IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 16516 of 2010 & CWP. No. 12793 of 2009 Date of Decision: 23.11.2010. Yogesh Bishnoi --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. R.D. Sharma, D.A.G., Haryana for respondent no.1. Mr. Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocate for respondents no.2 to 4. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Application is allowed. Annexure P-22 taken on record. CWP no. 12793 of 2009 M/s Jambha Spinners Pvt. Ltd. purchased land situated at village Kheri Nangal, Tehsil & District Panipat measuring 8 kanal 9 marla. Mutation No. 3323 dated 17.4.1996 was duly attested in favour of the company. This land was acquired by the H.U.D.A pursuant to notification under Section 4 issued on 12.9.2001. H.U.D.A formulated a scheme for allotment of plot to the land owners whose land was compulsorily acquired for development purposes. The petitioner claiming to be the oustee and beneficiary under the scheme prevalent at the time of acquisition applied for allotment of plot pursuant to the advertisement issued by the H.U.D.A on 7.1.2008 for oustees. The petitioner applied for 1 kanal of plot in Sector 24, Panipat and also deposited earnest money of Rs. 2,60,800/- being the 10% CWP. No. 12793 of 2009 -2- of the tentative cost of the plot. The claim of the petitioner has been rejected vide impugned memo dated 24.1.2009 (Annexure P-14) on the ground that petitioner, a co-sharer along with one Suresh Gupta who has already been allotted a plot of land under the oustees policy. Petitioner has now placed on record a certificate issued by the Land Acquisition Officer, Urban Estate Department, Rohtak to establish that M/s Jambha Spinners Pvt. Ltd. is the only owner of the land measuring 8 kanal 9 marla comprising in Khewat No. 82/1 khasra no.57//25, 61//5/1. On the basis of the record produced by the petitioner, it is now established that the company was the sole proprietor of the land at the time of its acquisition and Suresh Gupta was never a co-sharer of it. In view of the above circumstances, the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioner is contrary to facts and is liable to be set aside. This petition is, accordingly, allowed. Order Annexure P-14 is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to H.U.D.A for fresh consideration for allotment of plot to the company under the oustees policy in vogue at the time of acquisition of land. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of three months. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 23.11.2010. lucky