IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.19460 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: December 8, 2006 Banto ….Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others …. Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA PRESENT: Shri S.P.Khatri, Advocate for the petitioner. Viney Mittal,J.(Oral). Notice of motion to the respondents. On the asking of Court, Shri Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Copies of the writ petition have been supplied to the learned counsel for the respondents. The claim of the petitioner for allotment of a plot as an oustee has been rejected by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Panchkula through a communication (Annexure P.6) dated December 1, 2006. It has been reported that since the acquired land of the petitioner fell in Sectors 2 and 20 and he had applied for allotment of plot in Sector 27, therefore, he could not be treated as eligible for the allotment of the aforesaid plot in Sector 27. The petitioner has pleaded that in Sectors 2 and 20, no plots were available for the allotment to the oustee’s CWP NO.19460 of 2006 -2- category, inasmuch as, the entire sectors were reserved for defence personnel/societies. On that basis, the petitioner has relied upon the policies of HUDA, whereby the plot could be allotted in adjacent or alternative sector. On November 29,2006, the Chief Administrator, HUDA had appeared in this Court in CWP No.15433 of 2006 and another connected matters and had made a statement. A large number of cases were disposed of on the basis of the aforesaid statement made by the Chief Administrator. The present petition is also disposed of in terms of the statement made by CWP No.15433 of 2006. A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges. (Viney Mittal) Judge December 8, 2006 (H.S. Bhalla) KD Judge