Partap Singh vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others

Hemant Gupta, J.—Petitioner have sought a writ of mandamus claiming a booth site in Sector 2 or 3 of the Pocket-B, Rohtak, as an oustee. Petitioner claims to be a co-sharer of the agricultural land measuring 38 kanal 15 marlas situated within the revenue estate of Village Bohar, District Rohtak. The said land vested with the State Government when the Award was announced and compensation deposited by the Land Acquisition Collector on 15.9.1986.

Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short the ''HUDA'') framed a policy dated 10.9.1987, contemplating the resettlement of the oustees and the land owners whose land has been acquired by HUDA. Apart from the allotment of residential plots, Scheme contemplates the following:

The Hon''ble Supreme Court has also decided in a number of cases that land should be allotted for a house/shop to all those persons whose land has been acquired. Legally, it become the responsibility of Haryana Urban Development Authority to allot/reserve some commercial sites for oustees. The commercial sites/buildings are sold by auction and under these circumstances, such sites/buildings could be considered for allotment to oustees on reserve price as and when the auction for the same is held. As and when these sites/buildings are put to auction, the oustees who want to purchase the sites/buildings could represent before hand for allotment so that the requisite number could be reserved for them.

Subsequently, another circular was issued on 18.3.1992 in continuation of the earlier Scheme wherein, it was stipulated as under:

(viii) The commercial site/building are sold by auction. The sites/buildings be also allotted to oustees on reserve price as and when the auction of the same is held. While putting such sites/buildings to public auction, the oustees who want to purchase the sites/buildings could represent before hand for allotment, so that requisite number could be reserved for them. However, if the area acquired of the commercial site is equivalent or less to the area of booth/shop-cum-flat being auctioned by HUDA, they may be given a booth/SCO sites keeping in view the size of acquisition under this policy.

Petitioner points out that an advertisement was issued by HUDA on 5.10.2010 in respect of sale of the booth/sites but the petitioner has not been allotted any booth/site on the reserve price which is the auction price.

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondent No. 3, it is pointed out that two residential plots were allotted i.e. Plot No. 220 of 8 marla and Plot No. 887P of 10 marla in Sector 2,3 (Part), Rohtak on 30.5.2007 under the oustee policy with the consent of all the other co-shareRs. It is pointed out that in terms of the policy dated 12.3.1993, an oustee is entitled to benefit of only one benefit according to the land acquired. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to allotment of commercial site on a reserve price.

We find that the present writ petition is a gross abuse of the process of law and based upon concealment of material facts. Petitioner has not disclosed the fact that a residential plot was allotted to him. The purpose of rehabilitation policy is to rehabilitate the land owners to provide shelter and not to grant wind fall of commercial sites when residential plots stand allotted. Consequently, present petition is dismissed with costs of Rs. 50,000/- to be deposited within one month with the High Court Legal Services Committee.