M.M. Singh Bedi, J.:-

1. The Estate Officer and Chief Administrator of petitioner No. 3 Haryana Urban Development Authority, have preferred the present revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated January 31, 2015, annexure P-4 and order dated March 7, 2015, annexure P-5 passed in execution proceedings filed by Jai Chand, respondent in case Jai Chand Vs. EO HUDA and others, pending before Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kaithal.

2. Brief facts relevant for decision of the present revision petition are that respondent-plaintiff had filed a suit for mandatory injunction claiming allotment of 250 sq. yards plot at a claimed price on the basis of oustee policy of HUDA dated March 18, 1992. Suit of the plaintiff-respondent was decreed by the trial Court vide judgment and decree dated March 13, 2008. The appeal preferred by the defendant-petitioners was dismissed by the first Appellate Court vide judgment dated April 1, 2009. RSA No. 2793 of 2009 was disposed of in limine vide order dated September 6, 2012 in terms of Division Bench judgment in LPA No. 2096 of 2011 decided on April 25, 2012 in case HUDA and others Vs. Sandeep and others. The portion relied upon by the petitioners to seek support from the order in RSA No. 2793 of 2009 reads as follows:-

"At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellants-defendants has referred to the judgment delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 2096 of 2011, titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority & others vs. Sandeep and others, decided on 25.4.2012, laying down detailed principles of law and guidelines for allotment of plots under oustees quota and prayed that the instant appeal may be disposed of in the same terms.

Accordingly the instant appeal stands disposed of in terms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 2096 of 2011, decided on 25.4.2012."

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when execution application of decree dated March 13, 2008 passed by the trial Court was filed by the respondent, the petitioner authorities submitted objections in the execution proceedings claiming that the order dated April 25, 2012 would disentitle the respondent to the fruits of the decree. It has been claimed that as the respondent had not applied for the plot by depositing the required amount of 10% in the year 1992, he would not be entitled to execute the decree as the judgment of Sandeep's case (supra) in LPA provides that an oustee is entitled for consideration, for the allotment of the plot only till such time the plots were available for the Oustees in the sector for which the land was acquired for residential/commercial purposes. As there are no plots available in Sector 19 and 20, Kaithal as such no separate plot can be allotted to the respondent-decree holder. The petitioners are aggrieved by the dismissal of the objections vide order dated January 31, 2015 and the order dated March 7, 2015. The impugned order dated March 7, 2015 reads as follows:-

"Till date IDs have not allotted the plot to the DH in compliance of decree under execution and as directed vide order dated 31.01.2015. On the last date of hearing and before that Executive Officer HUDA was directed to appear in person in the court if IDs failed to allot the plot to the decree holder. But IDs neither allotted the plot nor EO HUDA appeared in the court in person to explain the reason for not allotting the plot to the DH in compliance of order dated 31.01.2015 and subsequent orders. Even today no one from the office of HUD A, Kaithal appeared in the court. Learned Counsel for the JDs appeared in the court before lunch break and he was asked to enquire from the JDs regarding compliance of decree. But thereafter even learned counsel for the JDs has not appeared in the court. Therefore under these circumstances I am satisfied that JDs will not allot the plot to the DH unless coercive method is used against them. Therefore warrant of

Click Here to Read the rest of this document