CWP No. 12921 of 1993. ::-1-:: IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 12921 of 1993. Date of Decision: 10th November, 2008. Anu Gupta & Ors. ....Petitioners through Mr. V.S.Bhardwaj, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents through Mr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioners seek a direction to the Haryana Urban Development Authority [HUDA] and its Estate Officer at Karnal to allot each one of them a residential plot as per their entitlement in terms of the 'Oustees Policy' dated 10th September, 1987 [Annexure P-10]. Vide notification dated 8th February, 1989 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894[in short 'the Act'], the Government of Haryana decided to acquire land measuring 369.94 acres situated in Hadbast No. 1, Karnal for Haryana Urban Development Authority to be utilized for residential and commercial purposes. Finally, land measuring 314.97 acres was acquired vide notification dated 7th February, 1990 issued under Section 6 of the Act. The petitioners 1 to 3 claim themselves to be owners in CWP No. 12921 of 1993. ::-2-:: possession of 1/8th share each in the land measuring 38 Bighas 3 Biswas owned by late Jagdish Chand. Petitioner No. 4 claims himself to be a co-sharer in land measuring 2 Bighas and 16½ Biswas comprised in Khewat No. 821, Khatoni No. 2702, Khasra Nos. 10339/8382 and Khatoni No. 2705, Khasra NO.10334/8380. Petitioner No. 5 is stated to have purchased land measuring 10 Biswas vide a registered sale deed from one Smt. Parveen Gupta, whereas Petitioners No. 6 and 7 claim to have inherited land measuring 14 Bigbhas 1 Biswa. The petitioners have further asserted that their respective ownerships were duly reflected in the revenue record much before the issuance of notifications dated 8th February, 1989 and 7th February, 1990 whereby their lands stood acquired. Relying upon a HUDA's policy dated 10th September, 1987 which was in vogue at the relevant time, the petitioners' case is that since more than 500 sq. yards land of each of the petitioner has been acquired, they are entitled for allotment of a residential plot under the said 'Oustees Policy'. According to the petitioners, the HUDA has held them ineligible for allotment of the plots under the Oustees Quota on the basis of the subsequent amended policies. Notice of motion was issued and it appears that soon thereafter, Petitioners No. 5 to 7 have been allotted the plots under the afore-said policy. This fact was taken notice by this Court while passing the order dated 20th December, 1994 which reads as follows:- “In our order dated October 20,1993 we had directed the respondents to reserve seven plots measuring 250 CWP No. 12921 of 1993. ::-3-:: square yards each in Sector5s 4 and 5 in Urban Estate Part II, Karnal for complying with the ultimate decision/ directions in this writ petition. It is stated by learned counsel for both the parties that petitioners NO. 5,6 and 7 have since been allotted plots. The aforesaid direction regarding reserving plots would, therefore, stand modified to mean four plots shall be kept reserved to comply with the orders which are ultimately passed in the writ petition”. In their counter-affidavit, respondents No. 2 and 3 have reiterated their stand that petitioners No. 1 to 3 were not the owners of the acquired land “for the prescribed period prior to publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894”. According to the respondents, petitioners 1 to 3 ought to have been recorded as owners of the acquired land for a continuous period of five years before the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits and rightly so that the condition of 'five years ownership' prior to the proposed acquisition has been laid down by way of amended policy dated 9th May, 1990 as in the original policy dated 10th September, 1987 [Annexure P-1] a landowner was required to have been recorded as owner of the acquired land for 'one year' only before the issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The petitioners are stated to have fulfilled the said eligibility conditions prescribed in the original policy dated 10th September, 1987. Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that the claim of the petitioners for allotment of plots under the Oustees CWP No. 12921 of 1993. ::-4-:: Quota ought to have been considered on the basis of the policy which was in force at the time of acquisition of their land. Admittedly, when the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act dated 8th February, 1989 and 7th February, 1990 were issued, the original policy dated 10th September, 1987 was operative. The subsequent amendment dated 9th May, 1990 regarding eligibility conditions for allotment under the said policy can not possibly be applied retrospectively No other reason whatsoever has been assigned to deprive of the right of consideration to petitioners No. 1 to 4 for allotment of plots in the Oustees Quota. The question as to whether or not petitioners No. 1 to 4 fulfill the eligibility conditions laid down under the policy dated 10th September, 1987, thus, requires to be re- considered and effectively addressed by the respondents. Consequently, this writ petition is allowed to the extent that the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula is directed to reconsider the claim of petitioners No. 1 to 4 in terms of the policy dated 10th September, 1987 and if found eligible, to allot them plots as per their entitlement. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before him. No costs. November 10, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE