Oustees claim/ Oustees Quota

Allotment of plot -- Consideration in general category – Effect of -- Petitioner is entitled to consider for allotment of a plot in reserved category of oustees -- Action of the respondents in treating him in the category of general for consideration for allotment is legally not sustainable and is not proper -- Oustees are a distinct class and cannot be clubbed with general policies of allotment of plot -- Direction issued to the HUDA to consider the claim of the petitioner in the reserved category of oustees. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Allotment of plot -- Decision to restrict allotment of a plot to an oustee in a sector in which his land was acquired, was given go-bye through a policy dated 28.8.1998 – Sometimes the land acquired was for the purpose other than residential, through this policy, a provision was made for allotment of a plot in the next residential sector, which may be floated by HUDA -- Action of HUDA to deny allotment on the ground that the plot is not available in the sector where land is acquired may not be justified in the policy and the reason behind issuing this policy -- This reasoning would equally apply to all the cases under consideration even before this policy came into being. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Allotment of plot -- Earnest money – Non-deposit of -- Policy instructions issued on 12.3.1993 -- Oustees claims were rejected on the ground that they had not deposited 10% of the earnest money as was required under the policy -- Estate Officer concerned is to invite the claims through press/News-Papers for allotment of plots under the oustees policy much before floating of Sector -- Then each of the applicant is required to send his application in the prescribed proforma along with the supporting documents and earnest money equivalent to 10% of the cost -- HUDA had not followed the policy to invite claims from oustees separately through press or news-papers -- Claim of the oustees was invited while floating the scheme for allotment of plots in the sector for all eligible persons -- Inviting claim of oustees along with general public is in violation of the policy – Right of the petitioner for consideration for allotment of plot in oustees quota, thus cannot be forfeited on the ground that he had not earlier made application along with cost of 10% -- Direction is issued to HUDA to consider the claims of the petitioners in the reserved category of oustees. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Allotment of plot -- Land acquired in 1983 – Claim was filed on 21.8.2000 for allotment of plot under oustees quota alongwith 10% amount of the total price of the plot -- Claim was rejected on the ground that his claim could be considered only for allotment in a sector for which his land was acquired -- Another reason given is that he had delayed too long in making the present approach – Held, responsibility to invite claim of the oustees as per the policy started from 1987 was that of the HUDA -- Not only that respondents were under obligation to invite such applications before floating the sector for general public but it was to be done separately -- Further the respondents were also first required to satisfy the claim of the oustees before even floating the sector – Ground of denial is in violation of the policies -- Direction issued to the HUDA to consider the claim of the petitioner for allotment of a plot under the Oustees quota in the sector in which his land was acquired, if no plot is available in the said sector, the claim shall be considered and satisfied in any of the sectors that may now be under consideration, but in the city of Gurgaon – HUDA can be asked to consider the claim in any of the sectors which may be floated in future. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Allotment of plot -- Policies for oustees claim -- Oustees are to be treated as a separate class and their claim can not be considered, alongwith the claim of general public -- Claims of oustees are to be invited by Estate Officer, HUDA before sector is floated -- Policy required of HUDA to invite claim of the oustees separately before floating any Sector -- In fact land losers have option to buy first before applications are invited from the general public -- Claim of allotment of a plot to general public would arise after satisfying the claim of the oustees who have first option to buy -- Once the claim of oustees is invited alongwith general public, the possibility of first satisfying the claim of the oustees would stand defeated -- That is why oustees have been held to be separate and distinct class -- It is because of this that HUDA is required to invite claims of oustees before floating of the Sector. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Allotment of plot -- Policies for oustees claim – Earnest money – Deposit of -- Concept of -- Requirement of depositing 10% of the price would arise only if the claims are first invited as per the policies and it has to be through press or news paper -- Price, as per the policy instructions dated 12.3.1993, is to be deposited once the claim is finally accepted by the competent authority and when the sector scheme is floated – In order to set the position right and as one time measure, it is appropriate to direct HUDA to invite claims of all the oustees through an advertisement in the newspaper, giving them sufficient time to make applications -- Those who make applications pursuant to such an advertisement may be asked to deposit 10% of the price, if the plots are still available -- Their claims be considered in the light of the policies formulated by HUDA -- Plots be allotted to such applicants in the Sector for which their land was acquired, if such plots are available in the said Sector or in the adjoining Sector in the terms of the policy and if the plots are still available -- This aspect is made as a one time measure so as to satisfy the claims of those left over either because of ignorance or because of act of HUDA not following the policies in letter and spirit -- HUDA was to keep the claims in a live register which has not been done -- HUDA was to demand 10% price which it has failed to do -- Course as suggested is thus the only fair and appropriate method to set the wrong right. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Allotment of plot -- Policies required of HUDA authority to invite the claim of the oustess separately before floating of sector -- HUDA was required to consider and allow such claims even prior to floating the scheme or at any rate allot these plots to oustees before working out availability of plots for floating the same for general public -- Applications for allotment of the plots were invited from the general public, there were no separate claims invited either through newspaper or press from the oustees – Held, it is clear violation of the policies by the HUDA as framed from time to time -- Government and its instrumentality can not ignore or fail to follow polices formulated and such policies would have binding effect on them -- Claim from the oustees was to be separately invited and could not have been clubbed or joined with the general category -- HUDA directed to allot the residential plot to the petitioner as per his entitlement. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Co-owner – Right of -- Allotment of plot -- Pleas that all the co-sharers would be only entitled to one plot in terms of a policy instruction issued in the year 1993 may be in violation of law laid down by the Full Bench in Jarnail Singh’s case, CWP No.2575 of 2009, decided on 1.10.2010 -- Notification for acquisition was issued on 20.8.1992 -- It would be legally appropriate to direct that each co-sharer is entitled to allotment of a plot individually and the right could not be restricted to allotment of one plot for all the co-sharers. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Delay – Allotment of plot -- In the absence of claims having been invited in proper and appropriate form as per the policy the order rejecting claim may not be sustainable -- Delay cannot be considered fatal -- In such like cases, it will be appropriate to issue some general directions to HUDA to invite claim of all the oustees by issuing a general advertisement in this regard either through press/New-Paper or publication -- Form and sufficient time should be given to the oustees to submit their claim -- As per the schemes, claims of such oustees, who have either not applied or have applied or their claim are under consideration can be so considered, if the plots are still available in Sector for which their land was acquired and if any oustee cannot be adjusted in the sector, then his claim can also be considered for allotment of a plot in any of the adjoining sectors. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Delay in applying – Effect of -- Allotment of plot -- Land was acquired on 27.08.1987 -- Petitioner ultimately has filed a claim on 26.5.2009 along with 10% cost of the plot as earnest money – Claim of the petitioner is being declined only on the ground that the acquisition was prior to 10.9.1987 and as such is not covered by the policy instructions issued on the said date – Policy instructions were issued on 27.3.2000 providing that the claim of all the oustees be considered irrespective of date of acquisition in case the plots are still available for allotment -- Even the oustees have prior right of allotment and after satisfying their claim only the plots would be allotted to other persons – Some plots are still available -- Accordingly, the case is made out for issuing direction to the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners under the category of oustees in accordance with above noted scheme and plots be accordingly allotted to the petitioners as per their entitlement. Sandeep v. State of Haryana and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 327 (P&H).

Co-owners – Right of -- Policy for oustees dated 26.9.1994, clause 6(V) -- Clause restricting the allotment of one plot to all co-owners is irrational, arbitrary and with no reasonable nexus with the objective to be achieved and thus, not sustainable -- Clause 6(V) of the Policy dated 16.9.1994 restricting allotment of one plot to all the co-sharers, is illegal and void. Jarnail Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 210 (P&H FB).

Policy for oustees dated 26.9.1994 – Law summarized -- Oustees, whose land is compulsorily acquired for a public purpose, form a class in itself, having a rational basis with the object of resettlement -- Clause 6(V) of the Policy dated 26.9.1994 is struck down as it has no reasonable nexus with the objective to be achieved -- A co-owner, as per the eligibility criteria fixed by the State Government, shall be entitled to be considered for allotment of plot irrespective of the fact that his holding of land is joint with other co-owner -- However, the oustees, as a class in themselves, would be entitled to reservation of plots to such an extent as the State Government may deem appropriate -- State Government shall be at liberty to reframe policy for reservation of plots to constitutionally permissible classes and within limit of 50% of plots; and till such time an appropriate policy is framed, the State Government or its instrumentalities shall not allot plots under the oustees quota. Jarnail Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 210 (P&H FB).

Rehabilitation and resettlement of landowners, where land has been acquired, has been held to be a facet of Article 21 of the Constitution -- Policy framed by the State Government for allotment of a plot on fulfillment of the eligibility conditions, in fact, is creating a class requiring preferential allotment -- Thus, the oustees form a distinct class, a class whose land has been acquired -- Policy contemplating allotment of plots to the oustees creates a class of persons entitled to preferential allotment than the general public -- Policy of allotment to an oustee, is in fact reservation of plots to such class of eligible erstwhile land owners -- If the oustees do not form a class entitled to reservation of plots, the scheme itself would be hit by the doctrine of equality enshrined by Article 14 of the Constitution of India -- Therefore, the Policy contemplating the plots for oustees is nothing but a reservation of plots for such class. Jarnail Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 210 (P&H FB).

Whether certain percentage of plots is required to be reserved for oustees or that the oustees are entitled to preferential allotment of plots first without allotting the same to the general public -- It is on record that 46% of plots are reserved for different categories and if all the oustees, who are eligible as per the eligibility conditions, are allotted independent plots, then there may not be any plots left for the general public -- Acquisition of land is not for settling the land owners, whose land has been acquired -- Public purpose generally is for development of residential and commercial area -- Said public purpose would be defeated if all the plots to be carved out after acquisition are reserved for one or the other category. Jarnail Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2011(2) L.A.R. 210 (P&H FB).