Allowed

Anand Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Apr 2009CWP/15567/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged allotment of a single plot to multiple claimants despite prior partition. Court directed revenue authorities to verify partition fact and correct records, enabling petitioners to seek individual allotments from HUDA.

What did the court decide?

Order disposing of writ petition with liberty to approach Assistant Collector for revenue record correction; authorities to finalise within four months.

Anand Kumar and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Landlord and Tenant | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No.15567 of 2007 Date of decision: April 15, 2009.

¶3

Anand Kumar & Ors.

¶4

... Petitioner(s)

¶5

¶6

State of Haryana & Ors.

¶7

... Respondent(s)

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶9

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶10

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present: Shri Arun Jain, Senior Advocate, with Shri Shiv Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶13

Shri Ravi Dutt Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Shri Suveer Sheokand, Advocate for respondent(s) No.2 & 3.

¶14

ORDER

¶15

Surya Kant, J. - (Oral):

¶16

The petitioners seek a direction to respondents No.2 & 3 to allot them separate plots under the Oustees Quota instead of allotting a single plot of 14 marla to all of them.

¶17

The petitioners are sons of Dharam Singh, resident of village Chandawali, Tehsil Ballabgarh, District Faridabad. The petitioners' case is that pursuant to the civil suit No.779 of 1980, their joint holding was partitioned in the year 1980 and the said partition attained finality under the orders dated 1.12.1980 passed by the Delhi High Court. The mutations of

¶18

their respective holdings were also separately sanctioned in their favour. However, in the jamabandi for the year 1996-97, the petitioners have been shown as co-owners in a joint holding. According to the petitioners, this was an inadvertent error committed by the revenue authorities.

¶19

The subject land has been later on acquired by the HUDA. It is not in dispute that the petitioners are entitled to the allotment of plot(s) under the Oustees policy framed by the HUDA. While the respondents have allotted only one plot of 14 marla on the assumption that the petitioners are co-sharers in a joint holding, the petitioners rely upon the order of partition dated 1.12.1980 which is stated to have attained finality.

¶20

There is hardly any dispute that if the partition had taken place and the petitioners had become exclusive owners of their respective holdings much before the acquisition of the subject land, they would be entitled to be considered for allotment of one plot each under the Oustees policy. It is, thus, imperative upon the petitioners to prove that the partition had actually taken place in the year 1980 and, therefore, the entries in the revenue record are liable to be corrected.

¶21

The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to approach the Assistant Collector 2^nd Grade and/or 1^st Grade, whosoever may be the Competent Authority, and move an application for correction of entries in the revenue record. The revenue authorities shall then verify the factum of partition claimed to have taken place in the year 1980 and if satisfied, carry out the necessary correction in the revenue record of the year 1996-97. Based upon the corrected revenue record, the petitioners shall re-submit their applications to the HUDA authorities, who shall then re-consider the petitioners' claims for allotment of separate plots to each one of them under the Oustees policy. While the revenue authorities

¶22

shall finalize the correctional proceedings within a period of four months from the date the petitioners approach them, the HUDA authorities shall take an appropriate decision within a period of two months from the date of re-submission of the corrected records.

¶23

Disposed of.

¶24

Dasti.

¶25

April 15, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge

Anand Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anand Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Mahalaxmi Projects (P) Ltd. Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Amar Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Amar Lal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Siri Kishan Vs Bharta and Others

Parampal and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gurcharan Singh Vs Union of India and Others