BALWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner's land measuring 5 acres was acquired in the year 1993 for the development of Sectors 38 to 41 and 47, Gurgaon. Prior thereto, on 18.03.1992, respondents had framed a policy (popularly known as "oustee policy") for allotment of plots to the land owners whose lands were acquired (for short, the oustees). Clauses (i) and (ii) of the policy dated 18.03.1992 (Annexure P-1) read as under:-

(2.) In the year 2004, respondents invited applications from the oustees. Petitioner also submitted his application dated 29.04.2004 (Annexure P-2) for allotment of a one-kanal plot. The petitioner also deposited, along with the application, an amount of Rs.2,21,004/- as earnest money. Respondents acknowledged receipt of the application as also the earnest money vide receipt dated 30.04.2004. Claim of the petitioner was verified as genuine vide office note dated 22.04.2004 (Annexure P3). Applications of a few oustees, including the petitioner, however, were not included in the mini draw of lots held on 23.05.2006 though, as evidenced by the proceedings (Annexure P-4), they were found eligible for allotment of plots of different sizes. Petitioner was found eligible for allotment of a one-kanal plot but it was conveyed to him that no plot was available for allotment to him and the District Town Planner, Gurgaon, was asked to carve out sufficient number of plots for allotment to eligible applicants. However, no such plot has been allotted to the petitioner till date whereas the respondents have allotted plots to other similarly situated persons. One Dharam Parkash son of Prabhu Dayal had also applied for a one-kanal plot and was declared eligible, along with the petitioner, vide proceedings (Annexure P-4) and no plot was allotted to him also for the same reason as mentioned in the case of the petitioner. However, said Dharam Parkash was allotted Plot No.834 measuring 1.5 kanals in Sector 47, Gurgaon, in spite of the fact that in the list of eligible applicants appearing in Annexure P4, name of the petitioner figured at Serial No.1 and that of aforesaid Dharam Parkash appeared at Serial No.5. Representation dated 10.05.2012 (Annexure P- 7) made by the petitioner having failed to receive any response, he approached this Court vide C.W.P. No.19622 of 2012, wherein, vide order dated 03.10.2012 (Annexure P-12), the respondents were directed to decide representation dated 10.05.2012 (Annexure P-7) made by the petitioner. However, said representation of the petitioner has been rejected by the respondents, vide order dated 14.01.2013 (Annexure P- 15).

(3.) To seek quashing of the order dated 14.01.2013 (Annexure P- 15) and issuance of a writ of mandamus to direct the respondents to allot a plot to the petitioner as per his entitlement, the instant writ petition has been filed by him under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.