Rattan Singh v. Huda And ORS.

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 17.4.2018 Rattan Singh ....Petitioner.

Versus

Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others

...Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL PRESENT: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate and Mr. Chandan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for the respondents. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the order dated 28.2.2017 (Annexure P-10) passed by respondent No.3 whereby the claim of the petitioner for the allotment of a plot under the oustees quota has been rejected. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to allot a residential plot to the petitioner under the oustees quota. 2.

The petitioner along with his co-sharers was owner of the land measuring 58 kanal 7 marlas situated in village Bhainsa Tibbar, Tehsil and District Panchkula. The said land was acquired by the respondents. As per the oustees policy, the petitioner was entitled to the allotment of a plot in lieu of the acquired land and accordingly, the petitioner applied for the allotment of a plot in Sector 6, MDC, Panchkula vide application, Annexure P-1, along with the earnest money vide draft dated 20.4.2012 (Annexure P2). Vide letter dated 1.5.2015, respondent No.3 asked the petitioner to be

-2present before the Screening Committee along with the relevant documents. In response thereto, the petitioner appeared before the Screening Committee and vide letter dated 15.5.2015 (Annexure P-3) submitted the requisite documents, i.e. NOC/affidavits (Annexure P-4 Colly) of the co-sharers. When no action was taken thereon, the petitioner moved a representation dated 13.7.2015 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.3 for the allotment of a plot under the oustees quota, but to no effect. A policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-6) was framed by the respondents wherein it was decided that the oustee shall be entitled to seek allotment of plot in the same sector for which the land had been acquired.

Further, the oustee shall also be entitled to the allotment of plot in the adjoining sector in case the land of the oustee had been acquired for any non-residential purposes such as industrial, institutional, group housing site etc. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP24582-2016 (Annexure P-7) and this Court vide order dated 30.11.2016 (Annexure P-8) disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to respondent No.3 to take a decision on the representation dated 13.7.2015 within a period of three months. The petitioner vide letter dated 9.12.2016 (Annexure P-9) brought to the notice of respondent No.3 regarding the order passed by this Court. However, respondent No.3 vide order dated 28.2.2017 (Annexure P-10) rejected the claim of the petitioner. The said order was conveyed to the petitioner vide letter dated 27.4.

2017 (Annexure P-11). Hence, the present writ petition.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the Full Bench judgment of this Court in CWP-22252-2016 (Rajiv Manchanda and others v. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others) decided on 22.11.2017, the matter is required to be revisited by the

-3authorities. Accordingly, it was prayed that liberty be granted to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority by incorporating the grievance as raised in the present writ petition and direction be issued to the authority concerned to decide the representation expeditiously in a time bound manner in accordance with law.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas as raised in the present writ petition before the appropriate authority. It is directed that in the event of a representation being filed by the petitioner within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order, the same shall be decided in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of six months from the date of receipt of the representation keeping in view the principles of law enunciated by the Full Bench of this Court in Rajiv Manchanda's case (supra). The petitioner shall be entitled to lead any evidence to substantiate his claim before the concerned authority.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 17, 2018 (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No