Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pushp Lata vs State Of Haryana And Ors on 13 March, 2024
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Arun Palli
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036225-DB
2024:PHHC:036225-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.29083 of 2017
Reserved on: 01.02.2024
Pronounced on:13.03.2024
Pushp Lata
....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G., Haryana with
Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, D.A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3.
VIKRAM AGGARWAL J.
The prayer in the instant writ petition is for the issuance of a
writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 04.08.2017 (Annexure P-5)
passed by respondent No.2 vide which the appeal filed by respondent
No.3 against the order dated 29.01.2007 (Annexure P-3) was accepted
and allotment of a plot to the husband of the petitioner was declared as
null and void. The second prayer is to issue a mandamus commanding
the respondents to issue allotment letter qua plot No.364, Sector 20,
Kaithal measuring 10 marlas in favour of the petitioner.
2. The husband of the petitioner was owner in possession of
land measuring 4 kanal7 marlas situated in the Revenue Estate of Patti
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036225-DB
2024:PHHC:036225-DB
Kaisth, Kaithal. The said land was acquired for a public purpose namely
development of Sector 20, Kaithal. The case of the petitioner is that her
husband, who unfortunately expired on 21.09.2010, was entitled for
allotment of a plot under the Oustees quota in view of the
instructions/policies issued from time to time and more specifically the
policies issued on 18.03.1992 and 12.03.1993 (Annexures P-1 and P-2).
(i) The husband of the petitioner is stated to have applied for a
plot measuring 10 marlas vide application dated 01.10.1992 in terms of
the policy dated 18.03.1992 but no action was taken.
(ii) An Oustees Lok Adalat was held on 22.11.2006 in which the
husband of the petitioner was found eligible for allotment of a plot and
accordingly, vide decision dated 29.10.2007 (Annexure P-3) directions
were issued for allotment of a 250 square yards plot in terms of the policy
dated 18.03.1992.
(iii) This decision of the Oustees Lok Adalat was challenged in
appeal by respondent No.3. During the pendency of the appeal, no
allotment of the plot, in terms of the directions issued by the Oustees Lok
Adalat was made.
(iv) Since the appeal was not being decided, a request is stated to
have been made for decision of the appeal and ultimately a legal notice
dated 10.06.2016 is also stated to have been served (though a copy of the
same has not been annexed).
(v) The petitioner filed CWP No.18468 of 2016 which was
disposed of on 18.10.2016 (Annexure P-4) with a direction to respondent
No.2 to decide the appeal filed by respondent No.3 as also the legal
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036225-DB
2024:PHHC:036225-DB
notice dated 10.06.2016 expeditiously preferably within a period of 03
months.
(vi) Ultimately, vide order dated 04.08.2017 (Annexure P-5), the
appeal was accepted and the order dated 29.01.2007 was set aside leading
to the filing of the present writ petition.
(vii) The writ petition has been opposed by the respondents. The
basic stand taken in the written statement is that the husband of the
petitioner had submitted an application for the allotment of a plot on
01.10.1992 without any earnest money and that under the circumstances,
no allotment could have been made to him. Reliance has been placed
upon the Brochure (Annexure R-1) which clearly stipulates that
applications for the allotment of a plot are to be made on the form
prescribed along with earnest money.
3. The order passed by the Appellate Authority on 04.08.2017
has been defended in the written statement stating that the Oustees Lok
Adalat had no jurisdiction to issue a direction for the allotment of a plot.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the well
reasoned decision of the Oustees Lok Adalat was set aside by the
Appellate Authority on flimsy grounds and that nobody could dispute the
entitlement of the husband of the petitioner for the allotment of a plot in
view of the own policy of the respondents. Learned counsel submitted
that the petitioner who is a widow has been running from pillar to post
for the allotment of a plot in lieu of the land acquired by the respondents
but to no avail.
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036225-DB
2024:PHHC:036225-DB
6. Learned counsel representing the respondents has however
defended the order passed by the Appellate Authority stating that
adequate and valid reasons were given by the Appellate Authority for
setting aside the order passed by the Oustees Lok Adalat.
7. We have considered the submissions made by learned
counsel for the parties. The factum of 100% land of the husband of the
petitioner having been acquired is not disputed. However, as to whether
the Zonal Screening Committee could have held him to be entitled for the
allotment of a plot measuring 250 sqaure yards is to be seen. Further,
whether the Oustees Lok Adalat could have issued a direction to allot a
plot measuring 250 square yards to the husband of the petitioner at
current rates is also to be seen. The Appellate Authority set aside the
finding of the Zonal Screening Committee as also that of the Oustees Lok
Adalat for three reasons.
(i) It was firstly held that the application submitted by the
husband of the petitioner was submitted without earnest money despite
the fact that it was specifically provided in the Brochure (Annexure R-1)
that the applications for allotment of a plot were to be accompanied by
earnest money which, for a 10 marlas plot was Rs.16,500/-. There was a
specific condition in the Brochure that only such applications would be
deem to be valid which would be accompanied by the specified earnest
money. The fact that the application submitted by the husband of the
petitioner was not accompanied by any earnest money has not been
disputed either during the course of arguments or by way of any
replication. Under the circumstances, no fault can be found with the
decision of the Appellate Authority. Reliance was also rightly placed by
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036225-DB
2024:PHHC:036225-DB
the Appellate Authority upon the judgment in the case of HUDA and
others versus Sandeep and others, SLP (Civil) No(s). 27256-27264 of
2012, decided on 06.03.2014, wherein it had been held that the oustees
would be entitled to apply for the allotment of a plot along with earnest
money in pursuance of public advertisement issued for the purpose. No
fault can, therefore, the found with the said finding of the Appellate
Authority.
(ii) The second ground on which the husband of the
petitioner was non-suited was that the Oustees Lok Adalat could not have
accepted the claim on an updated price when the application itself was
not valid. The Appellate Authority held that the Oustees Lok Adalat had
exceeded its jurisdiction because the terms and conditions of allotment
had to be prescribed by the Chief Administrator Huda. No fault can be
found with this finding also because, in the considered opinion of this
Court, the Oustees Lok Adalat could at best have decided about the
eligibility of an oustee but could not have held that a plot be allotted to
the oustee at current rates. The Lok Adalat, therefore, clearly exceeded its
jurisdiction.
(iii) The third issue which was taken up by the Appellate
Authority was that in the presence of co-sharers, the husband of the
petitioner could not have been held entitled to a plot individually. This
finding can also not be found fault with because allotment of a plot to an
oustee would be in accordance with the policy only which was applicable
at the relevant time. In fact, the Appellate Authority held that the husband
of the petitioner would be at liberty to apply as per the advertisement
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036225-DB
2024:PHHC:036225-DB
which may be issued in future meaning thereby that the doors were not
closed permanently for the petitioner.
In view of the aforementioned facts and circumstances, we
do not find any illegality in the order dated 04.08.2017 (Annexure P-5)
and consequently the writ petition is also found to be devoid of merit.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
(ARUN PALLI) (VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE JUDGE
Pronounced on: 13.03.2024
Rekha
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:036225-DB
6 of 6
