JUDGMENT

Vikram Aggarwal, J.

The petitioners were owners of 114th share each of total land measuring 65 Kanals 8 marlas situated in Village Ratgal and Devdaspura, Tehsil Thanesher, District Kurukshetra (hereinafter referred to as 'the land in question'). They seek allotment of individual plots measuring 10 marlas each under the oustees policy, in terms of advertisement dated 07.01.2003 (Annexure P-lA) on account of compulsory acquisition of their land.

2. The land in question was acquired in the year 1992 and awards were passed in 1995. In 2003, vide Annexure P-lA advertisement was issued for allotment of plots. The petitioners applied individually for allotment of separate plots but were allotted only one 10 marla plot jointly. Initially, the petitioners approached the Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Panchkula which allowed their complaint vide order dated 11.09.2007 (Annexure P-6). However, this judgment was reversed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Panchkula vide judgment dated 08.02.2012 (Annexure P-7) primarily on the ground of territorial jurisdiction.

The petitioners then approached the District Consumer Redressal Forum at Kurukshetra but withdrew the complaint with liberty to challenge the action of the respondents before the Civil Court. The Civil Court also rejected the plaint, after which, the petitioners approached the Oustees Adalat of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) at Panchkula. Vide order dated 14.08.2019 (Annexure P-16), the claim of the petitioners was rejected. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners have knocked the doors of this Court.

3. The respondents have opposed the writ petition. They have placed reliance upon the policies dated 18.03.1992 and 12.03.1993 (Annexure R-1) as per which, co-owners would be allotted only one plot. Reliance has also been placed upon various judgments and the policies dated 11.08.2016 and 08.05.2018 and have averred that no individual plots can be allotted to the petitioners.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

5. It is sad that the petitioners have been running from pillar to post for the last 30 years seeking plots in lieu of their land which was compulsorily acquired by the State. It speaks volumes about the conduct of the State. It does not, in any manner, show fairness in its action. The State has deliberately denied the benefit of individual plots to the petitioners despite law having been settled by this Court in the Full Bench judgment titled as 'Rajiv Manchanda and others v. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another' 2018(2) PLR 422.

6. Admittedly, the total land of which the petitioners were co-owners in equal shares was 65 Kanals 8 marlas. The petitioners, therefore, individually were owners of more than 16 kanals of land. As per the policy dated 18.03.1992 (Annexure R-1), an owner who was having land of more than one acre or above could be allotted a plot of 500 sq. yds. and where 500 sq. yds. were not available, he was entitled to two plots of 250 sq. yds. each. If the land of the owner was between 500 sq. yds. and one acre, he was entitled to a plot measuring 250 sq. yds. As per Clause III, all co-owners would be entitled to individual plots. The petitioners, despite being eligible for 500 sq. yds. of land each applied only for 250 sq. yds. of land each. Their receipts are on record as Annexure P-2 (colly). The State, however, allotted a 10 marla plot (250 sq. yds.) jointly to all the petitioners vide allotment letter dated 12.07.2006 (Annexure P-3). They were relying upon the notification dated 12.03.1993 (Annexure R-1) wherein it had been laid