Sushil Kumari v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM-3233-35-CWP-2018 CWP-5367-2017 (O&M) Date of Decision: 15.2.2018 Sushil Kumari ....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. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sandeep Moudgil, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Deepak Sabharwal, Advocate for the respondent-HUDA. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

CM Nos. 2233-34-CWP-2018 Allowed as prayed for. Annexure P-12 filed along with the application is taken on record subject to all just exceptions. CMs stand disposed of accordingly.

CM-2235-CWP-2018 Since the main case has been disposed of, no further orders are required to be passed in this application. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of as such.

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 mandamus directing the respondents to make allotment of 1 kanal

-2plot in Sector 12, Panipat for which the petitioner had applied in lieu of advertisement dated 6.2.2017 (Annexure P-10) vide application, Annexure P-11; to conduct the draw of lots within 30 days from the last date of submission of application form by including the name of the petitioner as per policy dated 11.8.2016 and to charge the rate of allotment as applicable in the year 2011 and not of the year 2016-17 as demanded vide advertisement dated 6.2.2017 (Annexure P-10). 2.

The father-in-law and husband of the petitioner was owner of the land measuring 22 kanal 4 marlas to the extent of their respective share situated within the revenue estate of village Taraf Afgan, Tehsil and District Panipat. Government of Haryana framed a policy dated 10.9.1987 (Annexure P-1) for the allotment of residential plots/commercial sites to the oustees whose land was compulsorily acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). The said policy was amended from time to time vide policies dated 28.8.1998 and 27.3.2000 (Annexures P-2 and P3, respectively). Government of Haryana acquired the said land for the development of Sector 12, Panipat vide award dated 14.2.1979.

Government of Haryana framed a policy for the allotment of plot under oustees quota on the basis of the directions issued by the Supreme Court vide order dated 3.1.2011 (Annexure P-4). On the basis thereof, the HUDA invited applications vide advertisements dated 30.11.2011 and 8.11.2011 (Annexures P-5 and P-6, respectively) for the allotment of plots whose land was acquired for the development of Sectors 25 Part II and 29, Part II, Panipat. The HUDA framed another policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-7) and as per the said policy, all the co-sharers were entitled to the allotment of separate plots according to their share in the acquired land.

-3the said policy, the HUDA conducted the draw of lots on 17.3.2016 and issued allotment letters including the allotment letter dated 28.10.2016 (Annexure P-8). Further, in pursuance to the policy, Annexure P-7, the HUDA invited applications from the oustees whose land was acquired for the development of Sector 25, Part II and Sector 12, Panipat and from the oustees of adjoining sectors vide advertisements dated 16.1.2017 (Annexure P-9) and dated 6.2.2017 (Annexure P-10). The petitioner applied for the allotment of 1 kanal plot in Sector 12, Panipat vide application, 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 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

-4the 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 her claim before the concerned authority.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE February 15, 2018 (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No