Civil Writ Petition No. 13832 of 2007 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 13832 of 2007 Date of Decision : 4.11.2008 M/s The Standard Rubber Mills .......Petitioner. Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY PRESENT: Mr. Shailendra Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents **** DAYA CHAUDHARY, J. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 11.5.2007 ( Annexure P-21) vide which the representation of the petitioner submitted in pursuance of the order dated 28.9.2006 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 15564 of 2006 for allotment of 10 Marla plot under oustees quota has been rejected. Briefly the facts of the case, as extracted from the writ petition, are that the petitioner was owner in possession of 1/4th share of total land measuring 5 kanals and 6/1-2 marla comprised in Khewat No. 310/278, Khatoni No.386, Khasra Nos. 39/8/2/2/1 situated in village Jharsa, district Gurgaon. The aforesaid land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1987. As per policy of HUDA, the petitioner applied and submitted application for allotment of 10 marla plot in Sector 15-II, Gurgaon on 21.8.2000. The petitioner completed all for formalities as required by HUDA from time to time. The petitioner was informed by HUDA authorities that Civil Writ Petition No. 13832 of 2007 [2] his case was considered by the screening committee and was not found eligible for allotment of plot and the earnest money deposited by the petitioner was refunded. The petitioner challenged the order dated 4.5.2006 by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No. 15564 of 2006 which was disposed of with the following observations: “............We find merit in the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner to the extent that the order ( Annexure P-18) is a non-speaking order and as such cannot be legally sustainable. Consequently, we allow the present writ and quash the order Annexure P-18. We also direct the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, respondent No.2, to decide the claim of the petitioner. For this purpose, the petitioner would be required to file a detailed representation within a period of three weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received. The petitioner shall give the detailed facts in the aforesaid representation and shall also annex necessary documents. On receipt of the aforesaid representation, the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, respondent No.2, shall take a final decision upon the claim of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received, by passing a detailed speaking order. The petitioner shall also be required to re-deposit the earnest money which has been ordered to be refunded vide order dated May 4, 2006 (Annexure P-18) along with the aforesaid application......” In compliance with the aforesaid directions, the petitioner filed a representation before the authorities concerned which was rejected vide order dated 11.5.2007 which is under challenge in the present writ petition . Civil Writ Petition No. 13832 of 2007 [3] Mr.Shailender Jain, learned counsel for the petitioner, has argued that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner did not apply for a plot in the same sector i.e. 31-32 being institutional sectors. However, he could have applied in next floated residential sectors i.e. Sector 41 Part (1989) or Sectors i.e. 39 and 40 ( 1995). Mr. Jain has argued that the respondent authorities has lost site of the fact that as per their own policies, particularly the policy dated 27.3.2000, those persons whose lands were acquired prior to 10.9.1987, became eligible for allotment of plot under the oustees quota only w.e.f. 27.3.2000 (i.e. the date of issuance of the policy (Annexure P-6), which is in consonance with the policy Annexure P-2 dated 10.9.1987. The existing policy laid down that only those landowners whose land was acquired on or before 10.9.1987 were eligible to acquire a residential plot. In the present case, the land of the petitioner was acquired vide Notification dated 27.8.1987 and the petitioner was not eligible to apply for a plot under the oustees quota before the policy Annexure P-6 came into existence i.e. on 27.3.2000. Immediately after 27.3.2000, when Sector 15-II Gurgaon was floated in June 2000 that the petitioner applied and his claim was rejected. Mr. Jain argued that claim of the petitioner has wrongly been rejected without any application of mind. He further argued that applications under the oustees quota in the said category were less than the total number of plots and the petitioner was entitled for allotment of 10- Marla plot in that Sector. It has also been argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the claim of oustees is preferential one over and above all other categories and the claim of the oustees has to be first satisfied and it is only thereafter that the remaining plot can be allotted to other categories by way of draw of lots. Written statement has been filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, which is on record. Civil Writ Petition No. 13832 of 2007 [4] In the written statement it has been pleaded that the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected as the same is not covered by the policy. Moreover, the claim of the petitioner can only be considered under the oustees policy framed by the respondents. Reliance has been placed on a judgment of this Court in C.W.P.No. 6192 of 2007 (Ramo Bai and others Vs. State of Haryana and others) decided on 17.5.2007. The relevant portion of judgment is reproduced as under: “ .... ..in our considered view, there is no vested right which accrues to a person whose land is acquired to get an alternative accommodation as he has been adequately compensated for the same. The policies to rehabilitate the oustees are formulated keeping in view the development activities of the State and its instrumentalities/ agencies......”. It is pleaded in the written statement that allotment of plot under the oustees policy is restricted to the claimants within the sector for which their land has been acquired. It has been produced in the policy guidelines dated 27.3.2000 issued by the HUDA, that where the land has been acquired prior to 10.9.1987 and plots are still available, while floating the plots on such land, the oustees claim shall also be invited and they will have the prior right for allotment of plots. The said policy dated 27.3.2000 was framed in view of decision of this Court in C.W.P.No. 14708 of 1990 ( Suman Aneja Vs. State of Haryana) dated 11.8.1993, but the petitioner-firm is not eligible to apply for allotment of plot in oustees category under the said policy. As the land of the petitioner-firm was acquired for Sectors 31-32, Gurgaon and the petitioner- firm applied for allotment of plot under oustees category in Sector 15, Gurgaon. It is clearly mentioned in the said policy that as per judgment of this Court where the land was acquired prior to 10.9.1987 and plots are still Civil Writ Petition No. 13832 of 2007 [5] available while floating the plots on such land, the oustees claim shall also be invited. It is also mentioned in the written statement that petitioner could have applied in next floated residential sector i.e. Sector 41 Part (1989) or Sectors 39 and 40 ( 1995). It is further stated that since Sectors 15, 38 and 39 are the surrounding Sector 32 and have been advertised several times since 1988, the claim of the petitioner for allotment in Sector 15 was considered by the screening committee and the petitioner-firm was not found eligible for allotment of plot under oustees quota as per HUDA policy in Sector 15-II and the earnest money deposited by the petitioner was refunded vide memo dated 4.5.2006. We have heard arguments of learned counsel for parties and perused the documents on record and also the impugned order whereby the claim of the petitioner has been rejected by the authorities concerned. Admittedly, the petitioner applied for a plot under oustees quota in Sector 15, Gurgaon. The land of the petitioner was acquired for Sectors 31-32, Gurgaon, but the petitioner did not apply. Without going into the merits of the controversy whether some plots are presently available in any other sectors or not and keeping in view the claim of the petitioner, acquisition made and the policy framed by the State Government to rehabilitate the oustees, we direct the respondent- authorities that if any application for allotment of plot under oustees quota is made by the petitioner in future and plots are available in the category of oustees, the claim of the petitioner would be considered under oustees category as per policy and in accordance with law. This writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. (UMA NATH SINGH) (DAYA CHAUDHARY) JUDGE JUDGE 4.11.2008. raghav Civil Writ Petition No. 13832 of 2007 [6] Whether to be referred to reporter ..........Yes or No.