The 1996 Scheme does not confer an absolute right to a dwelling unit for every person whose land has been acquired, and the intent of rehabilitation cannot be extended to require rehabilitation in the same area that has been acquired.

Mahesh Grover, J. - The land of the petitioners was acquired by the respondents for a public purpose, namely, "Provision of City Level Infrastructure, regulated Urban Development of the area between Chandigarh and Mani Majra; the planned development and expansion of Chandigarh Technology Part; and the Protection of Ecology and Environment of Sukhna Choe Water Shed", vide notification issued on 1.10.2002 under the provisions of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, the Act). In fact, two notifications were issued on 1.10.2002 each pertaining to different chunks of land. Subsequently, these notifications were succeeded by two notifications under Section 6 of the Act issued on 19.9.2003 and 29.9.2003. Some areas were released from acquisition.

2. The acquisition was completed and the respondents entered possession of the acquired land. The petitioners had earlier unsuccessfully challenged the acquisition proceedings up to the Supreme Court. The end result, therefore, is that the acquisition stood complete in all respects.

3. The petitioners have now filed the present petition by which they have prayed that they are oustees, since their land has been subjected to acquisition by the chandigarh Administration and a certificate to that effect has been issued by the office of respondent No. 3. They have prayed, on the strength of this certificate, that they are entitled to the benefit of an alternate dwelling unit under the Chandigarh Allotment of Dwelling Units to the Oustees of Chandigarh Scheme, 1996 (hereinafter described as the 1996 Scheme).

4. It has been pleaded that time 1996 Scheme made a provision for allotment of dwelling units to the oustees under various schemes floated by the Chandigarh Housing Board (for short, the Board) and the extent of allotment was to be determined by the Board, as also the consequent allotment was to be made in the manner as prescribed under the Chandigarh Housing Board (Allotment, Management and Sale of Tenements) Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations).

5. The petitioners have relied on the judgment of the Apex Court reported as AIR 1986 S.C. 2025 (State of U.P. v. Smt. Pista Devi), to press home their point for rehabilitation.

6. Attention has also been drawn to the award made by the respondents which is on record as Annexure P-5. Herein, the Land Acquisition Officer, while making the award, had observed as follows :-

"Uprooting of agriculturists is humanitarian issue which is being duly taken care of by the administration by way of oustees scheme. As regards uprooting trees, efforts are always made to save and accommodate grown-up trees in the planning except where planning compulsions do not allow that flexibility".

7. Another plea raised by the petitioners is that petitioner No. 1 is professionally qualified and, therefore, he is entitled to a plot for residential purposes in the Technology Park being an Information Technology professional himself.

8. The respondents have filed written statement. At the out-set, it has been pleaded that objections of the petitioners under Section 5-A of the Act had been heard and the entire process of law had been duly followed while making the acquisition. The respondents have averred that the petitioners had challenged the acquisition and lost up to the Supreme Court and in view of this, they cannot make any grouse of the acquisition proceedings time and again.

9. The existence of the 1996 Scheme was not denied, but it has been pointed out that his Scheme is subject to the rules and Regulations of the Board and a person has to comply with the procedure and fulfil the eligibility criteria as stipulated thereunder. The respondents have averred that the oustee is further required to submit an application for such allotment, but the petitioners have failed to do so. Apart from that, it has been pointed out that the land of the petitioners had been acquired for Chandigarh Technology Park which is an integrated pro