IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP. No. 16050 of 2010 Date of Decision: 8.9.2010. Vijay Kumar --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Ashwani Verma, Advocate for the petitioner. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of motion. Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate present in the Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. Keeping in view the nature of relief claimed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage itself. The petitioner along with one Kishori Lal was the owner in possession of 2 kanals of land in equal shares comprising khasra no.142//10/01 situated in Bhima Basti, Fatehabad. This land was of a big chunk which was owned by other share holders as well. This land of the petitioner was acquired in the year 1993 for purpose of development. The H.U.D.A has formulated a policy, whereunder the oustees are allotted plots in lieu of the acquired land in the sector which is to be developed after the acquisition. The petitioner relies upon policy dated 18.3.1992. The petitioner has made representation (Annexure P-6). Claim of the petitioner for allotment of plot under oustees' policy has been rejected vide order dated 15.3.2007 by the Oustees Lok Adalat. The petitioner, thereafter, CWP. No. 16050 of 2010 -2- approached the Chief Administrator, H.U.D.A, who forwarded the representation of the petitioner to the Administrator and Estate Officer, H.U.D.A, Hisar for taking decision on the representation vide letter dated 10.7.2008 (Annexure P-7). Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite this the claim of the petitioner has not been considered. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondents no.3 & 4 to take decision on the recommendation of the Chief Administrator, H.U.D.A, referred to above, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date certified copy of this order is served upon the said respondents. Needless to say that in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, the same shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 8.9.2010. lucky