CWP No. 365 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 365 of 2009 Date of Decision: 9.2.2010 Oasis International Private Limited ....Petitioner. Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Ashish Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Advocate for Mr. Sidharth Batra, Advocate for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. By way of instant petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-company has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 4.7.2007 (Annexure P-6) whereby its application for allotment of a plot against oustee's quota, as per policy (Annexure P-2), was rejected. Put succinctly the facts of the case, as per averments in the petition are that vide notification dated 26.10.1995, the land of the petitioner measuring 131 kanals 13 marlas situated at village Kamaspur, District Sonepat, was acquired by the State of Haryana for utilization of the same for residential/commercial purposes. On 18.3.1992, the respondents framed a policy (Annexure P-2) for offering of plots in the Urban Estate to the oustees. In pursuance of the said CWP No. 365 of 2009 -2- policy, the respondents invited applications for allotment of residential plots/commercial sites from the landowners whose land had been acquired vide a public notice published in the daily newspaper “Punjab Kesari” dated 1.1.2000 and accordingly the petitioner submitted its application (Annexure P-3) on 7.2.2000 for the allotment of a residential plot in Sectors 7 and 8, Sonepat. The allotment was to be made at the rates advertised by the Haryana Urban Development Authority for the particular sector for which the land was acquired and the applications for allotment from the oustees were to be invited by the Estate Officer concerned before the sector was floated for sale. Respondent No.3 vide impugned order dated 7.4.2006 (Annexure P-4) rejected the application (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner only on the ground that it had not deposited the earnest money along with the application. Feeling aggrieved against the aforesaid order dated 7.4.2006, the petitioner approached this Court by way of CWP No. 9408 of 2006 which was disposed of vide order dated 11.7.2006 (Annexure P-5) directing respondent No.3 to reconsider the claim of the petitioner in accordance with law and if the petitioner was required to deposit any earnest money, the same was to be communicated to it, but the claim of the petitioner did not find favour with respondent No.3 who rejected the same vide order dated 4.7.2007 (Annexure P-6). Hence, the present writ petition. Upon notice of motion having been issued, the respondents filed a reply pleading that the petitioner did not apply for allotment of a plot under the Oustee Category before closing the last date, inasmuch as it made the application on 7.2.2000, i.e. much after the floating of CWP No. 365 of 2009 -3- the Sectors and that too without 10% earnest money which was mandatory for making the application, as enunciated in the advertisement inviting applications for allotment of plots. The other averments made in the petition were denied and a prayer for dismissal was made. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the petition with their assistance. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected on three counts; namely, (i) that he had not applied for plot on prescribed from within time; (ii) the earnest money i.e. 10% of the tentative price had not been deposited along with the application; and (iii) the documents regarding acquisition of land of the petitioner had not been attached with the form. According to the policy dated 18.3.1992, an oustee is entitled to get the residential plot (s) subject to certain conditions from the land which is acquired. The relevant restrictions read, thus:- “(i) Plots to the oustees would be offered if the land proposed to be acquired is under the ownership of the oustee prior to the publication of the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and if 75% or more of the total land owned by the land-owners in that sector is acquired. (ii) Oustees whose land acquired is: (a) Less than 500 sq. yards would be offered a plot of 50 sq. yards. CWP No. 365 of 2009 -4- (b) Between 500 sq. yards and one acre would be offered a plot of 250 sq. yards. (c) From 1 acre and above would be offered a plot of 500 sq. yards or where 500 square yards plots are not provided in the layout plan, two plots of 250 square yards, each may be given. (iii) The above policy shall also apply in case there are a number of co-sharers of the land which has been acquired. If the acquired land measures more than one acre, then for the purpose of granting benefits under this policy, the determining factor would be the area owned by each co-sharer respectively as per his/her share in the joint holding. In case the acquired land of the co-sharer is less than one acre, only one plot of 250 sq. yards would be allotted in the joint name of the co-sharers. (iv) XX XX XX (v) XX XX XX (vi) Allotment of plots to the oustees will be made at the allotment rates advertised by the Haryana Urban Development Authority for that sector. Land-owners will be given compensation for their land which is acquired. (vii) Claims of the oustees for allotment of plots CWP No. 365 of 2009 -5- under this policy shall be invited by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority concerned before the sector is floated for sale.” It is not disputed that the land of the petitioner was acquired and that it is an oustee. It is also admitted that an application for allotment of a plot out of the oustees' quota was filed though on 7.2.2000. The petitioner, however, had not deposited the earnest money, i.e. 10% of the tentative price of the plot along with the application. The question that arises for consideration is- as to whether the respondents were justified in rejecting the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a plot out of the quota reserved for oustees. The answer is in the negative. The claim of the petitioner had earlier been declined on 7.4.2006 on the ground that it had not deposited the earnest money along with the application form, which was assailed by way of filing petition bearing CWP No. 9408 of 2006. This Court while disposing of the aforesaid writ petition had recorded as under:- “Consequently, we dispose of the present petition and it is directed that the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sonepat shall reconsider the claim of the petitioners. If the petitioners are required to deposit any earnest money, the same shall be communicated to the petitioners and thereafter, their claim shall be considered in accordance with law.” CWP No. 365 of 2009 -6- In the impugned order, the claim of the petitioner had now been rejected on the grounds as noticed above. It was not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioner is an oustee as its land had been acquired by the respondents. Further, grounds (i) and (iii) now taken were never raised by the respondents at the time of passing an order rejecting the claim of the petitioner which was impugned in CWP No. 9408 of 2006. It is very surprising that the respondents have again rejected the application of the petitioner on the ground that earnest money had not been deposited along with the application form which ground had been set aside by this Court while deciding CWP No. 9408 of 2006. Still further, the respondents had published a notice in the “Punjab Kesari” on 1.1.2000 and the land-losers were required to file the application by 1.1.2000 itself. This obviously could not have been complied with by the petitioner. The application, thus, submitted on 7.2.2000 could not be legally rejected on the ground of having been submitted beyond the period prescribed in the notice published on 1.1.2000. Consequently, finding no merit in the objections raised by the respondents, this Court is satisfied that the order (Annexure P-6) is legally unsustainable. In view of the above, the present writ petition is allowed and the order (Annexure P-6) is hereby set aside. The respondents are directed to allot a plot to the petitioner-company in terms of its policy dated 18.3.1992 in accordance with law. The petitioner be intimated of the amount to be paid by it in respect of the plot to be allotted to it. It is CWP No. 365 of 2009 -7- further directed that the needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. February 9, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE