AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
The present order would dispose of nine writ petitions, i.e., CWP-13643-2021, CWP-13648-2021, CWP-23611-2021, CWP-23612-2021, CWP-23615-2021, CWP-23616-2021, CWP-23617-2021, CWP-23620-2021 and CWP-5836-2023 as common question of law and facts are involved.
With the consent of all the counsels, CWP-13643-2021 titled as “Bansi Lal vs. State of Haryana & Ors.” is taken up as the lead case. Prayer in the said writ petition is for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot residential plot to the petitioner in the area adjoining / in close vicinity of Sector 25, Hisar in view of the fact that the residential plot of the petitioner was acquired by the respondent-Haryana Urban Development Authority (now HSVP) vide notification issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (hereinafter to be referred to as “1894 Act”) dated 31.03.2008 for development of commercial sector. Similar prayers have been made in the other writ petitions.
During the course of arguments, it has not been disputed that, during the pendency of the present writ petitions, the petitioner(s) in the abovesaid cases have applied in pursuance of the advertisement issued in the year 2025 and their claim is pending for adjudication.
The order dated 21.08.2026 passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench in CM-14744-CWP-2026 AND CM-14964-CWP-2026 IN RA-CW-327-2021 IN CWP-22443-2021 (O&M) titled as “Narender Kumar Gupta vs. State of Haryana and others” has been brought to the notice of this Court as per which, specific directions have been given to the respondents to decide the pending oustees’ cases by 19.11.2026. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“On a specific query, Dr. Chandrashekhar Khare, IAS, Chief Administrator, Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran, submits that they would require a period of nearly 03 months to complete the entire exercise and to make draw of lots for allotment of plots under the Oustees quota to all the eligible applicants who have submitted their applications. He contends that a period of 45 days would be a sufficient period for the respective Zonal Administrators to furnish the information that has already been asked for by the Office of the Chief Administrator with respect to eligibility of the respective applicants.
The Zonal Administrators, who are present in Court through the video conferencing, undertake that the requisite information of all the applicants from their respective zones shall be furnished within the aforementioned timeline of 45 days commencing w.e.f. 22.08.2026 till 05.10.2026.
The Chief Administrator, HSVP, further submits that within a period of 30 days thereafter, the Head Office shall compile the data and undertake the entire process and finalise the list of eligible candidates and available plots and the same shall be completed within next 30 days i.e. till 04.11.2026.
He further contends that on completion of the above formalities by the Head Office within a period of 30 days of the 45 days granted to the Zonal Administrators, the draw of lots shall be held within a further period of 15 days i.e. on or by 19.11.2026.
The aforesaid timelines have been admitted to be sufficient by the Chief Administrator, HSVP, as well as the Zonal Administrators to complete the entire exercise and to settle the claims of the Oustees.
In view of the aforesaid, the hearing of the case is deferred to 27.11.2026.
The Chief Administrator undertakes to file a compliance affidavit of the undertaking given today in Court, by the adjourned date.
It is made clear that in case the timelines as aforesaid are not met or any of the Zonal Administrators currently posted do not furnish the information as required or clarification sought, if any, within a period of 45 days as above or the draw of lots is not held within the period of 15 days after 45+30 = 75 days from today and as undertaken today, all the Zonal Administrators, who are currently posted on the respective posts, along with the Chief Administrator shall be liable to be proceeded against for contempt of Court.
The Chief Secretary to the Government of Haryana is requested to ensure that the Chief Administrator, HSVP and the respective Zonal Administrators are preferably not transferred within a period of 45 days from today so that excuses are placed for non-compliance due to transfer. If in an eventuality and for administrative exigencies, such a transfer is to be made, the outgoing Zonal Administrator/Chief Administrator shall take personal responsibility of informing the next incumbent in office along with the status of the works already undertaken by him/her.
It is however made clear that a mere transfer would not be construed as an exoneration or exclusion of such a respective transferred officer from the contempt proceedings and it shall only be subject to the Court finding a satisfactory compliance of the directives and the undertaking by the respective officer(s). It is further made clear that in the event, draw of lots is not held and formal letters of allotment are not issued within the aforesaid timelines, this Court also contemplates imposing penal pecuniary liability on the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradikaran for compensating to the eligible Oustees for the inordinate delay in allotment and the resultant escalation of the real estate costs and compounding their hardships. The said penal pecuniary compensation is currently assessed at Rs.1 lakh per annum from the date of acquisition till its allotment, for a plot of 1 kanal and above and a proportionately reduced cost for the plots of lesser dimensions. August 21, 2026”
Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has submitted that the present writ petitions be disposed of but the respondents be bound by the abovesaid order.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the present writ petitions are disposed of. The respondents would be bound by the order dated 21.08.2026 passed in the abovesaid case. plots were available for the oustee in the sector for which the land was acquired or in the adjoining sector if the land acquired for the purpose other than non-residentila purposes, as in the present case.
In pursuance of the said directions, the respondents frams policy / issued instructions dated 11.08.2016.
It would be relevant to note that even the instructions / policy dated 11.08.2016 has not been challenged.
That the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajiv Manchanda VS. Haryana Urban Development Authokrity reported as 2018(2) PLR 422 had framed 14 questions related to oustees and had answered all the said questions. Importantly all the clauses of the instructions dated 11.08.2016 were considered and nine other clauses were set aside. While considering clause 4 of the policy which provided that an oustee has a right to make an application only plots are available in the concerned sector, it was observed that the said clause was inconfirmity with the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Sandeep Singh and was upheld. Policy/instructions dated 11.08.2016 was thus held to be legal. The 14 questions which were framed was stated in para 5 are reproduced hereinbelow:-
In question no.2, the Full Bench had observed that it was settled law that the respondent was to reserve upto 50% of the plots which included the oustee plot the extent of reservation in the oustee quota was the matter of policy which must be left at least in first instance to the respondents and it was not for the Court to decide the extent. Under question no.3 it was observed that the extent/ percentage of the reservation quota, the total numbers of plots in a sector and not quota of the plots allotted in each time in a sector and plots in a sector to the extent of reservation for oustee must be allotted to the oustee. Importantly under question no.4 it was held that the claim of the oustee were required to be invited through an advertisement in the newspaper and not by individual notices to the oustees presently and after the said advertisement it was for the oustees to make an application for allotment of plot under the oustee quota and the obligation of the respondent would arise if the application is made by the oustee, thus, necessarily amendment in case no application is filed by the oustee then nothing further is to be considered. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the passing of the judgment in Full Bench on 22.11.2017, the respondents issued a memo dated 08.05.2018 (Annexure R-1) page 175 of the paper book which was in partial modification of the policy / instructions dated 11.08.2016. The said memo specifically reference to the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Rajiv Manchanda (supra) and in pursuance of the same has amended clause 2, 3, 11 and 15 of the policy / instructions dated 11.08.2016 and has added clause 19. The substituted clause 3 reads as under:-
A perusal of the above clause would show that it was specifically provided that the plots allotted under all reserved category shall not exist maximum 50% of the sector which clause was in consonance with the judgment passed by the Division Bench in the case of Sandeep Singh and also Full Bench in the case of Rajiv Manchanda. It is undisputed case of the parties as stated hereinabove, that no reservation was made in pursuance of the policy dated 09.11.2010 and it is only after the abovesaid judgment were passed and the policy / instructions dated 11.08.2016 was issued and thereafter modified on 08.05.2018 that the respondent authorities who were duty bound carried out the process of reservation of plots in various sectors which included reservation with respect to the oustee quota in every sector. It is thereafter that the advertisement dated 01.11.2018 with respect to Hisar Zone was published in the national newspaper inviting online application for allotment of plots for the said Hisar Zone under the oustee quota.
Admittedly the procedure which governs allotment of plots in the oustee quotas as it stands now is as follows:-
The respondent authorities are to make a first reservation with respect to the plots reserved for all categories including the oustee category in every sector.
ii) A public advertisement is then required to be issued inviting the applications from the oustees with respect to various sectors.
iii) After the allottees have moved appliatoin in pursuance of the said advertisements, then, a draw of lot is held and only the persons who are successful in draw of lots their eligibility is considered by the screening committee.
iv) In case the person who is successful in draw of lots is found to be eligible by the screening committee, then, only a formal letter is to be issued to the said allottee.
From the abovesaid undisputed procedure, it is apparent that in case an oustee who may be legible does not apply in pursuance of the advertisement cannot be made to participate in the draw of lots and thus cannot be considered for the purpose of allotment. It is however not in dispute that merely because a person who is eligible has not applied under a particular specific advertisement is not barred from applying under the subsequent advertisement and in case any such advertisement is issued and the said allottee applies, then, his right should be considered under the said advertisement. In the present case since undisputably the petitioiner(s) did not apply under the advertisement of year 2018 and had accepted the term of money under the earlier application which aspect was not challenged by the petitioner and thus, at this stage no relief can be granted to the petitioner(s).
The reliance sought to be placed upon by the petitioner on the judgment dated 16.12.2016 does not in any way further the case of the petitioners. It would be relevant to note that the said petition was filed in the year 2009 in which challenge was made to the acquisition whereas in the present case it is not in dispute that the writ petitions have been filed in the year 2021/2023 and no challenge has been made to the acquisition. In the abovesaid case, the State counsel, vide order dated 16.07.2013 as is apparent from para 18 of the said judgment was granted time to get instructions as to whether the members of said society could be allotted residential plot and it is in the said background that the respondent authorities had stated that in a special and exceptional case and while considering the matter sympathetically also in the light of the observations made by the Court, the plots were being allotted and the challenge to the acquisition by the said persons were accordingly adjudicated in view of the said fact. Apart from the fact that the facts of the present case are on completely different footing. It has also been relevant to note that in the present case, the petitioner(s) has based his claim on the basis of policy 2010 which policy has now been substantially altered in view of the policy / instructions dated 11.08.2016 passed in pursuance of the judgments passed by the Division Bench and Full Bench of this Court. Thus, before this Court for the petitioner (s) to succeed the petitioner had to bring his case within the parameters of policy dated 11.08.2016 subsequently modified by the policy / instructions dated 08.05.2018 as there is no challenge to the said policy / instructions and the petitioner(s) has not been able to bring his case within the parameters of the said policy.
Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, we are of the opinion that no relief much less mandamus can be granted to the petitioner(s) at this stage but the present petitions are disposed of with an observation that in case the respondent authorities issue a fresh advertisement with respect to adjoining sectors of Sector 25, Hisar, then, it would be open to the petitioner(s) to apply in pursuance of the said advertisement and the respondent authorities would consider the said application in accordance with law.