The oustees are entitled to apply for allotment of plot along-with earnest money in pursuance of public advertisement issued 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.

AMIT RAWAL, J.

1. This order of mine shall dispose of two sets of Regular Second Appeals, one set at the behest of Haryana Urban Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as “HUDA”), and another set of Regular Second Appeals bearing Nos. 6089 and 186 of 2015 and cross objections No.35 to 37-C of 2012 are at the instance of the landowners, whose land had been acquired and had been denied the allotment on the ground of oustee quota.

2. For the sake of convenience, the facts are being taken from RSA No.2915 of 2012.

3. The HUDA is aggrieved of the decreetal of the suit, whereby, it has been directed to release the free-hold residential developed plot of 50 square yards in view of the fact that the land of the owner was acquired for the purpose of development of Sectors 19 and 20 of HUDA, Kaithal.

4. The case set out by the plaintiff before the Court below was that she was absolute owner in possession of the land measuring 225 square yards being 15/1518 share out of total land measuring 37 kanals which had been acquired by the defendants for development of Sectors 19 and 20 of HUDA, Kaithal. The plaintiff pleaded that defendants in terms of policy dated 18.03.1992 reserved certain plots for the oustees in Sector 20 HUDA, Kaithal in pursuance of which she had applied for release of free hold residential plot, but no plot was allotted. The claim of the plaintiff had been on the parity as few oustees had been allotted the plots under oustee policy quota of defendants.

5. HUDA contested the cases regarding maintainability, jurisdiction of the Civil Court, much less, the claim being barred by law of limitation. Though the trial Court dismissed the suit but the Lower Appellate Court has allowed the appeal.

6. Mr. B.R. Mahajan, learned Advocate General, Haryana, assisted by Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate, in support of grounds of appeal has raised the multi-fold arguments which read thus:-

(i) The pre-requisites of the policy dated 18.03.1992 had not been fulfilled by the plaintiff for allotment of a plot under the oustee policy as the Court below has not gone into that question and without any reason ordered for allotment of plot to the plaintiff.

(ii) The Court below has failed to take into consideration the fact that the case of the plaintiff was not considered due to con-compliance of Rule 5 of Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land & Buildings) Regulations 1978 (hereinafter referred to “as 1978 Regulations”) which deals with the procedure in case of sale or lease of land or building by allotment, in essence, the purchaser is required to make an application to the Estate Officer concerned and it should be accompanied by 10 percent of the price/premium in the form of a demand draft payable to the Estate Officer.

(iii) The intended allottees under the oustee policy had not fulfilled the essential terms and conditions of the advertisement, brochure and 1978 Regulations. In the instant case there was no advertisement against which the plaintiff had sought allotment of the plot.

7. During the course of arguments, Mr. Mahajan has relied upon the directions given by the Division Bench of this Court in Haryana Urban Development Authority and others vs. Sandeep and others 2012 (1) L.A.R. 475 to contend that the cases of the oustees will be considered as per the directions contained therein and the Government is already contemplating to frame a policy. The plaintiff had not been diligent in approaching the Court and the suit had been filed much later in the year 2007 as the acquisition proceedings were initiated in the year 1992 and thus, urged this Court for allowing the appeals in terms of the directions given in Sandeep's case (supra).

8. Per contra, Mr.Rajesh Sethi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the landowners submitted that similar controversy arose before the Hon'ble Single Bench of this Court while deciding identical Regular Second Appeal bearing No.3603 of 2008 titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority and others vs.