RATTAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-7). Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioner under the oustees quota for the allotment of a plot in lieu of his acquired land.

(2.) The petitioner was owner of the land measuring 29 kanal 15 marlas which was acquired by the Government of Haryana vide award dated 27.9.1985 for the development of Sectors 11 and 12, Urban Estate, Panipat. State of Haryana framed the policies dated 10.9.1987, 9.5.1990, 18.3.1992, 7.12007 and 9.11.2010 for the allotment of plots to the landowners whose land was acquired by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). This Court vide order dated 25.4.2012 (Annexure P-2) passed in LPA-2096- 2011 had issued various directions regarding the allotment of plots to the oustees. Thereafter, the petitioner filed CWP-9818-2013 and this Court vide order dated 8.5.2013 (Annexure P-1) disposed of the said writ petition with a direction to the respondents to consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. Respondent No.3 vide order dated 6.8.2013 (Annexure P3) disposed of the claim of the petitioner by stating that as and when the applications would be invited, the petitioner can apply. When the case of the petitioner was not considered at the time of allotment of plots, he sent a contempt notice dated 9.8.2015 (Annexure P-4) to the respondents. The petitioner also moved the applications dated 5.5.2016 and 13.10.2016 (Annexures P-5 and P-6, respectively) to respondent No.2 and the Additional Chief Secretary, Town and Country Planning, Haryana for the allotment of plot, but no response has been received till date. Thereafter, the respondents issued a policy dated 11.8.2016 (Annexure P-7) and as per the said policy, the landowner has to apply for allotment of plot in fresh advertisement which would be issued after determination of reservation and their earnest money would be refunded along with interest from the date of deposit till date of payment. Hence, the present writ petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after the Full Bench judgment of this Court in CWP-22252-2016 (Rajiv Manchanda and others vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others) decided on 22.11.2017, the matter is required to be revisited by the authorities. Accordingly, it was prayed that liberty be granted to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the appropriate authority by incorporating the grievance as raised in the present writ petition and direction be issued to the authority concerned to decide the representation expeditiously in a time bound manner in accordance with law.