AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
In the head note of the petition, the following prayers have been made:-
“Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, 1950 for issuance of a Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents, particularly respondent No. 2, to allot to the petitioner a plot measuring 1 Kanal (500 square yards) under the oustees quota, in view of the acquisition of the complete land of the petitioner situated at Village Abheypur, Tehsil and District Panchkula, vide notification dated 22.06.1973, against which the petitioner has not been allotted any plot under the oustees quota till date, despite the lapse of more than five decades and despite the petitioner (age about 83 years) having repeatedly approached the respondents for grant of his rightful entitlement including his application bearing no. OUST0000001835 dated 18.12.2018 (Annexure P-10) in terms of the Oustees Policy dated 11.08.2016 (Annexure P-7) as amended vide the amendment dated 08.05.2018 (Annexure P-8) and legal notice dated 09.06.2026 (Annexure P-12), further, the judgement passed by Full Bench of this Hon'ble High Court in case titled as Rajiv Manchanda versus Haryana Urban Development Authority (P&H)(F.B.) 2018(4) RCR(Civil) 508 this Hon'ble Court has held that an oustee is entitled for allotment of the plot under oustee quota at subsequent stage, in the interest of justice;
AND
Issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents, particularly respondent No. 2, to reserve a plot of one Kanal for the petitioner under the oustees quota during the pendency of the present Writ Petition;
AND/OR
Any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner's land measuring 7 kanal 19 marla was acquired in the year 1973 and the award regarding the same was passed in the year 1975 and since the petitioner was an oustee, thus, he applied under the oustees quota in pursuance of an advertisement. It is further submitted that the petitioner had also deposited the prescribed application fee of Rs.50,000/-on 18.12.2018, but in spite of repeated visits, no plot has been allotted to the petitioner. It is further submitted that for the redressal of his grievances, the petitioner has given a legal notice dated 09.06.2026 (Annexure P-12) to respondent No.3 and at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied in case the said legal notice is considered by respondent No.3 in a time bound manner and if after considering the same, in case, the pleas raised by the petitioner are found to be meritorious, then, appropriate relief be granted to the petitioner.
Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances and the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the said legal notice dated 09.06.2026 (Annexure P-12) and decide the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in case, after considering the same, the pleas of the petitioner are found to be meritorious, then, the appropriate relief be granted to the petitioner.
It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the case and respondent No.3 would consider and decide the matter independently, in accordance with law.