IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

221-I RA-RS-74-C-2015 in RSA-2795-2009 Date of decision :-12.03.2026 Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority Kaithal and others …..Appellants Versus Joginder Mohan …..Applicant-Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta, Advocate for the review applicant-respondent.

NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

RA-RS-74-C-2015 Prayer in the present application (RA-RS-74-C-2015) is for review of the order dated 06.9.2012, vide which the main appeal was disposed of by predecessor Bench of this Court, which reads as follows :-

“The suit filed by the plaintiff-respondent for mandatory injunction directing the defendants appellants to deliver free hold residential developed plot of 500 square yards, pursuant to their policy dated 18.3.1992, circulated vide memo No.2- 92/2082, was decreed by the trial court on 20.9.2007. The appeal preferred by the defendants- appellants was dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, on 26.3.2009. Feeling aggrieved, the defendants-appellants have come up before me in this regular second appeal.

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.”

Thereafter, the present review application was filed by learned counsel for the review applicant/respondent/plaintiff seeking review of the said order inter alia on the ground that notice was not issued to the review applicants prior to decide the second appeal, which was decided in limini; and also on the ground that others similarly situated had been allotted plots.

After hearing learned counsel for the review applicant/respondent, it is pointed out that the oustee issue stands settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.7.2025 in Civil Appeal No.7707 of 2025 titled as Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and others vs. Nirmala Devi, wherein it is held as follows :-

“xxx xxx xxx (ix) This litigation is an eye opener for all States in this country. If land is required for any public purpose law permits the Government or any instrumentality of Government to acquire in accordance with the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or any other State Act enacted for the purpose of acquisition. When land is acquired for any public purpose the person whose land is taken away is entitled to appropriate compensation in accordance with the settled principles of law. It is only in the rarest of the rare case that the Government may consider floating any scheme for rehabilitation of the displaced persons over and above paying them compensation in terms of money. At times the State Government with a view to appease its subjects float unnecessary schemes and ultimately land up in difficulties. It would unnecessarily give rise to number of litigations. The classic example is the one at hand. What we would like to convey is that it is not necessary that in all cases over and above compensation in terms of money, rehabilitation of the property owners is a must. Any beneficial measures taken by the Government should be guided only by humanitarian considerations of fairness and equity towards the landowners.

xxx xxx xxx”

In view of the above said undisputed position, the present review application stands disposed of in terms of the aforesaid judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Pending application(s), if any, shall stand(s) disposed of.

March 12, 2026 ( NIDHI GUPTA )

Vijay Asija JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes / No Whether Reporta