C.R. No. 5258 of 2008 1 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 5258 of 2008 Date of Decision : 8.9.2009 Haryana Urban Development Authority & another .......... Petitioners Versus Swaran Ram ( dead) through L.Rs. and others ...... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD K. SHARMA Present : Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. S.P. Khatri, Advocate for the respondents. **** VINOD K. SHARMA, J. (ORAL) This revision is directed against the order dated 1.5.2008, passed by the learned Courts below vide which application moved by the plaintiff / respondents under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for reserving one plot each, stands allowed. The plaintiff / respondents filed a suit for injunction directing the petitioner herein to allot one plot each under the oustees quota. The claim was based on the fact that, more than 15 acres of land of the plaintiff / respondents was acquired for development of Sectors 3 and 21 at Urban Estate, Panchkula. The suit was contested, primarily on the ground that the C.R. No. 5258 of 2008 2 plaintiffs / respondent are not entitled to allotment of any plot under the 1992 & 1993 policy, as part of their land was released from the acquisition. Further that petitioners / defendants, in any case, were entitled to only one plot being co-sharers. In support of this, reliance was placed by the defendants / petitioners on the policies of 1992 & 1993, the relevant part of which reads as under :- “(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 notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 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 should be offered 50 sq. yards plot ; (b) Between 500 sq. yards and one acre should be offered a plot of 250 sq. yards; (c) From one acre and above would be offered a plot of 500 sq. yards or where 500 sq. yards plots are not provided in the layout plan, two plots of 250 sq. yards each may be given. (iii) The above policy shall C.R. No. 5258 of 2008 3 also apply in case there are a number of co-sharers for the land which has been acquired. If the acquired land is 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)If the land of any land owner is released from acquisition, he/she would not be eligible to avail of any benefit under this policy (irrespective of the area of land released).” The aforementioned policy was modified by the HUDA and the modifications were circulated vide letter dated 12.3.1993, the relevant portion of which reads as under :- “(i) Benefit under oustees is not to be allowed to those oustees who have got residential/ commercial plots from HUDA in that Urban Estate. However, this restriction will not apply to those oustees who might have acquired property there C.R. No. 5258 of 2008 4 otherwise. (ii)Benefit under oustees policy shall be restricted to one plot according to the size of the holding irrespective of the number of co-sharers.” The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that this policy was upheld by this Court in CWP No. 6129 of 2007, therefore, the plaintiff / respondents have no prima facie case in their favour. The impugned order, therefore, deserved to be set aside. On consideration of the matter, I find no force in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners. The policy of 1992 & 1993 does not debar the plaintiffs / respondents for allotment of plot under the oustees quota. Sub-clause 3 of 1992 policy, if interpreted correctly would show that when the area acquired is more than one acre, then each of the co- sharer would be entitled to allotment of plot depending on his share in the land, therefore, it could not be said that each of the co-sharer would be entitled to allotment of plot as contended by the learned counsel for the respondent. Similarly, clause (iv) does not take away the right of the land owner, who is oustee, to allotment of plot merely because some part of the land is released. The entitlement would only cease in case the land of any landowner is released totally from acquisition irrespective of the area. The words irrespective of area of land released, would be immaterial if total land is released. The learned counsel for the petitioners also contends that C.R. No. 5258 of 2008 5 under the Policy of 1993 the benefit is restricted to only one plot according to the number of co-sharers, this Clause again cannot be interpreted to mean that only one co-sharer out of the landowners, would be entitled to plot. The instructions being for benefit of the oustees the only interpretation which could be given is that each of the co-sharer irrespective of the holding is entitled to one plot according to the size of the holding as per their entitlement. In view of the reasons recorded above, it is prima facie proved that there is prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff / respondents and that they were likely to suffer irreparable loss if one plot each was not reserved for them, keeping in view that more than 15 acres of their land stands acquired. No merit. Dismissed. 8.9.2009 ( VINOD K. SHARMA ) 'sp' JUDGE