CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18376 OF 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: February 23, 2011. Parties Name Smt. Rukmani Devi ...PETITIONER VERSUS State of Haryana and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg PRESENT: Mr. Om Parkash Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner Ms. Palika Monga, D.A.G., Haryana, for respondent No. 1. Mr. Amit Sharma, Advocate, for Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Jasbir Singh, J. (oral) JUDGMENT This writ petition has been filed to quash an order dated October 8, 2007 (P9), passed by respondent No. 3, rejecting application of the petitioner for allotment of a plot under Oustees Quota. Further challenge has been laid to clause v of the 'Oustee Policy' framed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority on March 18, 1992, to allot plots to CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18376 OF 2010 -2- those whose land was acquired. As per facts on record, petitioner is the owner of land measuring 1 Kanal 4 Marlas falling in Khewat No. 116/105, Killa No. 16//12/2/3/1, situated in village Shahpur, tehsil Ballabgarh, district Faridabad. Similarly, husband of the petitioner along with others was the owner of land falling in Khasra No. 17//2/2 (5-17), 3(3-18), 9(0-16), total measuring 10 Kanals 11 Marlas, situated in village Malerna, tehsil Ballabgarh, district Faridabad. Admittedly above said land, owned by the petitioner and her husband, were subject matter of acquisition, qua which Award was passed and thereafter possession was taken by the respondents. By placing reliance upon the provisions of Oustees Policy (P3), petitioner filed an application to get a plot measuring 250 square yards. She also deposited an amount of Rs. 5340/- towards earnest money on September 8, 2006. When her application was not considered, she was compelled to file representations and thereafter served a legal notice on October 10, 2007. On an application filed under the Right to Information Act, 2005, she vide letter dated November 13, 2007, was intimated that her application was rejected on October 8, 2007. Copy of the rejection order has been placed on record as Annexure P-9. Relevant portion of the order reads thus: “It is intimated that as per office record you had applied for allotment of plot under oustees quota and the same has been rejected by the committee because of non-mentioning of Khasra No. name of village and area in the application form. The other documents i.e. Zamabandi with the application has also not been enclosed.” CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18376 OF 2010 -3- Petitioner then came to this Court to lay challenge to the above said order by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 19472 of 2008, which was disposed of by this Court vide order dated November 25, 2009, which reads as under: “Land of the petitioners was acquired and they had claimed allotment of the plots under the oustees' quota. Case of the respondents is that petitioner No.1, husband of petitioner No.2, was allotted a plot under the oustees' quota but petitioner No.2 is not entitled for a separate plot on the ground that same is not permissible under the policy of Haryana Urban Development Authority which has been attached as Annexure P7. It is submitted that land of the petitioners was subject matter of one acquisition proceedings, even though land of the petitioners was situated in different pockets. Counsel has referred to Clause 5 of the policy which read as under:- “v) As per the policy the oustees shall be entitled to a developed plot/plots. The size of which would depend upon the area of his acquired land subject to a maximum of 500 sq. yds. The oustees shall be entitled to this benefit under this policy only once in the same town where his land was situated/located. However, in cases where the land of a person situated in the same town in acquired in pockets at different times, the owner shall be entitled to claim the benefit on account of the entire area acquired (at different times) for purposes of claiming the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18376 OF 2010 -4- benefits under this policy.” Counsel for the petitioners has very fairly stated that this was not the stand taken by the respondents when his land was acquired, rather by Annexures P14 and P15, petitioner No.1 was informed that he had not given the khasra numbers and had not attached the jamabandies. Counsel for the petitioners further submit that even though in the written statement respondents had taken a stand that claim of the petitioners is not covered under the policy, therefore, petitioners are required to assail the policy as the same cannot sustain in the eyes of law. Counsel for the petitioners pray that he be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to assail the policy Annexure P7 as till the policy operates, petitioners are not entitled to allotment of separate plots. There is a merit in the contention raised by the petitioners. Accordingly, the petitioners are permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to file fresh petition to assail policy Annexure P7.” A reading of the order passed by this Court indicates that the opportunity was granted to the petitioner to lay challenge to the Oustees Policy dated March 18, 1992 (P-3). Accordingly, this writ petition has been filed impugning order dated October 8, 2007 (P-9) rejecting an application of the petitioner for grant of a plot and clause (v) of the policy, mentioned above. Clause v of the policy, to which challenge has been laid in this writ petition, reads thus: CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18376 OF 2010 -5- “As per the policy the oustees shall be entitled to a developed plot/ plots. The size of which would depend upon the area of his acquired land subject to a maximum of 500 sq. yds. The oustees shall be entitled to this benefit under this policy only once in the same town where his land was situated/ located. However, in cases where the land of a person situated in the same town is acquired in pockets at different times, the owner shall be entitled to claim the benefit on account of the entire area acquired (at different times) for purposes of claiming the benefits under this policy.” Counsel for the respondents have failed to satisfy us that if husband of the petitioner gets a plot, being an independent owner, why a plot cannot be allotted to the wife even if she holds land independently in her own right. Be that as it may, it is apparent from the record that application of the petitioner was rejected only on the ground of non-supply of the documents, which we feel is not justified as an Award to pay compensation was passed in her favour, in which it is clearly mentioned that the petitioner was owner of the land in dispute. If that was so, it was not open to the authorities to reject application of the petitioner on technical ground as has been done in this case when order was passed on October 8, 2007. Under the circumstances, we allow this writ petition, quash orders Annexures P-8 and P-9 and remit the matter to the Estate Officer at Faridabad to look into application of the petitioner for allotment of a plot under Oustees Policy (P3). If she is eligible, requisite relief be granted to her forthwith. Needful CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 18376 OF 2010 -6- be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. ( Jasbir Singh ) Judge (Rakesh Kumar Garg) Judge February 23, 2011. DKC