This writ petition challenged the rejection of the petitioner's claim for allotment of a residential plot under the oustees policy. The court dismissed the petition, holding that no ground for interference was made out given the extensive delay in applying for the plot.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
CWP No. 11151 of 2013[O&M]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 11151 of 2013[O&M] Date of decision: May 22, 2013 .
Gurkirat Singh ...Petitioner
v.
State of Punjab & Ors. ..Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH
Present: Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for the petitioner.
SURYA KANT, J.
The petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 21st February, 2013 passed by the Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority, rejecting his claim for allotment of a residential plot under the ‘oustees policy’.
[2]. The land measuring 28 kanals 6 marlas situated in the revenue estate of village Kumbra, Tehsil & District SAS Nagar owned by the petitioner and Smt. Netar Kaur was acquired vide Award No. 451 dated 22nd February, 1995 for development of residential Sectors 67 to 69 at SAS Nagar, Mohali. As per the PUDA’s policies dated 28th January, 2004 and 26th September, 1994, the petitioner could apply for allotment of a residential plot under the ‘oustees
2
CWP No. 11151 of 2013[O&M]
category’ within a period of one year from the date of taking possession of the acquired land.
[3]. The petitioner admittedly applied for the allotment of plot on 24.10.2008. His application was consequently not entertained and an intimation to this effect was sent to him on 17.04.2009. The aggrieved petitioner preferred appeal/revision petition before higher Authorities but the same having been turned down, he filed CWP No.
24241 of 2011 which was disposed of by us on 24th July, 2012 with the following directions:-
“ In these circumstances and keeping in view the inordinate and unexplained delay in approaching the authorities for allotment of a plot though he was entitled for such allotment under “oustees” policy, it does not appear expedient and desirable for us to issue mandamus to direct the respondents to allot a plot to the petitioner. In order to strike balance, we deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos.2 & 3 to re-consider the petitioner's application sympathetically and explore the possibility for allotting the smallest size plot to him on payment of the price as determined at the time of such allotment. It shall be appreciated if the petitioner's claim is considered in the next draw of lots meant for “oustees”.
[4]. In compliance to the above reproduced order, the Estate Officer, GMADA has passed the impugned order again rejecting the petitioner’s claim on the plea that he has rendered no explanation for the inordinate delay of 13 years and 8 months in submission of application when admittedly the Award in respect of the acquired land
was passed on 22nd February, 1995.
CWP No. 11151 of 2013[O&M]
3
[5]. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner in this second round of litigation. In our considered view, it was imperative upon the petitioner to submit the application, if not within the time stipulated under the policy, at least within some reasonable period thereafter. The petitioner admittedly applied in the year 2008 whereas, acquisition of his land took place in the year 1994-95. No ground to interfere with the impugned order is made out. Dismissed.
(SURYA KANT) JUDGE
22nd May, 2013.
dinesh
(R.P. NAGRATH) JUDGE
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner can claim allotment of a residential plot under the oustees policy despite a 13-year delay in applying.
Whether the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's claim for allotment of a residential plot can be interfered with in writ proceedings.
Whether the High Court should have issued directions to allot a plot to the petitioner despite the delay.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Gurkirat Singh
State of Punjab
Surya Kant
R.P. Nagrath
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
