IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 2041 OF 2009 DECIDED ON : 10.02.2009 Ranga Ram ...Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. S. P. Khatri, Advocate, for the petitioner. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to allot him a plot measuring One kanal under the oustees quota in Sector 27, Panchkula on deposit of 10% earnest money. The petitioner's case is that he fulfills all the eligibility conditions laid down in the Oustees Policy (Annexure P-2) and is entitled for allotment of a One kanal plot as the land measuring 13 Kanals 11 marlas owned by him and situated within the revenue limits of village Ram Garh, was acquired by the respondents for the development of Sectors- 25, 26, 27 and 28, Panchkula. The petitioner's further grievance is that his claim has been turned down by the respondents on the solitary ground that though he had applied along with 10% earnest money, but his application was not for allotment of the plot in the same sector for which the land was acquired. Relying upon a decision taken by the Apex Appellate Body of HUDA in the case of “Om Prakash vs. Haryana Urban C.W.P NO. 2041 OF 2009 -2- Development Authority” dated 06.02.2008 (Annexure P-6), learned counsel for the petitioner states that the objection taken against the petitioner's eligibility, is no longer a valid ground to deny him the allotment under the Oustees Policy. He also relies upon an order dated 21.08.2008 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in “C.W.P No. 2065 of 2006 (Ashok Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others)” (Annexure P-7). The petitioner's further grievance is that he has already served a legal notice dated 29.09.2008 (Annexure P-7), however, no decision has been taken by the respondents so far. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and after gong through the documents referred to above, I am of the considered view that the petitioner's claim requires re- consideration by the respondent authorities. Consequently, without expressing any views on the merits of the petitioner's claim, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to take cognizance of the legal notice served on behalf of the petitioner in the light of the HUDA Policy and the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar's case (supra) and dispose of the petitioner's claim in accordance with law within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. FEBRUARY 10, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE