CWP No.19472 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C. W. P. No. 19472 of 2008 Date of Decision: 25 - 11 – 2009 Parkash Chand and another ....Petitioners v. State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA *** Present: Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.Sunil Nehra, AAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr.Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. *** KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Land of the petitioners was acquired and they had claimed allotment of the plots under the oustees' quota. Case of the respondents is that petitioner No.1, husband of petitioner No.2, was allotted a plot under the oustees' quota but petitioner No.2 is not entitled for a separate plot on the ground that same is not permissible under the policy of Haryana Urban Development Authority which has been attached as Annexure P7. It is submitted that land of the petitioners was subject matter of one acquisition proceedings, even though land of the petitioners was situated in different pockets. Counsel has referred to Clause 5 of the policy which read as CWP No.19472 of 2008 [2] under:- “v) As per the policy the oustees shall be entitled to a developed plot/plots. The size of which would depend upon the area of his acquired land subject to a maximum of 500 sq. yds. The oustees shall be entitled to this benefit under this policy only once in the same town where his land was situated/located. However, in cases where the land of a person situated in the same town in acquired in pockets at different times, the owner shall be entitled to claim the benefit on account of the entire area acquired (at different times) for purposes of claiming the benefits under this policy.” Counsel for the petitioners has very fairly stated that this was not the stand taken by the respondents when his land was acquired, rather by Annexures P14 and P15, petitioner No.1 was informed that he had not given the khasra numbers and had not attached the jamabandies. Counsel for the petitioners further submit that even though in the written statement respondents had taken a stand that claim of the petitioners is not covered under the policy, therefore, petitioners are required to assail the policy as the same cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Counsel for the petitioners pray that he be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to assail the policy Annexure P7 as till the policy operates, petitioners are not entitled to allotment of separate plots. There is a merit in the contention raised by the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file fresh petition to assail policy Annexure P7. ( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) November 25, 2009. JUDGE RC