R.S.A.No. 2406 of 2009 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 2406 of 2009 Date of Decision:July 06, 2009 Garja Singh ---Appellant versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ---Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA *** Present: Mr. G.I.Sharma,Advocate, for the appellant *** SABINA, J. Plaintiff-Garja Singh filed a suit seeking mandatory direction to the defendants to allot residential plot in Sector-19, Panchkula against outstee policy for his land acquired in village Abheypur, Tehsil and District Panchkula vide award No. 6 dated 11.7.1978. Suit filed by the plaintiff was dismissed by Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Panchkula vide judgment dated 20.5.2009. The said judgment was upheld by District Judge, Panchkula in appeal vide judgment and decree dated 2.4.2009. Hence, the present appeal. The case of the parties as noticed by the learned District Judge, Panchkula, in paras 3 and 4 of its judgment reads as under:- R.S.A.No. 2406 of 2009 -2- “The case of the plaintiff is that certain land owned by him and other co-sharers was acquired by the State of Haryana vide award No. 6 dated 18.7.1978 for development of residential and commercial area in village Abheypur, District Panchkula. As per oustee policy, State of Haryana was bound to give residential plot to the owners of the land in the Sector for thjeir residential purposes. Accordingly, plaintiff moved an application for himself and on behalf of other co-sherers for allotment of plot under oustee policy in Sector-19, Panchkula. His further case is that previously, he was working as Subedar in Unit P.G. 2128 in the Army in the year 1993-94. On account of his bravery and devotion to9 duty, the plaintiff was recommended for medal and was also allotted a plot. The defendants had issued letter dated 20.10.2003, asking the plaintiff to fulfill certain requirements. All the requirements were fulfilled buy despite that the defendants refused to allot the plot under oustee quota on the ground that plaintiff had already been allotted a plot by the defendants. It has been pleaded that the said plot was allotted as a reward on account of meritorious services rendered by the plaintiff during military operation and that allotment was not concerned with the plot rto be allotted to him under oustee policy. Thus, the plaintiff has sought issuance of mandate to the defendants to allot a residential plot to the plaintiff in Sector-19, Panchkula under oustee policy. Defendants have contested the claim of the R.S.A.No. 2406 of 2009 -3- plaintiff in terms of their joint written statement dated 30.4.2006, taking preliminary objections on the grounds of maintainability, estoppel, jurisdiction, cause of action, want of notice under Section 80 CPC,m valuation, limitation, and suit being bad for non-joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties. Preliminary objection No. 3 has been taken with a specific plea that the plaintiff had suppressed material and true facts from the Court. The oustee policy of HUDA is dated 12.3.1993. The plaintiff was not eligible to get the plot under that policy as he has already been allotted plot No. 777 in Sector-19, Panchkula out of discretionary quota of Govt. (privilege quota) vide memo No. 1741 dated 31.1.1996. On merits also similar contest has been raised, alleging that the case of the plaintiff did not fall within the parameters of oustee policy dated 12.3.1993 applicable to the case in hand” On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed by the trial court:- (1)Whether the plaintiff is entitled to take residential plot in Sector-19, Panchkula against the oustee policy as per award dated 11.7.1978? OPP (2)If issued No. 1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of mandatory injunction? OPP (3)Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and cause of action to file the present suit? OPD (4)Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the suit by own act and conduct?OPD R.S.A.No. 2406 of 2009 -4- (5)Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD (6)Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true and material facts? OPD (7)Whether the suit of the plaintiff is false and frivolous? OPD (8)Whether the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of court fees and jurisdiction? OPD (9)Whether the suit is time barred? OPD (10)Relief After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of the opinion that no ground for interference by this Court is made out. Admittedly, the appellant was allotted plot No. 777 in Sector 19, Panchkula in the year 1996. Plaintiff had placed on record certificate of appreciation dated 15.6.1995 issued by Lt. General, General Officer Commanding-in-Chief in his favour but had failed to prove the same. Plaintiff also failed to establish that a recommendation had been made on account of his meritorious service record for allotment of any plot to him. The land of the plaintiff was acquired in the year 1978 and a plot was allotted to him in the year 1996 under oustee policy. Courts below have rightly held that since the plaintiff had already been allotted a plot, he could not be allotted another plot. As per the relevant extract of the oustee policy reproduced in para 11 of the judgment of the District Judge, the benefit under the oustee policy 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 otherwise. The benefit under oustee policy shall be restricted to one plot according to the size of the holding irrespective of the number of R.S.A.No. 2406 of 2009 -5- co-sharers. The courts below had thus rightly dismissed the suit of the plaintiff. In these circumstances, no substantial question of law arises in this appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed. (SABINA) JUDGE July 06, 2009 PARAMJIT