IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.2321 of 2010 Date of decision: 21.03.2011 Partap Malik ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shurti Jain, AAG, Haryana for the State. RANJIT SINGH J. The petitioner has filed the writ petition with the grievance that he was land owner whose land was acquired and, thus, he is entitled to allotment of plot under the scheme prepared by the respondents for oustees. Some of the similar situated persons have filed CWP No. 15433 of 2006 titled as Amar Singh Versus State of Haryana and others before this Court. The Chief Administrator had appeared in the case and made a statement that cases of oustees, which are pending before the HUDA authority or before any court prior to 29.11.2006 will be considered by HUDA authorities and the Oustees Adalat would be constituted for this purpose. It was also stated that Oustees Adalat would serve individual notices to oustees. The petitioner though was oustee but no notice was ever served on the petitioner. The Oustees Adalat was held on 06.03.2007 at Panipat and HUDA had allotted residential plots to oustees, who had applied before 29.11.2006. Though no notice was served to the petitioner but he made a representation before the Oustees Adalat Civil Writ Petition No.2321 of 2010 -2- on 06.03.2007 but his claim was not considered. The petitioner then filed a writ petition No. 9922 of 2007 titled as Partap Malik Vs. State of Haryana and this Court had issued direction to the respondents to decide the claim of the petitioner in the light of the cases of similar situated oustees. The petitioner would make reference to the information obtained where unallotted residential plots are available but still the claim of the petitioner has not been considered. The petitioner has even applied for allotment of a plot in Sector 18, Panipat being adjoining sector. As per the petitioner, number of plots of various sizes are still lying vacant in Sectors 24 and 25, which can be considered for allotment to the petitioner. He has, thus, filed this writ petition. No one appears for the respondent/HUDA at the time of arguments though written statement on their behalf has been filed. The stand taken in the reply is that the petitioner never applied for allotment of plot under oustees quota at the time of floating of the sector. It is also stated that he did not submit any application on the prescribed proforma alongwith the supporting documents and earnest money. Due to this reason, the claim of the petitioner could not be considered. Having said so, the respondents otherwise have conceded in the reply that if the petitioner applies for allotment of plot under oustees quota in a prescribed proforma alongwith the supporting documents and 10% earnest money, his case will be considered as per the policy of HUDA, which was available at the relevant time. Civil Writ Petition No.2321 of 2010 -3- Counsel would draw my attention to Annexure P-18 to show that the petitioner has already deposited 10% of the price of the plot and had made an application for allotment of one kanal plot on 04.03.2008. Since the petitioner had already applied and the respondents have conceded that his case would be considered, in case, he submits an application, the petitioner has made out a case for issuing directions to the respondents to consider his claim for allotment of plot according to the relevant policy, which was made applicable for similarly situated persons. The writ petition is disposed of in the light of above observations. Let the needful be done within three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. March 21, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE