In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … C.W.P. No. 18535 of 2011and connected Petitions. Date of decision: 30.9.2011 Krishan Kumar ..Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ..Respondents Coram: Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina Present: Mr. Ashwani Gaur, Advocate for the petitioner. .. 1. To be referred to the reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? Rajiv Narain Raina,J. 1. This is a bunch of three connected writ petitions* in which common questions of law and fact arise and the same can be disposed of by a common order. The facts are taken from CWP No.18535 of 2011. 2. The petitioner claimed to be 1/3rd share holder of land comprised in Khewat No. 339/304 Min. Khatoni No. 513 Killa Nos. 85/6/2/2 (3K-7M) situated within the revenue estate of village Kumaspur, Tehsil and District Sonepat. The land in issue was acquired by Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short, “HUDA”) for development of residential and commercial purpose of Sector 8 Sonepat. In respect of the land, it is admitted that award No. 13 was passed on 5.11.1995 and possession was taken on the same day. The petitioner admits that the amount of compensation qua the land has been received by him. The acquisition is not under challenge. The sole claim made in the petition is for allotment of plot under the oustees scheme. Reliance has been placed on a public notice issued by HUDA inviting applications from owners (oustees) whose land has been acquired in village Shahpur Turk, Rewali and Kumaspur for residential Sectors 8,19, 7 and 8 at Sonepat for allotment of residential plots as per HUDA oustees policy in that sector in which his/her land has been acquired. Applications in the prescribed proforma duly completed in all respects along with 10 % earnest money were required to be remitted so as to reach the Estate Officer, HUDA on or before 10.2.2011. Copy of Public Notice has been annexed as (P-2). It has been stated in the petition that after getting the proforma and filling it up, the petitioner visited the office of Land Acquisition Officer(5th respondent) for verification of the acquired land but the said respondent had refused to verify the same which led the petitioner to make a representation through registered post on 8.2.2011 to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat (4th respondent) complaining of the inaction of the 5th respondent together with copy to the Chief Administrator, HUDA and Administrator, HUDA, Rohtak through separate registered post. 3. Faced with no response, the petitioner has approached this court. In the other two cases, the averments are broadly the same. 4. We have heard Mr. Ashwani Gaur, learned counsel for the petitioner in all the three matters and have perused the documents as produced in the petitions. 5. Learned counsel submits that a direction be issued to the Land Acquisition Officer, Sonepat to verify details of the acquired land of the petitioner on the application for allotment under the oustees scheme. There is no averment in the writ petition as to when the proforma was obtained, when was it remitted, under what mode of service, when was the 5th respondent approached for carrying out verification or the date of refusal. There are no documents in support of this assertion nor any material particular has been pleaded in the writ petition. Annexure P-3 remains undated, learned counsel could not help this court with those particulars. In so far as Annexure P-4 is concerned being the request of the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner, Sonepat, there is no proof of service through registered post placed on record. There is an assertion that the letter was sent by registered post on 8.2.2011 but from which post office it was so done is also a matter kept in the dark. The last date was fixed as 10.2.2011 for receipt of applications and 10 % earnest money. There is no assertion in the petition that any effort was made to deposit 10 % earnest money so as to reach the Estate Officer on 10.2.2011 nor was the Estate officer informed before the deadline of the predicament the petitioner may have faced at the hands of Land Acquisition Officer. Learned counsel was not able to satisfy this court of the correctness of the story and the missing links sufficient to examine the matter further. There is also no evidence placed on record that the public notice (P-2) which is statedly one time benefit or that it relates to the 1995 acquisition. In the absence of material particulars, we find no life in these petitions. The petitions appear to have been filed casually on the strength of suspect documents. We therefore, dismiss these petitions in limine. (M.M.KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE September 30,2011 nk * Serial No. Civil Writ Petition No. Title 1 18535 of 2011 Krishan Kumar Versus The State of Haryana and others 2 18538 of 2011 Rameshwar Versus The State of Haryana and others 3 18539of 2011 Mehar Singh Versus The State of Haryana and others (M.M.KUMAR) (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE JUDGE September 30,2011 nk