Puran Chand vs State Of Haryana And Others on 10 February, 2009

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                  CHANDIGARH

                                   C.W.P NO. 2029 OF 2009
                                   DECIDED ON : 10.02.2009

Puran Chand
                                               ...Petitioner
           versus

State of Haryana and others
                                               ...Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT


Present : Mr. S. P. Khatri, Advocate,
          for the petitioner.

SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to

allot him a plot measuring One kanal under the oustees quota in

Sector 27, Panchkula on deposit of 10% earnest money. The

petitioner’s case is that he fulfills all the eligibility conditions laid

down in the Oustees Policy (Annexure P-2) and is entitled for

allotment of a One kanal plot as the land measuring 13 kanals 13

marlas owned by him and situated within the revenue limits of

village Ram Garh, was acquired by the respondents for the

development of Sectors- 25, 26, 27 and 28, Panchkula. The

petitioner’s further grievance is that his claim has been turned

down by the respondents on the solitary ground that though he

had applied along with 10% earnest money, but his application

was not for allotment of the plot in the same sector for which the

land was acquired.

Relying upon a decision taken by the Apex Appellate

Body of HUDA in the case of “Om Prakash vs. Haryana Urban
C.W.P NO. 2029 OF 2009 -2-

Development Authority” dated 06.02.2008 (Annexure P-7),

learned counsel for the petitioner states that the objection taken

against the petitioner’s eligibility, is no longer a valid ground to

deny him the allotment under the Oustees Policy. He also relies

upon an order dated 21.08.2008 passed by a Division Bench of

this Court in “C.W.P No. 2065 of 2006 (Ashok Kumar vs.

State of Haryana and others)” (Annexure P-9). The

petitioner’s further grievance is that he has already served a legal

notice dated 12.11.2008 (Annexure P-8), however, no decision

has been taken by the respondents so far.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and

after gong through the documents referred to above, I am of the

considered view that the petitioner’s claim requires re-

consideration by the respondent authorities.

Consequently, without expressing any views on the

merits of the petitioner’s claim, I deem it appropriate to dispose

of this writ petition with a direction to respondents No.2 and 3 to

take cognizance of the legal notice served on behalf of the

petitioner in the light of the HUDA Policy and the order passed

by a Division Bench of this Court in Ashok Kumar’s case

(supra) and dispose of the petitioner’s claim in accordance with

law within two months from the date of receipt of certified copy

of this order.

FEBRUARY 10, 2009                                    (SURYA KANT)
shalini                                                  JUDGE