Civil Writ Petition No. 13307 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 13307 of 2009 DATE OF DECISION: MAY 30, 2011 Karnail Singh .....Petitioner VERSUS Haryana Urban Development Authority & another ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate, for the respondents. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner owned land comprised in Khewat No.1807 Min/1656 Min, Khatoni No.2324, Khasra No.820 measuring 0-14 Viswas and 0-5 Viswas in 916/2 in the Revenue Estate of Taraf Insar, District Panipat. This land was acquired vide notifications dated 10.5.1989 and 9.5.1990. The petitioner, accordingly, was entitled to allotment of a plot in terms of the policy framed by the respondent-HUDA. Since the entire land owned and possessed by the petitioner was acquired and the petitioner did not own any plot in any of the Urban Estate Panipat, he would claim entitlement to allotment of plot in terms of the policy so formulated by HUDA. The respondents failed to take action for claim so made by the petitioner. He, accordingly, approached the District Consumer Disputes Civil Writ Petition No. 13307 of 2009 -2- Redressal Forum on 20.7.2007. The complaint filed by the petitioner was allowed directing the respondents to allot 10 marlas plot to him in Sector 6, HUDA, Panipat. Aggrieved against the same, the respondents filed appeal before the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula. The petitioner then realized that his complaint before the Consumer Forum was not maintainable and accordingly, withdrew his complaint. The petitioner, accordingly, has approached this Court for allotment of a plot. The claim of the petitioner was declined on the ground that part of the land of the petitioner was released from the acquisition. In support, some necessary document was placed on record to show that the land was released from the acquisition. The counsel for the petitioner, thereafter, made reference to the land released, which related to Khasra No.820 and not to Khasra No.820 min, and the same belonged to the petitioner. The counsel for HUDA on this basis was asked to have instructions. Today, it is submitted before me that no land of the petitioner has been released after the acquisition. Accordingly, the petitioner is entitled to be considered for allotment of plot under oustees quota under the relevant policy. The present writ petition is, thus, disposed of with direction to the respondent-HUDA to consider and decide the claim of the petitioner within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. May 30, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH) monika JUDGE