Yudhvir Singh v. State Of Haryana And Others

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 15.3.2018 Yudhvir Singh ....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Haryana and others

...Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL PRESENT: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for the respondent-HUDA. 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 1.5.2017 (Annexure P-11) and the Policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-12). Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner for the allotment of plot under the oustees quota in lieu of acquisition of the land.

2.

The petitioner was owner in possession of the land measuring 15 bigha situated within the revenue estate of Rohtak vide mutation dated 23.7.2005 (Annexure P-1) prior to the issuance of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as is clear from the certificate dated 27.12.2011 (Annexure P-2). The said land was acquired by the State of Haryana vide notification dated 15.12.2006 for the construction of sector road, Sector 7-37, Rohtak. The respondents issued a notice for submission

-2of application form under the oustees quota from 1.12.2011 to 31.12.2011. In response thereto, the petitioner submitted his application (Annexure P-3) along with affidavit (Annexure P-4) and the earnest money of ` 50,000/- vide cheque (Annexure P-5) and receipt (Annexure P-6), all dated 27.12.2011. The petitioner met the officials of respondent No.3 on 21.8.2013 and was informed that the notices had been sent to the owners for the allotment of plots for 2.9.2013 at 9.00 AM and asked the Patwari to hand over the notice to the petitioner and the petitioner received a photo copy of the notice dated 13.8.2013 (Annexure P-7). The petitioner appeared along with the relevant documents and was told that later on he would be informed regarding the allotment of plots. The petitioner moved a representation dated 16.9.

2015 (Annexure P-8) followed by a legal notice dated 12.2.2016 (Annexure P-9) to the respondents for the allotment of a plot under the oustees policy, but to no effect. Accordingly, the petitioner filed CWP-21285-2016 and this Court vide order dated 7.10.2016 (Annexure P-10) disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents to take action on the representation, Annexure P-8, followed by the legal notice, Annexure P-9 within a period of three months. When the respondents failed to comply with the order, Annexure P-10, the petitioner filed COCP-3327-2017 wherein the respondents had produced a copy of the order dated 1.5.2017 (Annexure P-11) rejecting the claim of the petitioner on account of policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-12). However, no plot had been allotted to the petitioner till date.

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

-3others) decided on 22.11.2017, the matter is required to be revisited by the authorities. 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 March 15, 2018 (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No