SUMAN ANEJA Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The claim of the petitioner in this and the connected writ petitions is that as they had been ousted on the acquisition of their lands by the respondents for the planned development of various Urban Estates, they being oustees were entitled to the allotment of plots on a preferential basis.

(2.) The facts, in so far as they are relevant for the disposal of this writ petition, are given hereunder:- The petitioner was owner in possession of land measuring 3 kanals 3 Marlas which forms a small part of land measuring 505 kanals 1 Marla in village Patti Mehar that was sought to be acquired by the respondents along with some area of other villages for setting up of an Urban Estate at Panchkula consisting of residential and commercial areas and idnetified as Sector-9. The notifications under Ss. 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, were issued on 26/05/1981 and 10/01/1983, respectively while the award consequent thereto was rendered in 1984-85. The petitioner moved an application before the respondents on 14/05/1989, Annexure-P2 followed by a reminder dated 27/09/1990, Annexure-P3, praying that as her land had been acquired, she be given a residential plot on a reserved price, as per the policy dated 10-9-1987 framed by respondent No. 2 for rehabilitation of those persons who had been ousted thereby. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the application aforesaid, and the policy framed pursuant to the observations of the Supreme Court in State of U. P. v. Smt. Pista Devi, AIR 1986 SC 2025, the respondents did not care to allot a plot to her. The case further is that even before the policy was framed, there had been a policy in existence whereby oustees of various urban estates in Karnal, Kurushetra, Ambala, Panchkula etc. had been given plots in lieu of the acquisition of' their holdings. In this connection it has been highlighted that even as far back as in the year 1972-73, the respondents had allotted plots to a number of named individuals in the Urban Estates of Panchkula and Jagadhri. The argument is that the petitioner had, therefore, been discriminated against vis-a-vis other oustees who had been adjusted as a measure of rehabilitation.

(3.) Respondents Nos. 2 and 4 have filed their reply in response to the writ petition and the primary stand taken is that the policy Annexure-P4 could not be retrospectively applied to the case of the petitioner as her land stood acquired prior to that date. It has been denied that there was a policy with regard to re-habilitation of the oustees prior to the policy Annexure-P4, and by way of explanation, it has been stated that in the year 1972-73, there were no takers for plots in the newly developed areas, the inference sought to be drawn being that those who came forward to claim plots whether oustees or otherwise, were perhaps adjusted. It has further been stated that subsequently when there was a virtual craze for plost, the policy AnnexureP4was duly framed.