IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6637 of 2007 Date of decision: February 24, 2009. Chander Parkash ...Petitioner(s) v. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Sudhir Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 14.2.2007 (Annexure P-5) whereby he along with his other co-sharers has been jointly allotted only one plot of 500 square yards under the Oustees Quota. The petitioner's grievance is that out of the total acquired land, land measuring 7 kanal 18 marlas was exclusively owned by him along with his sister-in-law Smt. Vidya Wanti w/o Dev Raj in equal shares and that there was an oral partition amongst the co-sharers and pursuant thereto, the said piece of land had fallen to the share of the petitioner along with his sister-in-law much before issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. It is also averred that separate compensation was paid to him and his sister-in-law for the aforesaid land measuring 7 kanal 18 marlas. On this premise, the petitioner's further case is that under the Oustee's Policy dated 12.3.1993 (Annexure P-2), one plot of 500 square yards ought to have been allotted to him and his sister-in-law Smt. Vidya Wanti and not jointly along with other co-sharers. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, the HUDA authorities have filed their reply affidavit in which the factum of partition as pleaded by the petitioner is denied. Having heard Learned Counsel for the parties and keeping in view their rival submissions, I am of the considered view that it is essential for the petitioner to produce an order passed by the competent revenue court or the civil court, as the case may be, in support of the plea that oral partition had taken place and pursuant thereto, land measuring 7 kanal 18 marlas had exclusively fallen to the share of the petitioner and his sister-in- law. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to represent the respondents along with any such order passed by the revenue court or the civil court and as and when such representation is made, the respondent-authorities are directed to reconsider the petitioner's claim for allotment of a separate plot under the Oustee's Policy in accordance with said policy and law. February 24, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge