Back
2000 Supreme(P&H) 590
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L.Singhal, J.
Haryana Urban Development Authority
Versus
Partap Singh
R.S.A. No. 2039 of 2000,
Decided On : MAY 29, 2000
The obligation of the State to provide for the rehabilitation of oustees in cases of land acquisition for development, and the jurisdiction of the civil court in such matters.
Headnote:
HUDA - Land Allotment Dispute - Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, Section 50 - The court discussed the entitlement of an oustee to the allotment of a commercial site in the Urban Estate, Jind, the jurisdiction of the civil court in view of section 50 of the HUDA Act, and the introduction of a scheme for allotment of alternative sites to oustees. The court emphasized the obligation of the State to take care of the problems faced by oustees and the need for rehabilitation of oustees in cases of land acquisition for development.
Fact of the Case:
Partap Singh filed suit for declaration against Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) seeking allotment of a commercial plot in Urban Estate, Jind, which was acquired by the State of Haryana for planned development. HUDA contested the suit, claiming it was time-barred and that the civil court had no jurisdiction.
Finding of the Court:
The Civil Judge decreed the plaintiff's suit, finding him entitled to the allotment of a commercial plot as an oustee and holding that the civil court had jurisdiction in the matter. The Additional District Judge upheld the decision, and the appeal to the higher court was dismissed.
Issues: Entitlement to allotment, time-barred suit, locus standi, cause of action, jurisdiction of civil court.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to the allotment of a commercial plot as an oustee, and that the civil court had jurisdiction in the matter despite the provisions of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977.
Final Decision: The appeal by HUDA was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision in favor of the plaintiff.
M.L.Singhal, J.
1. Partap Singh filed suit for declaration against Haryana Urban Development Authority (in short "HUDA"), Jind through its Estate Officer to the effect that he was entitled to the allotment of a commercial plot in the Urban Estate, Jind on reserve price. It is alleged in the plaint that land measuring 136 kanal 17 marla situated in the revenue estate of Jind as recorded in the jamabandi for the year 1974-75 was acquired by the State of Haryana for a public purpose namely the planned development in the area of Jind. In the revenue record, the land was standing in the name of Moti Ram who was father of plaintiff Partap Singh. Moti Ram died on 9.10.88. It is further alleged in the plaint that the plaintiff comes within the definition of ouster in the wake of the acquisition of the land belonging to his father for use by HUDA. As son of Moti Ram he is entitled to the allotment of commercial site in Urban Estate, Jind. Commercial sites are still available in Urban Estate, Jind and they are being sold by HUDA in open auction from time to time. Plaintiff owns no commercial site in Urban Estate, Jind, as such he is entitled to the allotment of commercial site in Jind Urban area on reserve price. He applied to the HUDA for the allotment of commercial site on reserve price vide application which was received in the office of HUDA on 16.12.1993. HUDA, however, gave no reply to that application.
2. Defendant (HUDA) contested the suit urging that the suit is time barred. Plaintiff is not son of Moti Ram deceased. In view of section 50 of Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977, civil court has no jurisdiction. It was further urged that at the time of acquisition of the land of Moti Ram, there was no scheme/provision that an oustee was entitled to allotment of any site. This scheme was introduced by HUDA for the first time in September, 1987. Land of Moti Ram was acquired for residential purposes. It was denied that any application was received from Partap Singh for allotment of commercial plot by HUDA on 16.12.1993. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the allotment of a commercial site in the Urban Estate, Jind on reserved price? OPP
2. Whether the suit of the plaintiff is badly time barred? OPD
3. Whether the plaintiff has no locus-standi to file the present suit? OPD
4. Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action to file the present suit? OPD
5. Whether the civil court has no jurisdiction in view of section 50 of the HUDA Act? OPD
6. Relief.
3. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jind decreed the plaintiffs suit for declaration to the effect that he is entitled to allotment of a commercial plot in Urban Estate, Jind on the present reserve price in view of his findings that he is entitled to the allotment of commercial plot as he is an oustee in the wake of the acquisition of the land for use by HUDA belonging to his father measuring 136 kanal 17 marla for a public purpose. His father expired on 9.10.88. It was found that it was the duty of the HUDA to allot/reserve some commercial site for oustees. Civil court was found to have jurisdiction into the matter. It was found that its jurisdiction was not barred in view of section 50 of the HUDA Act, 1977.
4. HUDA went in appeal. Appeal was dismissed by Additional District Judge, Jind vide order dated 7.2.2000. Still not satisfied, HUDA has come up in appeal to this court. I have heard Shri Ashutosh Mohunta, Advocate, counsel for the appellant and have gone through the record.
5. Learned counsel for HUDA submitted that there was no scheme introduced by HUDA to allot plots to the oustees in the wake of acquisition of their land by HUDA for its use for a public purpose during the days when this land was acquired. HUDA introduced scheme vide letter dated 10.9.87 Ex. Dl providing for the allotments of alternative sites to those whose land was acquired by HUDA for development. In CWP Nos. 3401 of 1993
