Letters Patent Appeal No.720 of 2011 -1- *** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.720 of 2011 Date of decision: 25.4.2011 Shri Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Board ...Petitioner Versus Sheela Devi and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Partap Singh, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge dated 16.2.2011 setting aside cancellation of plots allotted to the respondents whose land was acquired by the State. 2. Case of the respondents is that they had purchased two marla plots in the year 1985-86. The same were acquired by the State vide notification dated 2.6.1999 for development work and providing facilities to the devotees of Shri Mata Mansa Devi. They filed a writ petition in this Court which was disposed of on 8.1.2002 on an undertaking of the learned Advocate General,Haryana that they will be allotted plots of almost similar areas elsewhere. Accordingly, they were allotted two plots of one marla each in the draw of lots held on 2.4.2008. They deposited the required amount. However, vide letter dated 7.1.2009, the appellant Board cancelled the allotment and instead allotted them one plot of one marla each. The writ petition was filed with the prayer that cancellation was Letters Patent Appeal No.720 of 2011 -2- *** arbitrary and contrary to the undertaking already given to this Court by learned Advocate General, Haryana. Learned Single Judge upheld the plea as follows:- “In fact, it would reflect that there is no valid reason available with the Board to cancel the two marlas plots, which were initially allotted to the petitioners. This action is, thus, seen as totally arbitrary and discriminatory. If there had been any justification in this regard, same would have been disclosed before the court on various occasions for which this case was adjourned. I do not find any justification in the decision of the board to cancel the plots allotted to the petitioners. Since no reason has been provided in this regard, the action to cancel the p lots cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The petitioners shall be entitled to claim the allotment of two marlas plots as earlier allotted and to claim possession of the same.” 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. It is clear that two plots of one marla each were initially allotted to the respondents. Learned counsel for the appellant states that respondents were entitled to one plot each of one marla but they were allotted two plots each of one marla. As per policy of the appellant, once a person gets a plot he cannot get another one. Relevant part of the policy dated 23.11.2007 Annexure P-4 is as under:- “That the only petitioners who have not ever been allotted any plot under the oustees policy in his/her spouse or dependent's name in District Panchkula are eligible for allotment.” 5. We find that the learned Single Judge has held that even Letters Patent Appeal No.720 of 2011 -3- *** though technically respondents have been allotted two plots each, both the plots are of total size of two marlas which was the size of plots to be allotted. Thus, even if technically two plots had been allotted, the fact remains that size of both of plots is only two marlas which was held to be their entitlement. 6. In this view of the matter, no ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. 7. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge April 25, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge