C.W.P NO. 7230 OF 2007 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 7230 OF 2007 DECIDED ON : 04.05.2009 Smt. Gurcharan Kaur ...Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Ms. Anju Kaushik, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. G. S. Attariwala, Additional AG, Punjab. Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 01.03.2006, 21.06.2006 and 19.12.2006 (Annexures P-4 to P-6), whereby her request for entertaining her application for allotment of a plot under the Oustees quota has been turn down, being time barred. It is not in dispute that the agricultural land owned by the petitioner in village Mauli Baidwan, Tehsil and District Mohali was acquired for development of Sectors 76 to 80 in Urban Estate, S.A.S Nagar, Mohali. It is also not in dispute that by virtue thereof the petitioner was entitled to be considered for allotment of a plot under the Oustees Scheme/Policy. C.W.P NO. 7230 OF 2007 -2- The PUDA authorities issued an advertisement on 20.05.2001 inviting applications from the oustees for allotment of a plot and the last date of submission of such application was 22.06.2001. It was also stipulated that after expiry of the date, no application shall be entertained and the right to receive any plot as an oustee shall be deemed to have been permanently extinguished. There is no denial to the fact that the petitioner did not apply in time. She infact applied after a delay of more than four and a half years. The petitioner, however, has an explanation to the said delay. According to her, her husband was suffering from cancer and remained bed ridden till he unfortunately expired on 07.12.2002. As the petitioner remained occupied to care her ailing husband, she did not came to know about the above-mentioned advertisement and could not apply within the prescribed period. The petitioner's claim was firstly turned down by the Assistant Estate Officer, PUDA. She preferred an appeal which was rejected by the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA, exercising the powers of the Chief Administrator. The petitioner, thereafter approached the State Government through a revision petition. A perusal of the order dated 19.12.2006 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Revisional Authority reveals that the petitioner's explanation regarding delay in applying under the oustee quota has not at all been dealt with. Similarly, the petitioner's C.W.P NO. 7230 OF 2007 -3- contention that she was entitled to be treated at par with Sant singh and Baldev Singh in whose favour an order dated 23.11.2004 (Annexure P-7) was passed by the Revisional Authority condoning the delay in applying under the Oustees Scheme, has also not been met by the Revisional Authority. It, thus, appears that the petitioner's revision petition deserves to be re-considered and disposed of by the Revisional Authority in accordance with law, with specific reference to her explanation to the delay behind moving the application as well as her complaint against discrimination between the similarly situated applicants and to grant her the same concession as has been granted by the Revisional Authority to Sant Singh and Baldev Singh. For the reasons aforesaid, the writ petition is allowed to the extent that the impugned order dated 19.12.2006 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Revisional Authority is set aside and it is directed that the revision petition filed by the petitioner shall be re-considered and disposed of in accordance with law and in the light of observations made herein above, as early as possible but not later than three months. However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to refer to the medical evidence/record pertaining to her deceased husband, before the Revisional Authority for explaining the delay in applying under the Oustees Scheme. Disposed of. C.W.P NO. 7230 OF 2007 -4- Let a copy of this order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. MAY 04, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE