Civil Writ Petition No.13946 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13946 of 2010 Date of Order: 04.07.2011 Chander Kaur ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others ..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA Present:Mr. Sudhir Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.C.Gupta, Sr. DAG, Haryana for the respondent-State Mr. Gitish Bharadwaj, Advocate for the HUDA. RAJIVE BHALLA, J (Oral) The petitioner prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the letter dated 31.03.2010 and for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot a 8 Marla plot to the petitioner in Sector 5 or Sector 6, Rohtak. The petitioner claims allotment of a plot as an oustee, based upon her right as a co-sharer of acquired land. Admittedly, land measuring 38 Kanals and 15 Marlas situated in Civil Writ Petition No.13946 of 2010 -2- village Bohar, District Rohtak was acquired. The awards were pronounced on 15.09.1986 and 16.08.1995. The State of Haryana framed a policy, dated 18.03.1992, for allotment of plots to oustees of acquired land. The petitioner applied for allotment of an eight marla plot on 22.03.2006 in response to an advertisement, issued by the Haryana Urban Development Authority. The application was rejected on the ground that an 8 marla plot is not available. The petitioner's claim was, therefore, considered as a general category applicant. The petitioner filed Civil Writ Petition No.12766 of 2006, impugning the correctness of this order. The writ petition was decided on 30.11.2006, in terms of the order passed in Civil Writ Petition No.15433 of 2006, 'Amar Singh Vs. H.U.D.A. And others' on 29.11.2006. The operative part of the order passed in CWP No.15433 of 2006 reads as follows:- “Present Writ Petition along with the other connected matters have been taken up for further hearing today. Sh. S.S.Dhillon, Chief Administrator, HUDA is present in the Court. He has informed the Court that a new policy with regard to the allotment of plots to the oustees has already been forwarded by his office to the State Government for grant of a formal approval. But the aforesaid approval has not Civil Writ Petition No.13946 of 2010 -3- been granted so far. Sh. Dhillon has stated that as and when the aforesaid new policy is formulated, the claim of such oustees, which are covered under the aforesaid policy, shall be decided in accordance with the new policy. sh. Dhillon has further offered that with a view to settle all the claims of such claimants, which are pending before any Court, including this Court, and any other Forum and also the claims of such other persons who have already filed a representation claiming the allotment of plots as an oustee/oustees or have issued a legal notice in this regard to the HUDA authorities, shall be re-examined by the authorities. Sh. Dhillon has offered that for the aforesaid re-examination, an “oustees Adalat” shall be constituted with regard to each of the zones, demarcated by HUDA, comprising of the Zonal Administrator, the concerned Estate Officer of the urban estate and the District Town Planner. The aforesaid Oustees Adalats shall re-examine the claim of all the aforesaid persons. On such re-examination, the aforesaid Adalat shall pass a speaking order dealing with the claim of the aforesaid Civil Writ Petition No.13946 of 2010 -4- claimants. It has also been assured by Sh. Dhillon that the aforesaid Oustees Adalats shall deal with such claims in accordance with the existing policies, as applicable to the claim of the claimants, and in accordance with law. Sh. Dhillon has also stated that with a view to re- examine the claims of the aforesaid claimants, individual notice/notices shall be issued in accordance with law. He has further stated that an endeavour shall be made by the Oustees Adalats to settle the aforesaid claims of the said claimants within a period of 6 months.” The petitioner's claim was re-considered by the Administrator, Rohtak and two plots measuring 250 Sq. Yards and 215 Sq. Yards were allotted to her co-sharer i.e. her brother Partap, as the petitioner filed an affidavit that she has no objection to the allotment to her brother. Counsel for the petitioner, however, contends that allotment of a plot to the petitioner's co-sharer is irrelevant as the petitioner's case has to be considered separately as each co-sharer is entitled to a separate plot in accordance with Clause-2 of the new policy dated 07.12.2007 and the statement made by the then Chief Administrator of HUDA in CWP No.15433 of 2006. It is further argued that as the petitioner's case has to be considered under Civil Writ Petition No.13946 of 2010 -5- the new policy and this policy specifically provides for allotment of a separate plot to each co-sharer, the petitioner cannot be denied allotment of a separate plot. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand submits that the petitioner's land was acquired in the year 1986. Her claim has to be considered in accordance with the policy Annexure P-1. The policy Annexure P-1 does not provide for allotment of a separate plot to each co-sharer and in fact specifically provides for allotment of a single plot to all co- sharers. The writ petition is, therefore, misconceived and should be dismissed. I have heard counsel for the parties, perused the letter dated 31.03.2010, the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench, the policies framed by the State of Haryana. Admittedly, land belonging to the petitioner as a co- sharer, was acquired and awards were pronounced on 15.09.1986 and 16.08.1995. It is not denied that on the relevant date the policy dated 18.03.1992 appended as Annexure P-1 was in vogue. A relevant extract from this policy relating to entitlement and rights of oustees reads as follows:- “iii) The above policy shall also apply in case there is number of co-sharers of the land which has been acquired. If the acquired land measures more than one acre, then for the purpose of granting benefits under this policy, Civil Writ Petition No.13946 of 2010 -6- the determining factor would be the area owned by each co-sharer respectively as per his/her share in the joint holding. In case the acquired land of the co-sharer is less than one acre, only one plot of 250 Sq. yards would be allotted in the joint name of the co-sharers.” The policy does not provide for allotment of a separate plot to each co-sharer. It is neither canvassed nor pleaded that the policy is ultra vires any provision or principle of law. The contention raised by counsel for the petitioner that the policy framed in the year 2007 should apply to the petitioner in view of the statement made by the Chief Administrator, HUDA before the Division Bench in C.W.P.No.15433 of 2006 cannot be accepted. The statement of Chief Administrator and the order passed by Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court does not lend credence to the argument that claims of all oustees have to be considered in accordance with the new policy. A careful perusal of the statement made by the then Chief Administrator, reproduced in the preceding paragraphs of the judgment, leaves no manner of doubt that the claim of each oustees has to be considered in accordance with the policy applicable to such oustee. The new policy would apply to only such applicants whose claim have not been considered or adjudicated. As is apparent from the facts the petitioner's claim was considered and rejected under the 1992 policy and the Civil Writ Petition No.13946 of 2010 -7- petitioner had admittedly filed CWP No.12766 of 2006 impugning the rejection of her claim. The petitioner's claim having already been rejected under the old policy, her claim had to be and was, therefore, rightly reconsidered under the old policy of 1992. Even otherwise, it would be appropriate to mention that policies framed by the State are prospective in operation and cannot be pressed into service for adjudication of claims that have already been decided. The petitioner cannot be allowed to take any benefit of the new policy. In view of what has been stated hereinabove, as the petitioner's claim was rightly re-considered under the 1992 policy, the writ petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. July 04, 2011 (RAJIVE BHALLA) nt JUDGE