SHANTI DUA Vs. HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner owned a plot measuring 237 square yards in village Ferozepur Kalan, Tehsil Kalka District Ambala. This land was acquired vide notifications issued under Sections 2, 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, in the year 1982. According to the petitioner, the notification under Section 6 was issued on October 26, 1982. She further alleges that there was a residential house on this plot and that she was awarded a compensation of Rs. 2690/- for this structure. On this basis, the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent-authority for allotment of a plot in Panchkula. This request having been declined vide order dated May 24, 1999, a copy of which has been placed on record as Annexure P.9, the petitioner has approached this court through the present writ petition. She prays that the order dated May 24, 1999 be quashed and that writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to allot a plot to her in accordance with the policy contained in the letter dated September 10, 1987. A copy of this policy decision issued by the Chief Administrator of the respondent-authority has been placed on record as Annexure P.2.

(2.) THE respondents contest the petitioner's claim. It has been inter alia averred that a similar claim was made in Civil Writ Petition No. 4932 of 1995, Chaman Lal v. Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA). This writ petition was dismissed. It has also been averred that the claim made by the petitioner is highly belated and that the policy has no application to the facts of the present case. Still further, the respondents maintain that "it was decided to allot plots in Sector 19, Panchkula to those persons who were bona fide owner residents of village Ferozepur Kalan..." It is alleged that the petitioner "is not resident of village Ferozepur Kalan and has not constructed house in the said village. The plot was vacant and had only a boundary wall."

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , the petitioner's land was acquired in the year 1982. The entire acquisition proceedings including the award were over well before September 10, 1987 when the alleged policy decision had been circulated by the respondent-authority. In the very nature of things the decision as embodied in the letter dated September 10, 1987 was prospective. It had to operate after the issue of the letter. There is nothing to indicate an intent for retrospective operation. In fact, the language does not suggest that. Practically, it would be impossible to give the letter a retrospective operation. It would give rise to thousands of claims. Thus, we hold that it did not apply to acquisition which had already been made. The petitioner cannot derive any advantage from this decision.