IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6370 of 2007 Date of Decision: 13.07.2009 Surjit Singh Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and another Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH Present: Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Sikander Bakshi, Advocate for the respondents ….. Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) It is case of the petitioner that his land was acquired on 3.12.2001 vide notification Annexure P1. It is his grievance that despite being eligible, the respondents are not allotting a residential plot to him, as per their Policy. In response to notice issued by this Court, reply has been filed, wherein it has been stated that the Screening Committee has found that a plot already stood allotted to a co-sharer of the petitioner, namely, Didar Singh. It is further mentioned that allotment was made to co-sharer of the petitioner, on the basis of no objection given by petitioner’s father. Taking note of variation regarding the signatures of father of the petitioner, on some documents, this Court passed the following order on 1.12.2008. “Counter affidavit filed by the petitioner is taken on record. The petitioner has claimed allotment of a plot under the ‘oustees quota’ which has been disputed in the affidavit filed by the Estate Officer stating that the petitioner has given an Civil Writ Petition No.6370 of 2007 affidavit for allotting 500 Sq. Yards and has submitted no objection. A photocopy of the affidavit alleged to be submitted by the petitioner dated 16.4.2007 has been placed on record as Mark ‘A’. The signature of the petitioner on the said affidavit on visual comparison with the signature on Vakalatnama, affidavit in support of the petition and petition itself do not tally with the affidavit submitted to the Estate Officer. Accordingly, respondent No.2-Estate Officer, HUDA, Ambala is directed to find out by issuing appropriate notice to check the authenticity of the affidavit Mark A and submit his report within a period of three weeks. A copy of this order be given dasti to Mr.Sikandar Bakshi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 on payment of the usual charges. List for further consideration on 22.12.2008.” In response to directions issued, an enquiry was conducted by the Estate Officer, HUDA at Ambala and it was found, as a matter of fact, that father of the petitioner had died before the date, when affidavit alleged to have been executed by him. Copy of the report is available on record. When no action was taken on finding given by the Estate Officer, , this Court passed the following order on 19.5.2009:- “The petitioner seeks allotment of a plot under the Oustees Policy. The respondents have filed their counter- affidavit. It is alleged that a plot under the Oustees Policy has already been allotted to the petitioner’s co-sharers. As regards the petitioner’s consent, it is claimed that his father had given an affidavit in support of the said co-sharer to whom 2 Civil Writ Petition No.6370 of 2007 the plot has been allotted. The respondents themselves, after an inquiry, have found that the petitioner’s father was not alive and had expired much before the fabrication of the alleged affidavit on his behalf. Despite the said fact finding, no action appears to have been taken by the HUDA authorities against the allottee even when, prima-facie a cognizable offence is made out. In any case the allotment alleged to have been procured through fraudulent means, could be cancelled. The fact that no action has been taken shows active connivance of the HUDA authorities. The Chief Administrator, HUDA and the Estate Officer, Ambala are directed to remain present in Court on the adjourned date and show cause the remedial measures, if any, taken by them.” In compliance to the order, Mr.T.C.Gupta, Chief Administrator, HUDA and Estate Officer HUDA at Amabla are present in Court. Petitioner states that leaving aside any allotment made to Didar Singh, the petitioner is entitled to get allotment in his individual name along with his brother, who has given no objection certificate to him. Reply has been filed in Court today, wherein it has been stated that after finding given by the Estate Officer, HUDA regarding forgery committed by Didar Singh, an FIR has been recorded against him and a show cause notice was also issued to him for cancellation of allotment made to him. Be that as it may, it is contention of the petitioner that whether allotment made to Didar Singh is cancelled or not, a plot be allotted to him in view of a fact that in a separate khewat, in which he and his brother were 3 Civil Writ Petition No.6370 of 2007 the only co-sharers, land was also acquired vide notification, mentioned above. Mr.T.C.Gupta made a very fair concession that let the petitioner raise his grievance before an Oustee’s Aadalat and in that event bar of limitation will not be agitated against him. In view of facts of this case, this writ petition is disposed of, giving liberty to the petitioner to raise his grievance before the Oustee’s Adalat, situated in Panchkula. He may do so within a period of three weeks. The Presiding Officer of the Court, mentioned above, is directed to decide his grievance within a period of two months thereafter. The officer concerned will give a specific finding as to whether the petitioner is entitled to get a plot allotted individually, to him or not. If any order is passed against the petitioner, the same be conveyed to him forthwith. In the alternative, if he is found eligible, a plot be allotted to the petitioner forthwith. 13.07.2009 (Jasbir Singh) gk Judge 4