DHINGRA RADIO SERVICE Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Counsel for the petitioner stated that the petitioner is a tenant, and being in possession of the property acquired, should be treated at par with the owners in Civil Writ Petition Nos. 538, 539 and 1032 of 1991 so far as allotment of plots in lieu of acquired land is concerned. Learned Counsel appearing for Haryana Urban Development Authority stated that the petitioner is a tenant and as such has only limited right of apportionment to the compensation. The tenants cannot be offered alternative sites just because they were also using the sites acquired. Even the policy on the basis of which petitioner has staked claim for allotment of plot, does not provide for such allotment to the tenants of the lands acquired before the policy came into existence. Resultantly, the tenants are not entitled to the concession of allotment of alternative sites granted to the owners.

(2.) We fully agree with the learned Counsel for the Haryana Urban Development Authority. Consequently, we find no force in the prayer of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. The writ petition stands dismissed accordingly. The petitioner undertakes to vacate the premises within four weeks from today.