CWP No. 12921 of 1993. ::-1-::
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND
HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.W.P. No. 12921 of 1993.
Date of Decision: 10th November, 2008.
Anu Gupta & Ors. ....Petitioners
through
Mr. V.S.Bhardwaj, Advocate
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondents
through
Mr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL)
The petitioners seek a direction to the Haryana Urban
Development Authority [HUDA] and its Estate Officer at Karnal to
allot each one of them a residential plot as per their entitlement in
terms of the ‘Oustees Policy’ dated 10th September, 1987 [Annexure
P-10].
Vide notification dated 8th February, 1989 issued under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894[in short ‘the Act’], the
Government of Haryana decided to acquire land measuring 369.94
acres situated in Hadbast No. 1, Karnal for Haryana Urban
Development Authority to be utilized for residential and commercial
purposes. Finally, land measuring 314.97 acres was acquired vide
notification dated 7th February, 1990 issued under Section 6 of the
Act.
The petitioners 1 to 3 claim themselves to be owners in
CWP No. 12921 of 1993. ::-2-::
possession of 1/8th share each in the land measuring 38 Bighas 3
Biswas owned by late Jagdish Chand. Petitioner No. 4 claims himself
to be a co-sharer in land measuring 2 Bighas and 16½ Biswas
comprised in Khewat No. 821, Khatoni No. 2702, Khasra Nos.
10339/8382 and Khatoni No. 2705, Khasra NO.10334/8380.
Petitioner No. 5 is stated to have purchased land measuring 10
Biswas vide a registered sale deed from one Smt. Parveen Gupta,
whereas Petitioners No. 6 and 7 claim to have inherited land
measuring 14 Bigbhas 1 Biswa.
The petitioners have further asserted that their respective
ownerships were duly reflected in the revenue record much before
the issuance of notifications dated 8th February, 1989 and 7th
February, 1990 whereby their lands stood acquired.
Relying upon a HUDA’s policy dated 10th September,
1987 which was in vogue at the relevant time, the petitioners’ case is
that since more than 500 sq. yards land of each of the petitioner has
been acquired, they are entitled for allotment of a residential plot
under the said ‘Oustees Policy’. According to the petitioners, the
HUDA has held them ineligible for allotment of the plots under the
Oustees Quota on the basis of the subsequent amended policies.
Notice of motion was issued and it appears that soon
thereafter, Petitioners No. 5 to 7 have been allotted the plots under
the afore-said policy. This fact was taken notice by this Court while
passing the order dated 20th December, 1994 which reads as
follows:-
“In our order dated October 20,1993 we had directed the
respondents to reserve seven plots measuring 250
CWP No. 12921 of 1993. ::-3-::
square yards each in Sector5s 4 and 5 in Urban Estate
Part II, Karnal for complying with the ultimate decision/
directions in this writ petition. It is stated by learned
counsel for both the parties that petitioners NO. 5,6 and 7
have since been allotted plots. The aforesaid direction
regarding reserving plots would, therefore, stand modified
to mean four plots shall be kept reserved to comply with
the orders which are ultimately passed in the writ
petition”.
In their counter-affidavit, respondents No. 2 and 3 have
reiterated their stand that petitioners No. 1 to 3 were not the owners
of the acquired land “for the prescribed period prior to publication of
notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894”.
According to the respondents, petitioners 1 to 3 ought to have been
recorded as owners of the acquired land for a continuous period of
five years before the publication of the notification under Section 4 of
the Act.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submits
and rightly so that the condition of ‘five years ownership’ prior to the
proposed acquisition has been laid down by way of amended policy
dated 9th May, 1990 as in the original policy dated 10th September,
1987 [Annexure P-1] a landowner was required to have been
recorded as owner of the acquired land for ‘one year’ only before the
issuance of the notification under Section 4 of the Act. The
petitioners are stated to have fulfilled the said eligibility conditions
prescribed in the original policy dated 10th September, 1987.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some
length and on perusal of the record, I am of the considered view that
the claim of the petitioners for allotment of plots under the Oustees
CWP No. 12921 of 1993. ::-4-::
Quota ought to have been considered on the basis of the policy
which was in force at the time of acquisition of their land. Admittedly,
when the notifications under Sections 4 and 6 of the Act dated 8th
February, 1989 and 7th February, 1990 were issued, the original
policy dated 10th September, 1987 was operative. The subsequent
amendment dated 9th May, 1990 regarding eligibility conditions for
allotment under the said policy can not possibly be applied
retrospectively
No other reason whatsoever has been assigned to
deprive of the right of consideration to petitioners No. 1 to 4 for
allotment of plots in the Oustees Quota. The question as to whether
or not petitioners No. 1 to 4 fulfill the eligibility conditions laid down
under the policy dated 10th September, 1987, thus, requires to be re-
considered and effectively addressed by the respondents.
Consequently, this writ petition is allowed to the extent
that the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula is directed to
reconsider the claim of petitioners No. 1 to 4 in terms of the policy
dated 10th September, 1987 and if found eligible, to allot them plots
as per their entitlement. The needful shall be done within a period of
three months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced
before him.
No costs.
November 10, 2008. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE