IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12415 of 2009 Date of Decision: 18.08.2009 Rakha Singh Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.Sher Singh Rathore, Advocate for the petitioner ….. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) This writ petition has been filed to lay challenge to order dated 18.6.2009 (P8), passed by respondent No.2, rejecting claim of the petitioner for allotment of a commercial plot. As per admitted facts, the petitioner purchased 1 kanal 1 marla of land in village Lambe, tehsil and district Mohali in the year 1990. A notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (in short the Act) to acquire a vast tract of land, including land of the petitioner, was issued on 30.11.1992. Thereafter, notification under Section 6 of the Act was issued and ultimately award was pronounced on 22.2.1995. With a view to rehabilitate the oustees (i.e. the owners, whose land was acquired), a scheme was framed on 1.6.2001 (P1). In that scheme, it was specifically provided that rehabilitation policy shall be available only to the original Civil Writ Petition No.12415 of 2009 residents/ owners of village Lambe and not to anybody else including the tenants. Relevant portion of the Scheme reads thus:- “Rehabilitation scheme for the original residents/ original land owners of village Lambian will be undertaken in Sector -71, SAS Nagar in the area kept as reserved along with the village Mataur.” It was further provided as under:- “The rehabilitation scheme shall be restricted to the original land owners/ original residents and not to the tenants.” It is not in dispute that during survey to identify the oustees, it was found that in the property, owned by the petitioner, one Shingara Singh was sitting as a tenant. The petitioner has placed reliance upon letter Annexure P2, written by the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA to the Chief Administrator, PUDA, wherein it was mentioned that the petitioner was eligible to get a commercial plot and Shingara Singh, who was a tenant, being non-resident of the village, was not entitled to get plot against oustees quota. Prayer of the petitioner was not accepted. He came to this Court by filing CWP No.16972 of 2004, which was disposed of on 2.3.2009, directing the Chief Administrator GAMADA, Mohali to consider petitioner’s claim in the light of recommendations (P2) made by the Additional Chief Administrator, PUDA and dispose of the same, by passing a speaking order. It was further observed that in case the petitioner is a bona fide oustee, who is entitled for benefit under the Policy dated 1.6.2001, plot be allotted to him. In consequent to the direction issued by this Court, as mentioned above, order under challenge (P8) was passed on 18.6.2009. By making reference to the provisions of Policy dated 1.6.2001, as 2 Civil Writ Petition No.12415 of 2009 reproduced above, it was specifically noted by respondent No.2 that the petitioner had purchased a small piece of land in the year 1990. He has failed to establish his claim that he was original land owner/ resident of the village. If that is so, this Court feels that as per the Policy statement, mentioned above, the petitioner was not entitled to get any plot allotted as pressed by him. Respondent No.2, while rejecting his claim, has observed as under:- “I have gone through the submissions made by the petitioner and also the factual position of the case as per the office record brought out by the Estate Office. To decide this issue it is necessary to have a look at the legal / policy framework in such cases. Whenever any land is acquired for development of an urban estate, all the oustees, whose land is acquired, are given a residential plot as per the policy of the State Government framed in the year 1994 and circulated vide letter 38528-40 dated 26.9.1994. This oustee policy is applicable in all such land acquisitions. Under this policy the applications were invited from the landowners at the time of land acquisition, which have been considered and decided. The petitioner did not apply under this policy. Even now he has not stressed his claim as per this policy, because his claim is time barred. Under this policy no application from the oustee could be entertained after a period of one year from the date of taking possession of his acquired land. In this particular case a special rehabilitation scheme was worked out by PUDA which was formalized in a meeting dated 1.6.2001 under the Chairmanship of then Housing and 3 Civil Writ Petition No.12415 of 2009 Urban Development Minister. The background of this rehabilitation scheme is as follows. The village Lambian used to exist where presently Sector 62 SAS Nagar is located. Most of the land of this village abadi was acquired by the Govt for development of urban estate SAS Nagar. Some portion of the land of village Lambian was not acquired at that time. Some of the residents of village Lambian settled themselves in this portion of land. When Sector 69 was developed this remaining land of village Lambian was also acquired. However, even after acquisition of land the possession was not vacated by the people sitting in illegal possession of PUDA land in Sector 69. It was in this background that the above stated meeting was held under the Chairmanship of the then Housing and Urban Development Minister in which the land owners/ original residents of village Lambian. It was specifically mentioned in the scheme that the persons sitting as tenant shall be included in the rehabilitation scheme. This scheme was subsequently approved by the Finance & Accounts Committee of PUDA. As stated above the scheme was framed on the basis of the survey in the year 2000. On some complaints the Govt had ordered a fresh scrutiny by a committee headed by the Additional Chief Administrator, Mohali. The Committee’s report has also been approved in the meeting of the Authority. In this particular case the name of Sh.Shingara Singh figures in the survey list who was in occupation of the area in the area as a tenant. Since the tenants were not included in the rehabilitation scheme the name of Sh.Shingara Singh was rejected. The 4 Civil Writ Petition No.12415 of 2009 present petitioner Sh.Rakha Singh moved his claim for rehabilitation as the earlier owner of the acquired land. Since the rehabilitation scheme dated 1.6.2001 is restricted only to the original land owner/ original residents of village Lambian, the only issue which needs to be decided is whether the petitioner Sh.Rakha Singh was a original land owner or original resident of village Lambian. The petitioner has brought nothing on record to show that he is an original land owner of village Lambian is concerned, it is a matter of record that he has brought this piece of land in the year 1990. He is not presented any document even to support that if he ever owner any land in village Lambian before that. It this light the petitioner Sh.Rakha Singh can not be considered as a original land owner of village Lambian. Moreover he was not personally occupying the site, which was occupied by Shingara Singh as a tenant. Consequently the case of the petitioner does not get covered in the rehabilitation scheme dated 1.6.2001 referred above and therefore he is not entitled to any benefits in terms of the said rehabilitation scheme.” This Court feels that the order passed is perfectly justified. Rehabilitation Scheme dated 1.6.2001, stipulates that for rehabilitation of the original residents/ original land owners of the village Lambe, plots shall be allotted, as specified in that Scheme. The petitioner purchased land in the year 1990 and over his land one tenant Shingara Singh was sitting. There is no evidence on record that the petitioner was a bona fide resident of village Lambe. Under these circumstances, this Court feels that rightly he was declined benefit of the rehabilitation scheme, because by acquisition of 5 Civil Writ Petition No.12415 of 2009 land, he was not uprooted. He was residing somewhere else. No case is made out for interference. Dismissed. 18.08.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 6