SANTOSH KUMARI Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioners, in this bunch of 33 petitions, happened to be the co -owners, whose land holdings were acquired by the State Government, vide different or pursuant to the same acquisition proceedings, as the case may be. Their grievance is common; though the petitioners being oustees were entitled for allotment of plots/sites in terms of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Schemes, but their claims were rejected, for they were co -owners in a joint Khata and were, thus, not entitled to seek allotment independently in their respective names. The issue is free, in the wake of the decisions rendered by this court in the recent past, from any complexity; Jarnail Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2011 AIR (Punjab) 58; Haryana Urban Development Authority & others v. Sandeep & others, dated 25.04.2012, LPA - 2096 -2011; and Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, dated,26.04.2012, CWP -10941 -2010.

(2.) In Jarnail Singh and others (supra), which is a decision rendered by a Full Bench, the grievance of the co -owners, whose land was acquired, was similar; that all of them were entitled to allotment of plots/sites individually, and in their own right. Thus, restriction of allotment of one plot to all the co -owners was arbitrary and irrational. And on a consideration of the matter, it was concluded:

(3.) Whereas, in Sandeep and others (supra), the Division Bench determined the rights of the oustees for allotment of plots/sites, in terms of the policies formulated by HUDA as also the State Government from time to time. And, concluded: