Regular Second Appeal No. 2499 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Regular Second Appeal No. 2499 of 2008 Date of Decision: 18.12.2008 Keshar Singh and Others …Appellants Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Vinod Bhardwaj, Advocate for the appellants. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) In the present case, a suit for mandatory injunction was filed against the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula (hereinafter referred to as “HUDA”) praying that plaintiffs be directed to allot free hold residential plots of 500 sq. yards. It was further stated that the entire land of the appellants/plaintiffs i.e. 8 kanals 14 marlas was acquired vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act on 25.9.1989. An amount of Rs.1,00,000/- was awarded by the Government, which was later enhanced by learned Additional District Judge, Kaithal, to Rs.2,70,000/- per acre vide award dated 1.10.1997. The defendants have formulated a policy for allotment of plots in lieu of acquisition under the oustee quota. Notice of the suit was issued. Written statement was filed by the HUDA. They pleaded that the plaintiffs be directed to produce Regular Second Appeal No. 2499 of 2008 2 affidavit that they had not applied anywhere else for the allotment. Issues were framed. Learned trial Court held that since the entire land of 8 kanals 14 marlas of land has been acquired, therefore, the suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs is to succeed. It was noticed that the arguments raised by the respondents/defendants that the policy has been modified vide order dated 12.3.1993 and those oustees who have got residential/commercial plots from HUDA in the Urban Estate, are not entitled to the benefit under the policy as the benefit under the oustees policy is to be restricted to one plot according to size of the holding irrespective to the number of owners. Aggrieved against the same, an appeal has been filed by HUDA, respondent/defendant. Learned Appellate Court below held that as per the policy dated 18.3.1992, one plot is to be given to all the co-sharers. A Division Bench of this Court has also held in Ramo Bai and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (Civil Writ Petition No. 6129 of 2007, decided on 17.5.2007 that co-sharers are entitled to one plot as per the policy and the claim that each co-sharer will be entitled to separate plot has been rejected. It has been held as under:- “An analysis of Clause (iii) of the policy of 1992 reveals that the acquisition of land of the co-sharers, if less than one acre, would entitle them for allotment of one plot of 250 sq.yards which has to be made jointly in the name of the co-sharers. By no stretch of imagination, it can be said that in case, the land acquired is more than one acre, then all co- sharers would be entitled to a plot measuring 500 sq.yards Regular Second Appeal No. 2499 of 2008 3 each in his individual name as the learned counsel for the petitioners wanted us to read. The policy of 1992 was further modified by the policy of 1993, the relevant portion of which has been reproduced hereinabove, and a clear departure has been made with regard to the allotment of plots to the cosharers and it was specifically laid down that the benefit under the oustees policy shall be restricted to one plot according to the size of the holding irrespective of the number of co-sharers. It was further stipulated that this benefit is not to be allowed to those oustees who have got residential/ commercial plots from the HUDA in that Urban Estate with an exception that this restriction shall not apply to those oustees, who have acquired property there otherwise. In our opinion, to the aforementioned provisions of the policies of 1992 and 1993, are germane, various factors, viz, present day pressure on the land, its paucity and the fact that the acquired land is to be used for many development purposes. The intent of such a policy cannot be to grant a bonanza to the oustees. Its sole purpose should be to rehabilitate them. In view of the above, we hold that the provisions of the policies of 1992 and 1993 are neither offensive nor oppressive or discriminatory and there is no ground to quash the same.” Therefore, there is no merit in the present appeal and the same is dismissed. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge December 18, 2008 “DK”