1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ***** C.W.P. No.4654 of 2010 Date of decision : 16.3.2010 Sadhu Ram and others -----Petitioners Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and others -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH Present:-Mr. Jagbir Malik, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner --- ORDER:- 1. This petition seeks quashing of 'oustees scheme' dated 7.12.2007 to the extent it clarifies oustees in two classes : (i) persons in whose favour award is announced on or after 5.3.2005, and (ii) those in whose favour award is passed earlier. 2. Case of the petitioners is that their land was acquired in the year 2002 for public welfare and the award was announced on 15.2.2005 under policy dated 10.9.1987, persons whose land was acquired were not entitled to individual plots but one plot for all the co-sharers. On 7.12.2007, a new policy, for allotment of plots under the oustees scheme, was introduced but its benefit was confined to persons in whose favour award was announced on or after 5.3.2005. Accordingly, public notice dated 18.2.2010 was issued for the benefit 2 of those in whose case award was announced on or after 5.3.2005. As a result of this, the petitioners could only get one plot jointly under the old policy, while under the new policy they were eligible to get plots separately. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that since the advertisement is now being made for available plots under oustees scheme, all the oustees should be treated at par and the cut off date of those in whose favour award was made on or before 5.3.2005. 3. We are unable to accept this submission. The policy of rehabilitating persons whose land is acquired is, no doubt, desirable and is a welfare measure but as held in Ravi Khullar and another Vs. Union of India and others AIR 2007 SC 2334, claim of an oustee has to be considered as per policy. There is no right beyond the policy. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners placed reliance on judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab and others Vs. Karam Singh and others, passed in Civil Appeal No.168 of 1983 decided on 11.9.1997, upholding view taken by this Court for allotment of separate plots to all the share holders in terms of the applicable policy. In present case, this judgment cannot apply as under the policy applicable to the petitioners, Annexure P 2, dated 10.9.1987, they are not eligible for separate plots. 5. The new policy has been confined to persons in whose favour award is made on or after 5.3.2005. Prescribing a cut off date is also a matter of policy and some persons are always bound to be adversly affected by the cut off date and that by itself cannot make a ground to quash the policy. Reference may be made to, judgment of 3 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Govt.of Andhra Pradesh & others Vs. N.Subbarayudu & others (2008) 14 SCC 702, wherein it was observed: "5. In a catena of decisions of this Court it has been held that the cut off date is fixed by the executive authority keeping in view the economic conditions, financial constraints and many other administrative and other attending circumstances. This Court is also of the view that fixing cut off dates is within the domain of the executive authority and the Court should not normally interfere with the fixation of cut off date by the executive authority unless such order appears to be on the face of it blatantly discriminatory and arbitrary. (See State of Punjab V. Amar Nath Goyal.) 6. No doubt in D.S.Nakara v. Union of India this Court had struck down the cut off date in connection with the demand of pension. However, in subsequent decisions this Court has considerably watered down the rigid view taken in Nakara case as observed in para 29 of the decision of this Court in State of Punjab V. Amar Nath Goyal. 7. There may be various considerations in the mind of the executive authorities due to which a particular cut off date has been fixed. These considerations can be financial, administrative or other considerations. The Court must exercise judicial 4 restraint and must ordinarily leave it to the executive authorities to fix the cut off date. The Government must be left with some leeway and free play at the joints in this connection. 8. In fact several decisions of this Court have gone to the extent of saying that the choice of a cut off date cannot be dubbed as arbitrary even if no particular reason is given for the same in the counter-affidavit filed by the Government (unless it is shown to be totally capricious or whimsical), vide State of Bihar v. Ramjee Prasad, Union of India v. Sudhir Kumar Jaiswal (vide SCC para 5), Ramarao v. All India Backward Class Bank Employees Welfare Assn. (vide SCC para 31), University Grants Commission v. Sadhana Chaudary, etc. It follows, therefore, that even if no reason has been given in the counter-affidavit of the Government or the executive authority as to why a particular cut off date has been chosen, the court must still not declare that date to be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 unless the said cut off date leads to some blatantly capricious or outrageous result. 9. As has been held by this Court in Aravali Golf Club v. Chander Hass and in Govt. Of A.P. v. P.Luxmi Devi the court must maintain judicial restraint in matters relating to the legislative or executive domain." 5 6. In the present case, it cannot be held that choice of cut off date is arbitrary. 7. Accordingly, we do not find any ground to quash the impugned policy. 8. Dismissed. (ADARSH KUMAR GOEL) JUDGE March 16, 2010 (ALOK SINGH ) akm JUDGE 6