submitted their application on or before 29.11.2006 and whose land has been acquired for development of Sectors 25 to 28, Urban Estate Panchkula. The case of the petitioner was put up before the Oustees Adalat in the meeting held on 15.09.2010 (Annexure P-13) and the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the land of the petitioner has been released and the respondent-authority cannot review its order and the claim of the petitioner is not maintainable. Subsequently, a representation was moved by the petitioner which was also rejected by the HUDA on the ground that the petitioner had not applied within time so she cannot be allotted residential plot under the oustees quota. Feeling aggrieved against the order of oustees adalat, the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Appellate Apex Body, the same has also been dismissed vide order dated 28.03.2011 (Annexure P-15). Hence, this wit petition We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. It is an admitted fact that the land of the petitioner’s husband has been acquired for development of Sector-21, Urban Estate, Panchkula. It is also an admitted fact that the husband of the petitioner has expired. Initially the claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the land of the petitioner has been released so she cannot be allotted any plot. However, learned counsel for the respondent-HUDA has failed to point out that which part of the land of the petitioner was released. The case set up by the respondents-HUDA in its written statement is that husband of the petitioner - 3- CWP No.6403 of 2011 had applied for allotment of residential plot against oustees’ quota in the year 2003 and because of pendency of civil suit between Swaran Singh and others Vs. HUDA in civil Court, the draw of lots for the allotment of plots could not take place and husband of the petitioner sought refund of her earnest money of Rs.2,00,928/- which was refunded by HUDA-respondents vide cheque No.180695 dated 31.08.2004. The said cheque has been duly en-cashed by the husband of the petitioner. Since, the husband of the petitioner withdrew his application, petitioner cannot be allotted any plot. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner has filed a replication to the written statement specifically stating therein that firstly the case of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the land of the petitioner has been released as is mentioned in order dated 15.09.2010 (Annexure P-13) passed by the respondent-HUDA. However, in the written statement the respondent has taken a different stand that the husband of petitioner has voluntarily sought refund of his earnest money. It is also the stand of respondents No.2 and 3 that till date no draw was held for the oustees who had applied in lieu of advertisement in the year 2003, whereas the draw of lots had already been held by the respondents on 22.03.2004 (Annexure P- 14) which fact has been concealed. We have held in number of cases that an oustee is entitled to allotment of plot as per the policy of the Government of Haryana which is applicable to the HUDA. The counsel for the respondents-HUDA has failed to point out that they have specifically invited the applications for allotment of plots in Sector -21 under Oustees Quota. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner has filed an application for allotment of plot in the year 2003. But the stand of the respondents altogether is different than the ground on which - 4- CWP No.6403 of 2011 the claim of the petitioner was initially rejected. The claim of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that the land of the petitioner has already been released. Now the stand of the respondents-HUDA is that the husband of the petitioner had voluntarily withdrawn his application and sought refund of earnest money. A perusal of the record shows that there is no writing from which it can be presumed that husband of the petitioner has sought refund of his earnest money voluntarily. However on repeatedly asking of this Court, learned counsel for the respondents-HUDA has not been able to point out that the husband of the petitioner had ever moved an application for refund of his earnest money. The respondents cannot be allowed to apporbate or reprobate for the reasons that the stand of the respondents-HUDA in written statement is totally different than the stand taken by it earlier. Faced with this situation, we have no option but to accept the prayer of the present petitioner. Consequently, the present writ petition is allowed. Respondents-HUDA is directed to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of plot as per policy of the Government of Haryana applicable in this case. (SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) (PARAMJEET SINGH) JUDGE JUDGE 01.12.2011 vcgarg - 5-