Dismissed

Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Apr 2013CWP/7817/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition challenges the rejection of a request for an additional land plot. The petitioner, an oustee entitled to 10 Marlas, had previously voluntarily applied for and obtained a 2 Marla plot, which he later sold. The court held that the petitioner forfeited the right to further allotment by settling his claim earlier and dismissed the petition.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner's claim for additional allotment of an 8 Marla plot was rejected by the respondent authority, and this rejection was upheld.

Sube Singh Vs State of Haryana and Another — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 7817 of 2013 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P. No. 7817 of 2013 Date of Decision: April 11, 2013

Sube Singh

... Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another

¶8

.... Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr.Vikram Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶12

In the year 2001-2002, 17 Marlas (510 Sq. Yards) land of the petitioner situated in village Mandhauti was acquired by the respondentState for development of residential and commercial Sector by HUDA. As per the Oustee Policy of the respondent-State prevalent at that time, the petitioner was eligible for allotment of a plot up to 10 Marlas under the Oustee quota.

¶13

Undisputedly, the petitioner, may be for financial reason or his requirement, or, may be under a wrong advice, only applied for 2 Marla of plot being an oustee with the requisite amount. He was allotted a 2 Marla plot, as requested by him, vide allotment letter dated 10.05.2002 (Annexure P1) for a consideration of Rs.23,920/-, which he had deposited.

¶14

After nine years of the said allotment, the petitioner made a request vide letter Annexure P2 to the respondent authority to allot him a 10 Marla plot as he was entitled for the said plot under the Oustee policy at the

¶15

C.W.P. No. 7817 of 2013 -2-

¶16

relevant time, or, in the alternative he be additionally allotted an 8 Marla plot. Vide letter dated 28.10.2011 (Annexure P3), the request of the petitioner was declined on the ground that he had voluntarily applied for 2 Marlas of plot being an oustee and the same was allotted to him, therefore, now his request for allotment of an additional plot of 8 Marlas cannot be accepted. The said order has been challenged in the petition.

¶17

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we do not find any illegality in the impugned action of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents have acted arbitrarily and unreasonably while rejecting the claim of the petitioner for allotment of 8 Marlas of plot as his entitlement of 10 Marlas plot was not disputed by the respondents. It has been argued that when the petitioner had applied for 2 Marlas of plot, his application could not have been considered, and rather the same should have been rejected while intimating that the petitioner is entitled for 10 Marlas of plot and that he could have applied for the same. The learned counsel argued that suppose the petitioner instead of 10 Marlas of plot, had applied for 14 Marlas plot, then the respondents would not have accepted his prayer on the ground that he was entitled for 10 Marlas of plot. Therefore, on the same analogy, before accepting the application of the petitioner for allotment of 2 Marlas plot, the petitioner should have been asked to apply for 10 Marlas of plot.

¶18

In our opinion, the aforesaid contention raised by the learned counsel cannot be accepted. Under the Oustee Policy, the entitlement of an oustee has been provided according to the area of his land acquired. An oustee of acquisition of 17 Marlas of land was eligible for allotment of a plot up to 10 Marlas. But it is always open for the oustee to apply for plot of

¶19

C.W.P. No. 7817 of 2013 -3-

¶20

a lesser area keeping in view his need and financial position. The petitioner in the present case in the year 2002 applied for 2 Marlas plot only, keeping in view his financial position and the requirement, and the said application was accepted and he was allotted 2 Marlas plot. It is pertinent to mention that the petitioner had also sold the said 2 Marlas plot in the year 2006-07. Thus, his claim, being an oustee against the said acquisition, was settled and finalized. Thereafter, he cannot make an application for additional allotment. Under the Oustee Policy, if a person is entitled for a plot of 10 Marlas, he cannot be permitted to say that he should be allotted five plots of 2 Marlas each. He can always apply for one plot, according to his entitlement of the area. He cannot bifurcate his prayer that for the time being he should be allotted one plot of lesser area and for the remaining size he will apply later on under the Oustee Policy. Therefore, now at a belated stage the request made by the petitioner for additional allotment of 8 Marlas plot is neither justified nor permissible under the Oustee Policy. Therefore, the claim made by the petitioner has rightly been rejected by the respondent authority.

¶21

No merits. Dismissed.

¶22

(SATISH KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE April 11, 2013 ( AMOL RATTAN SINGH ) vkg JUDGE

Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sube Singh v. State of Haryana and Another

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

Madhu Batla Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Deepak Uppal and Anr. Vs HUDA

Inder Kaur Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Balak Ram & Ors. Vs Chandigarh Administration & Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs the Director Haryana State Board of Technical Education and Anr.

Shanti Devi & Anr. Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority & Others