ARUN PALLI J. - (1.) Petitioners, in this bunch of 33 petitions, happened to be the co -owners, whose land holdings were acquired by the State Government, vide different or pursuant to the same acquisition proceedings, as the case may be. Their grievance is common; though the petitioners being oustees were entitled for allotment of plots/sites in terms of the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Schemes, but their claims were rejected, for they were co -owners in a joint Khata and were, thus, not entitled to seek allotment independently in their respective names. The issue is free, in the wake of the decisions rendered by this court in the recent past, from any complexity; Jarnail Singh and others v. State of Punjab and others, 2011 AIR (Punjab) 58; Haryana Urban Development Authority & others v. Sandeep & others, dated 25.04.2012, LPA - 2096 -2011; and Bhagwan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others, dated,26.04.2012, CWP -10941 -2010.
(2.) In Jarnail Singh and others (supra), which is a decision rendered by a Full Bench, the grievance of the co -owners, whose land was acquired, was similar; that all of them were entitled to allotment of plots/sites individually, and in their own right. Thus, restriction of allotment of one plot to all the co -owners was arbitrary and irrational. And on a consideration of the matter, it was concluded: "20. We find that the restrictions of allotment of one plot to a joint khata holder is unreasonable and arbitrary as each of the land owner is entitled to rehabilitation in his individual right. The rights of co -owners have been delineated in the judgment of this Court in Sant Ram Nagina Ram's and reiterated by a Five Judges Bench judgment in Ram Chander's cases (supra). A co -owner is owner of land as much as his other co -owners are. Mere fact that two or more persons have not sought partition of their holding and/or are enjoying the joint possession, does not affect the title of each of the co -owners. The co - owners are deprived of their title and possession by way of acquisition of land. Therefore, there is no reasonable explanation as to why a co -owner has been made ineligible, except to the extent that number of co -owners would be so large, which will make the process of acquisition itself futile. 21. Thus, we are of the opinion that the 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. Therefore, we hold that Clause 6 (V) of the Policy dated 16.9.1994 restricting allotment of one plot to all the co - sharers, is illegal and void."
(3.) Whereas, in Sandeep and others (supra), the Division Bench determined the rights of the oustees for allotment of plots/sites, in terms of the policies formulated by HUDA as also the State Government from time to time. And, concluded: "Thus, the present appeal as well as the other connected matters are disposed of with the following directions, in addition to the decision on the questions of law discussed above. (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." And, in Bhagwan Singh and others (supra), the question that once again engaged the attention of the Division Bench, this time, in matters pertaining to the State of Haryana, was: whether a co -owner was entitled for allotment of a separate plot/site, though in terms of the State policies all the co -owners could only be allotted one plot jointly. In reference to the decision rendered by the Full Bench in Jarnail Singh and others (supra), it was concluded: "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 cosharer 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 and others Vs. Sandeep and 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)." 3. Concededly, the decisions rendered by this court in all the three matters, referred to above, have since attained finality. For, the judgment rendered by the Full Bench in Jarnail Singh and others (supra) was not assailed any further, and in the other two matters, the Special Leave Petitions preferred by HUDA were dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.;