MOHINDER KAUR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TWO fold relief has been sought by the petitioners in the instant writ petition. Firstly, they seek a mandamus to direct the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (for short, 'the G.M.A.D.A.') to allot them a plot measuring 1 kanal (500 square yards) under the Oustee category against form No. 14319 dated 22.1.2002. Secondly, they challenge para No. 11 of the Oustee Policy dated 25.5.2011 (Annexure P -6). As regard to the second prayer, the claim of the petitioners is that the land owned by their predecessor, namely, Pritam Singh son of Basawa Singh has been acquired twice, i.e., Firstly vide award No. 422 dated 12.7.1984 and then again vide award No. 481 dated 17.5.2001. Pritam Singh had applied for allotment of a plot measuring 8 marlas against form No. 14319 dated 22.1.2002 alongwith requisite amount of earnest money. According to the petitioners, if both the acquisitions are clubbed together then they are entitled to a plot measuring 1 kanal (500 square yards) as per para No. 4 of the Instructions dated 8.11.1993 (Annexure P -2).

(2.) THE aforesaid benefit has not been, however, extended to the petitioners, as according to them, para No. 11 of the Oustee Policy dated 25.5.2011 (Annexure P -6) comes in their way. The petitioners accordingly question the legality of para No. 11 of the Oustee policy dated 25.5.2011, which reads as follows: - -

(3.) IN our considered view, once the policy has been applied from a specified cut off date uniformly and indiscriminately, it does not violate Article 14 of the Constitution nor its cut off date can be preponed on equitable considerations. It may be true that the Competent Authority may introduce a welfare/beneficial policy retrospectively but such a decision falls exclusively within the domain of policy makers. The Writ Court can intervene only in a case where the executive decision is being applied retrospectively to take away a benefit already conferred. No fault thus can be found with para No. 11 of the oustee policy dated 25.5.2031. The challenge laid by the petitioners to the same is accordingly turned down. Adverting to the first relief, suffice it would be to direct respondent Nos. 2 & 3 to consider the claim of the petitioners in accordance with policy as may be applicable in their case and by following the principle of parity, and determine the same as early as possible but not later than two months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.