Letters Patent Appeal No.1123 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No.1123 of 2011 Date of decision: 6.7.2011 Greater Mohali Area Development Authority and another ...Appellants Versus Surinder Kaur and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Dharamvir Sharma, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, ACJ. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the order of learned Single Judge directing the appellant Greater Mohali Area Development Authority to allot a booth to the writ petitioner in terms of its policy dated 1.6.2001. 2. Case of the writ petitioner is that her husband had bought a piece of land on 24.7.1986 on which he had built up a shop where he was carrying on his business. The same was acquired by the State in the year 1993. Though name of the petitioner was mentioned in the survey conducted by the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority and there was a policy dated 1.6.2001 for rehabilitation of original residents/land owners, the petitioner was not allotted booth. Even though deposit of sale price was made and the writ petitioner was called upon to submit documents which were duly submitted, case of the writ petition was rejected on the ground that she was not the original resident of the village Letters Patent Appeal No.1123 of 2011 -2- and had come into picture by way of purchasing the property. The writ petitioner claimed that she was covered by the policy and having acquired property before acquisition, she had to be treated as the original land owner. This plea was opposed on the ground that word original land owner meant a person who inherited the land. Learned Single Judge upheld the plea of the writ petitioner. It was held that the intent and purpose of the scheme was to give benefit to affected persons, including the persons whose shops and land were taking in acquisition and who was not allotted any other property in lieu thereof. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the dictionary meaning of word 'original land owner' will not cover the writ petitioner. In our opinion, dictionary meaning of word 'original land owner' cannot be treated as conclusive in the context. The writ petitioner having lost her property in acquisition and policy of the appellant being aimed at rehabilitation, learned Single Judge was justified in not excluding the writ petitioner from the benefit of the policy. 7. In this view of the matter, we do not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Acting Chief Justice July 06, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge