Civil Writ Petition No. 18086 of 2008 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 18086 of 2008 Date of Decision: 21.10.2009 Vinod Kumar …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr. Sachin Kapoor, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. (Oral) Petitioner was owner of land situated in village Saketri, Tehsil Kalka, District Ambala now Panchkula. The land of petitioner was acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula, for development of Sector 2 (Part) and Sector 6 at Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula. Admittedly, respondent- Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula, has an oustee policy, according to which the agriculturist or other persons whose land has been acquired are entitled to allotment of plot under the oustee category. Petitioner applied for allotment of plot in Sector 6, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula. The Civil Writ Petition No. 18086 of 2008 2 request of petitioner was specifically declined on the ground that he is not entitled to allotment of plot in Sector 6, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula, as his land was acquired for development of Sector 2, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula and he can only seek allotment of plot in Sector 2, Panchkula. Notice of motion was issued by this Court, in response thereto, reply was filed by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula, in which he reiterated the objections which were conveyed to the petitioner that he is only entitled to allotment of plot in Sector 2, Mansa Devi Complex, Panchkula. It is submitted that in view of the rejection of the application, the earnest money deposited by the petitioner has been ordered to be refunded. An additional affidavit was submitted by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula, today. Paras 3 and 4 of the additional affidavit read as under:- XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX “3. That in this regard it is relevant to mention here that the acquired land in Sector 2, MDC, Panchkula, is partially under litigation in the various CWPs which have been filed by various land owners challenging the acquisition of the land. The particulars of the various CWPs which are pending are as under:- CWP No. 10117/2001 Luxmi Coop. GHS, CWP No. 5221/2000 Jan Kalyan Coop. Civil Writ Petition No. 18086 of 2008 3 GHS, CWP No. 4051/2001 Goverdhan Lal Etc. Vs. State, CWP No. 4402/2000 Prem Chand Vs. State, CWP N o. 13852/2003 Mahipal & Ors., CWP No. 7204/2000 Press Employees Friends Coop. GHS, CWP No. 338/2001 Tribune Friends Coop GHS, CWP No. 3382/2001 Tribune Employees Coop GHS, CWP No. 2355/2000 Mohinder Singh & Ors., CWP No. 8286/2003 Palika Coop., CWP No. 6357/2000 Balwan Singh, CWP No. 7254/2000 Sadhu Ranbir Singh, CWP No. 5994/2001 Samachar Patar Employee Coop. Society, CWP No. 3226/2001 HII View Patarkar, CWP No. 7130/2002 New Patarkar & friends. 4. That in view of the pendency of the aforesaid writ petitions, a significant part of land in Sector 2, MDC, Panchkula, is involved in litigation or the same has become land locked due to the surrounding areas being under litigation. Hence, in these circumstances the 10 marla plots under which the petitioner might become eligible as per Oustees Policy, cannot be floated at this stage nor any specific time frame can be given. It is however once Civil Writ Petition No. 18086 of 2008 4 again submitted that the petitioner has already been given complete liberty to apply afresh as and when 10 marla plots are floated in Sector 2, MDC, Panchkula and the claims are invited from the oustees”. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in case the stand of the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula, is accepted, petitioner will be denied plot under the oustee category forever as the litigation pending since 2000 has not been adjudicated and on the board of this Court writ petitions pertaining to year 1982 are pending. Counsel has further drawn attention of this Court to Annexure P14 where the policy was amended by Haryana Urban Development Authority. The operative portion of Annexure P14 read as under:- XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX “After careful consideration, the Authority in its 74th meeting held on 20.8.98, vide agenda item No. A-74(7) in partial modification of the policy on the subject in force have decided that if the plot under the oustees policy cannot be offered to the oustees in the same sector then they should be offered residential/commercial plots in the next residential sector of that Urban Estate, which may be floated and developed by HUDA. This amendment/provisions will be made applicable Civil Writ Petition No. 18086 of 2008 5 prospectively. All the terms and conditions, shall however remain the same. These instructions may be brought to the notice of all concerned”. XXX XXX XXX XXX XXX XX Mr. Sachin Kapoor, Advocate, appearing for Haryana Urban Development Authority, has stated that Annexure P14 carry a rider that oustee can be allotted plot in another sector only if the sector has been used for the purposes other than residential, commercial like recreational sector, institutional zones, group housing societies and industrial purposes etc. On the observation made by the Court that as to why the case of the petitioner cannot be considered in the category of etc. as development of Sector 2, Mansa Devi Complex is not taking place due to pending litigation, counsel for the respondent has failed to satisfy this Court. The very word “etc.” vests discretion in the Authorities to redress a grievance in the case of hardship. Case of the petitioner cannot be treated differently. His land has been acquired. He is in corridors of the Court and he is not being considered for the oustee quota because land pertaining to Sector 2, Mansa Devi Complex, is under litigation. Policy of giving plots to the oustee is a beneficial policy. It must be interpreted to give benefit not to deprive the same to the eligible persons. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of this case, taking exceptional circumstance of this case into consideration, Haryana Urban Development Authority is directed to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of plot under the oustee category in Civil Writ Petition No. 18086 of 2008 6 another sector also. Needless to say, petitioner will be considered as and when allotment is to be made in favour of the oustee category and advertisement is issued to this effect. With the observations made above, the present writ petition is disposed of. (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge October 21, 2009 “DK”