IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. L.P.A. No.1070 of 2009(O&M) Date of decision: 10.12.2009 Haryana Urban Development Authority & others. -----Appellants Vs. Harsh Kinra & others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH Present:- Mr. Manish Bansal, Advocate for the appellants. --- ORDER: 1. This appeal has been preferred against order of learned Single Judge, directing the appellants to allot plot of the size of 50 square yards to the respondent No.1. 2. Land of the respondent No.1 was acquired partly in pursuance of notification dated 6.5.1992 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”) and partly in pursuance of notification dated 5.11.1999 under Section 4 of the Act. The appellant has adopted policy dated 18.3.1992 called ‘Oustees Quota Policy’, which envisages allotment of plot to the persons whose land was acquired. Respondent No.1 sought allotment of a plot but the said claim was rejected. Ground of LPA No.1070 of 2009 rejection initially was that he did not deposit the earnest money with the application. He filed C.W.P. No.7219 of 2006 which was disposed of on 11.5.2006 with a direction that on deposit being made, his claim be considered. S.L.P. against the said order was dismissed on 17.11.2006. He made the deposit but again his application was rejected vide order dated 19.1.2007, Annexure P- 12, by giving additional reasons that he was not owner on the date of first acquisition and that only one plot could be allotted to all the co-sharers in the acquired khewat. He challenged the said rejection by filing writ petition. 3. Learned Single Judge upheld the claim. It was held that earlier rejection was only on the ground of non-deposit of earnest money and once respondent No.1 was permitted to make the deposit, it was not fair to put forward new grounds of rejection. It was further observed that even if on the date of earlier acquisition he was not owner, he was owner when the second acquisition took place. The appellants were not able to show that any other plot had been allotted to any other co-sharer also. Reference was made to orders passed by the appellants, allotting plots to similarly situated persons, particularly order dated 22.1.2009, Annexure P-15. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants. 5. Learned counsel for the appellants is unable to dispute that respondent No.1 was owner at the time of second acquisition and it has not been shown on record that for the land 2 LPA No.1070 of 2009 in question, any other person had been allotted any plot. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the order of learned Single Judge. 6. The appeal is dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE December 10, 2009 ( GURDEV SINGH ) ashwani JUDGE 3