Allowed

Rakha Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Jan 2012LPA/1077/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Letters Patent Appeal challenged the rejection of the appellant's claim for a residential plot under the Sector 62 rehabilitation scheme. The challenge was based on the exclusion of non-original owners. The Single Bench held that 'original land owner' includes purchasers made prior to the acquisition notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, directing the authorities to

What did the court decide?

Orders declaring the rejection unlawful were set aside. The Chief Administrator was directed to consider the claim and decide within three months.

Rakha Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors. — Municipal and Town Planning | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

L.P.A.No.1077 of 2011(O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

L.P.A.No.1077 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision : 23.01.2012

Rakha Singh

....APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

¶9

....RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL

¶11

¶12

Present : Mr.Naresh Kaushal, Advocate, for the appellant.

¶13

Mr.Sandeep Moudgill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No.1-State.

¶14

Mr.Aman Sharma, Advocate, for Mr.Rupinder Khosla, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 to 4.

¶15

¶16

HEMANT GUPTA, J

¶17

Civil Misc.Nos.3027 & 3028 of 2011

¶18

Applications are allowed. Delay of 472 days in re-filing and 16 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

¶19

L.P.A.No.1077 of 2011

¶20

The present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the order dated 18.08.2009, passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court whereby the claim for the allotment of residential plot as a part of rehabilitation scheme dated 01.06.2001 was declined.

¶21

The appellant purchased one kanal one marla of land vide sale

¶22

L.P.A.No.1077 of 2011(O&M)

¶23

-2-

¶24

deed in the year 1990 prior to publication of a notification for acquisition of land for the development of Sector 62 in the year 1992. A scheme is framed regarding rehabilitation of the persons, whose land has been acquired, under the Chairmanship of Hon'ble Minister for Housing and Urban Development and Chairperson, PUDA on 01.06.2001. The relevant condition reads as under:-

¶25

“Clause (xiii)

¶26

The rehabilitation scheme shall be restricted to the original land owners/original residents and not to the tenants.”

¶27

The claim of the appellant for allotment of the plot was declined by the Chief Administrator, GMADA, Mohali, vide order dated 18.06.2009/22.06.2009 (Annexure P-8). The reason given by the learned Chief Administrator is that the appellant is not the original owner as he is a purchaser of the land in the year 1990 and that his case is not covered by the policy for allotment of plots to the oustees in the year 1994 or later policy framed in the year 2001.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out that similar issue arose before another Single Bench of this Court in CWP No.9675 of 2009 (Surinder Kaur versus State of Punjab and others) and such claim was accepted vide order dated 24.05.2011. The relevant extract is as under:-

¶29

“The decision of the respondents dated 01.06.2001, which is the basis for considering the claim of the petitioner, relates to rehabilitation of the villagers of village Lambian, Sector 69, SAS Nagar. The intent and purpose for which this rehabilitation policy was framed was to give benefit of the said policy to the landowners and residents which have been clothed by the word

¶30

L.P.A.No.1077 of 2011(O&M)

¶31

-3-

¶32

'original'. The word 'original' landowners/original residents have not been defined in the policy decision, nor has any specific instructions/rules brought to the notice of the Court which would explain or through the some light on these terms. In view of this situation, the Court is left with no option except to consider as to who would be the original landowner/original resident. Keeping in view the intention for which the meeting dated 01.06.2001 was held i.e. for rehabilitation of the villagers, who were dependent on the land on the day of its acquisition for their livelihood. The meeting to the terms original landowner has to be assigned. The decision specifically excludes the tenants and, therefore, the landowners of the village Lambian only could be given the benefit of this policy decision.”

¶33

The said order was challenged in L.P.A.No.1123 of 2011 and the said appeal was dismissed vide order dated 06.07.2011 with the following observations:-

¶34

“Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the dictionary meaning of word 'original land owner' will not cover the writ petitioner. In our opinion, dictionary meaning of word 'original land owner' cannot be treated as conclusive in the context. The writ petitioner having lost her property in acquisition and policy of the appellant being aimed at rehabilitation, learned Single Judge was justified in not excluding the writ petitioner from the benefit of the policy.”

¶35

The issue raised in the present appeal is covered by the aforesaid

¶36

judgment. The original land owner will include a purchaser of the land

¶37

L.P.A.No.1077 of 2011(O&M)

¶38

-4-

¶39

prior to publication of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Therefore, the decision of the Chief Administrator is contrary to

¶40

the condition under Clause (xiii) reproduced above.

¶41

Consequently, the present appeal is allowed. The orders dated 18.06.2009 and 18.08.2009 passed by the Chief Administrator, GMADA, Mohali and the learned Single Bench respectively, are set aside. The Chief Administrator, GMADA, Mohali is directed to consider the claim of the appellant for allotment of the plot in accordance with the policy dated 01.06.2001 expeditiously and preferably within a period of three months.

¶42

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶43

(A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE

¶44

23.01.2012 MAMTA

Rakha Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakha Singh v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shinder Singh and Ors. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Hisar Ex. Naval Personnel Welfare Society Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Jai Bhagwan Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and Anr.

M/S Gdpa Fasterners & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kewal Krishan Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Krishan Lal Vaid Vs Ut of Chandigarh & Ors.