M.M.KUMAR,J. - (1.) THE petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order dated 11.5.2007 (P-19) passed by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon-respondent No. 3, declining his request for allotment of a residential plot under the 'Oustees Quota'
(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that the land belonging to the petitioner, measuring 21 Kanals 7 Marlas, situated at village Kanehi, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, was acquired in pursuance to notifications dated 20.4.1990 and 18.4.1991 (P-5 and P-6) issued under Sections 4 and 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for brevity, 'the Act'). The public purpose of acquiring the land was to develop residential and institutional area of Sectors 44 to 46, Gurgaon. The petitioner had filed objections under Section 5-A of the Act and land measuring 4 Kanals 17 Marlas was released from acquisition, which did not form part of declaration issued under Section 6 of the Act. On 8.3.2004, the petitioner applied for allotment of one kanal residential plot in Sector 45, Gurgaon, under the oustees policy and also deposited a sum of Rs. 2,76,276/-. His case was not being considered, which resulted in filing of C.W.P. No. 2229 of 2005, which was disposed of on 1.8.2006 and direction was issued to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon for re-consideration of his claim. The impugned order has been passed in pursuance to the aforementioned direction. His claim has been rejected on the ground that under the policy once his land has been released from acquisition then he would not be eligible for allotment under the oustees quota. The operative part of the order passed by the Estate Officer reads as under :- "1. Sh. Man Singh has applied for allotment of one Kanal plot under the oustees policy. His case was reconsidered and same was rejected by the screening Committee because 4 Kanal 17 Marla land of petitioner has been released U/S 5-A of the LA Act. It is policy matter that if the land of any land owner is released from acquisition, he/she would not be eligible to avail of any benefit under oustees policy (irrespective of the area of land released)." After considering the fact I am of the considered view that Sh. Man Singh does not fulfill the condition laid down in the policy of HUDA for allotment of plot under the oustees policy as per detail brought out above. The petitioner is not entitled for allotment of plot under the oustees policy. The representation of the petitioner is disposed of accordingly and the amount deposited by the petitioner Rs. 2,76,276/- is being refunded. Mr. J.S. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the reasoning adopted by the Estate Officer in the impugned order suffers from acute legal infirmity as the land of the petitioner measuring 4 Kanals 17 Marlas cannot be deemed to be released because it was not acquired at the first place. According to learned counsel the land can be deemed to be released if power under Section 48 of the Act has been exercised after the appropriate Government is satisfied and has declared that the land is needed for a public purpose in pursuance to Section 6 of the Act. Learned counsel has argued that in the absence of any such declaration under Section 6 of the Act, the land of the petitioner cannot be deemed to be acquired.
(3.) MR . Ashish Kapoor and Mr. Dinesh Nagar, learned counsel for the respondents, however, have drawn our attention to para 1 of the preliminary objection of the written statement and argued that as per the policy of the State Government, dated 18.3.1992 (P-9) if the land of a land owner has been released from acquisition he could not remain eligible to apply for allotment of a plot under Oustees quota as per the policy. According to the learned counsel order passed by the Estate Officer does not suffer from any legal infirmity.;