Letters Patent Appeal No.897 of 2011 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letter Patent Appeal No.897 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision: 20.5.2011 Haryana Urban Development Authority Appellant Versus Krishna ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for the appellant ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge directing the appellant to consider the claim of the writ petitioner for allotment of a plot as per its own policy. Land of the writ petitioner was acquired in the year 1989. The Appellant introduced a policy on 10.9.1987 followed by policies dated 18.3.1992 and 12.3.1993 to allot plots to those whose lands were acquired. The writ petitioner made an application but her application was rejected for allotment of a plot on the ground that her land was not acquired in the sector in question. Aggrieved thereby the writ petitioner approached this Court relying upon the decision of the Apex Appellate Body of the appellant as reflected in minutes dated 9.9.2006 that even if land was acquired for a different sector, the oustee could be considered for allotment of plot in sector where land was available. Accordingly, the learned Single Judge upheld the Letters Patent Appeal No.897 of 2011 -2- **** claim of the petitioner. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the decision of the Apex Appellate Body of the appellant was not in the case of the writ petitioner and that the writ petitioner had not made the requisite application in pursuance of the advertisement issued for the purpose. We are unable to accept the submission and interfere with the view taken by the learned Single Judge. The decision of the Apex Appellate Body of the appellant is a policy decision holding that there was no bar for consideration of claim of an applicant under oustees' quota, irrespective of the sector for which land was acquired. Once the appellant framed a policy for rehabilitation of the persons affected by land acquisition, claim of such oustees could not be defeated on technical pleas, as rightly held by the learned Single Judge. In these circumstances, no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice May 20, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge