IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.11877 of 2008 Date of decision: 4th November, 2009 Trilok Nath … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Vinod S. Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. . KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioner in the present writ petition claims that he should be allotted plot as per the policy enacted by respondents No.2 and 3 under the Oustee quota. It is not disputed that land, which was on the name of mother of the petitioner was acquired by respondent HUDA and a notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act was issued on 22nd February, 1984. It is not disputed that total land in the name of the family was 2 bighas and 19 biswas. Mother of the petitioner had expired on 18th December, 1982 before the process of acquisition was set into motion. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that as per the Oustee policy, petitioner is entitled to allotment of plot. Petitioner had also applied for a plot measuring 250 sq. yards. Vide Annexure P-10, application of the petitioner was not accepted and same was declined on the ground that all the co- sharers/owners of Khata can be allotted one plot. Thereafter, petitioner Civil Writ Petition No. 11877 of 2008 had submitted affidavits of all the family members that they have no objection in case plot is allotted to the petitioner. The affidavits sworn to this effect were forwarded to respondent HUDA vide Annexure P-11. Mr. Dinesh Nagar, appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, has submitted that process of acquisition started, in the present case, in year 1983 and the land was acquired in 1984. The land, after the death of his mother, was mutated in the name of petitioner in year 1984. The petitioner had applied for plot under Oustee quota in year 1989. Another ground taken by the respondents is that petitioner could be allotted plot only in Sector 16 at Karnal. Counsel for the petitioner has stated that in Sector 16, the plots have been earmarked for Economically Weaker Section and all the plots are less than 150 square yards. Therefore, claim of the petitioner is to be considered only in other Sectors, therefore, contention of respondent is not tenable. At this stage, Mr. Dinesh Nagar has stated that in case petitioner submits affidavit of all the co-sharers that they forego their claim, application of the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law, as per latest policy of HUDA. In view of the statement made by Mr. Dinesh Nagar, counsel appearing for respondents No.2 and 3, present writ petition is disposed of with direction that let petitioner submit affidavits of all his family members, who are his co-sharers to the effect that they have no objection that plot is allotted to the petitioner. In case, such a course is adopted by the petitioner, same shall be considered by the respondents in accordance with prevailing policy and law. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 4, 2009 rps 2