JUSTICE V.K.JAIN (ORAL)

The respondents/complainants were co-sharers in same agriculture land which State of Haryana acquired for the purpose of planned development of the area, vide award dated 9.10.2003. As per the policy being followed at that time, the petitioner HUDA was allotting one developed plot jointly to all the co-sharers of the acquired land, irrespective of their number. Accordingly, a joint allotment of a plot admeasuring 420 Sq.mtrs. was made to all the co-sharers of the acquired land including the complainants. The complainants approached the concerned District Forum by way of a consumer complaint seeking allotment of individual plots to them on the ground that every co-owner was entitled to allotment of a separate developed plot.

2.      The complaint was resisted by the petitioner which sought to justify the joint allotment. It was also stated in the written version that the earnest money which the complainants had deposited was refunded to them.

3.      The District Forum held that the complainants were not entitled to an individual plot. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the District Forum, the complainants approached the concerned State Commission by way of an appeal. Vide impugned order dated 4.12.2007, the State Commission  allowed the appeal and directed allotment of 10 Marla plot to the complainants. Compensation quantified at Rs.50,000/-  and the cost of litigation quantified at Rs.10,000/- was also awarded to them. Being aggrieved from the order passed by the State Commission , the petitioner HUDA is before this Commission by way of this revision petition filed on 19.4.2011.

4.      The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the orders dated 25.4.2012 passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court in L.P.A. No. 2096 of 2011 - HUDA & Ors. Vs. Sandeep & Ors., and the order dated 26.4.2012 passed by the same High Court in CWP No.10941 of 2010 Bhagwan Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors.  My attention is also drawn to a previous decision of the High Court dated 1.10.2010 in C.W.P No. 2575 of 2009 Jarnail Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Punjab & Ors.  Special Leave Petitions against the orders dated 25.4.2012 and 26.4.2012 were dismissed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. My attention has also been drawn to the decision of this Commission in RP/714/2013 HUDA Vs. Jagdev Singh & Ors.

5.      The order passed by Punjab & Haryana High Court on 26.4.2012 in Bhagwan Singh& Ors. (Supra) to the extent it is relevant, reads as under:-

“This order shall dispose of CWP No.10941 of 2010 and other connected petitions, list of which is appended as Annexure-A. The petitioners, as a co-sharer, are claiming right of allotment of separate plot though as per the policies framed by the respondents, one plot is to be allotted to all the co-sharers jointly.

It is contended that in terms of judgment passed by Full Bench of this Court in Jarnail Singh & others Vs. State of Punjab & others AIR 2011 P&H 1, the policy adopted by Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short 'the HUDA') contemplating that the co-sharers shall be given one plot jointly is not sustainable and that each of the co-sharer is entitled for consideration for allotment of plot keeping in view his land holding.

In view of the judgment of Full Bench in Jarnail Singh's case (supra) dealing with the rights of the co-sharers, each of the co-sharer is entitled to a plot of a size keeping in view his land holding. The rights of the oustees for allotment of a plot has been discussed by this Court in LPA No.2096 of 2011 titled “Haryana Urban Development Authority & others Vs. Sandeep & others” decided on 25.04.2012.

Consequently, the present petition as well as other connected petitions stand disposed of with a direction to the respondents to consider the claim of each of the co-sharer for allotment of a plot keeping in view his holding and in accordance with the principles of law laid down in Sandeep's case (supra).”

6.      It is thus evident that the policy adopted by the petitioner to allot only one developed plot jointly to all the co-sharers of the acquired land was bad in law and the petitioner Authority ought to have considered each application submitted by a co-sharer of the acquired land. To this extent, the view taken by the State Commission  was fully justified.

7.      In Sandeep & Ors. (Supra), the Hon’ble High Court issued several directions to the petitioner for the purpose of making allotment of developed plots to the persons whose land was acquired for the purpose of planned development of the area. The directions to the extent they are relevant for the purpose of this revision, read as under:-

“(i) That date of notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is relevant to determine the eligibility of a land-owner for allotment of a residential plot, even if the acquisition is for the purposes of commercial, industrial or institutional;

(ii) That the entitlement of the size of the plot and the procedure for allotment shall be as on the date of allotment in pursuance of an advertisement issued inviting application from the oustees;

(iii) That the HUDA or such other authority can reserve plots up to 50% of the total plots available for all reserved categories including that of oustees. As to what extent there would be reservation for the oustees, is required to

be decided by the State Government and/or by HUDA or any other authority, who is entitled to acquire land;

(iv) That the oustees are entitled to apply for allotment of plot along-with earnest money in pursuance of public advertisement issued may be inviting applications from the general public and the oustees through one advertisement. If an oustee is not successful, he/she can apply again and again till such time, the plots are available for the oustees in the sector for which land was acquired for residential/commercial purposes or in the

adjoining sector, if the land acquired was for institutional and industrial purposes etc. The plots to the oustees shall be allotted only by public advertisement and not on the basis of any application submitted by an

oustee;

(v) That the price to be charged from an allottee shall be the price mentioned in the public advertisement in pursuance of which, the plot is allotted and not when the sector is floated for sale for the first time;

(vi) That the State Government or the acquiring authority shall not advertise any residential plot for sale without conducting an exercise in respect of plots ear-marked for reserved categories and after identification of the plots available for the oustees in each sector. Thereafter, the State Government or the acquiring authority shall publish an advertisement inviting applications from such oustees to apply for allotment of plots in accordance with law: and

(vii) If in any sector, more than 50% plots have been allotted by way of reservation including to the oustees, then such allotment shall not be cancelled or reviewed in view of the judgment of this court.”

8.      It would thus be seen that though in view of the decision rendered in Bhagwan Singh& Ors. (supra), every co-sharer is eligible for allotment of a developed plot, such an allotment can be made only in terms of the procedure laid down by the Hon’ble High Court in Sandeep & Ors. (Supra). Thus the eligibility of the applicant has to be tested on the date on which the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act is issued, the Authority is permitted to make reservation for allotment of developed plots to the oustees but such reservation alongwith other reservations made by the Authority cannot exceed 50% of the total plots. The Authority is required to issue advertisement for allotment of plots and if the oustees apply for allotment alongwith the earnest money, they have to be considered as per the terms and conditions notified in the advertisement. If a person is not successful in one draw of lots, he continues to remain eligible for applying again and again as and when advertisements for this purpose are issued and his application has to be considered by the Authority as per the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble High Court. The Authority is required to charge the price mentioned in the advertisement.

9.      In view of the decision rendered by the Hon’ble High Court in Sandeep & Ors., (supra), it is not permissible for the Authority to straightaway make allotment of a developed plot to the complainants in terms of the directions issued by the State Commission. Though the complainants are eligible for allotment of a developed plot, they have to apply for such allotment as and when advertisement in terms of the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court in Sandeep & Ors., (supra) are issued.

10.    The learned counsel for the complainants has pointed out that in Jagdev Singh & Ors. (supra), this Commission upheld the order of the State Commission  directing individual allotment to the other co-sharers though the said decision was referred later than the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in Sandeep & Ors. (supra).  A perusal of the order of this Commission in Jagdev Singh & Ors.  (supra) would show that this issue was not agitated before the State Commission  and therefore, the Commission had no occasion to consider the import of the directions issued by the Hon’ble High Court in Sandeep & Ors. (supra).

11.    For the reasons stated hereinabove, the revision petition is disposed of with the following directions:-

(i)      The complainants are held eligible to apply for allotment of a developed plot from the petitioner.

(ii)      If and when any advertisement is issued by the petitioner, the respondents/complainants shall be entitled to apply for allotment of a residential plot. Their application will be considered by the petitioner strictly in terms of the guidelines issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in Sandeep & Ors. (supra).

                          (iii)     There shall be no order as to costs.

(iv)    The amount, if any, deposited by the complainants will be adjusted as and when the complainants apply for allotment of a developed plot pursuant to the advertisement issued by the petitioner, since according to their Counsel, they are not interested in taking refund of that amount.