Back
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Maya Ram – Appellant
Versus
Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners seek individual plots under oustees policy (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. respondents oppose based on co-ownership policy (Para 3) |
| 3. court's observations on state's fairness and conduct (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 4. legal rights of co-sharers regarding plot allotment (Para 7 , 8) |
| 5. court's directive for individual plot allotment (Para 9) |
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 vi
Petitioners' failure to apply as per advertised process negates entitlement to oustee plot.
Contempt petitions must adhere to procedural guidelines established in previous rulings; failure to apply under designated schemes negates claims.
Process of applying the pick and choose policy and making allotments at the whims and fancies of the persons in power continued in the State.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
