NIDHI GUPTA J. (Oral)

CM-15641-C-2015

Prayer in the present application is for impleading the applicants, mentioned in para 3 of the application as legal representative(s) of the deceased/review applicant/respondent Ravinder Mohan, who is stated to be expired on 31.8.2014. In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, which is supported by an affidavit of the applicant-Anurag Lall, the same is allowed and the applicants, mentioned in para 3 of the application are hereby impleaded as legal representatives of the deceased/review applicant/respondent Ravinder Mohan subject to all just exceptions and for the purpose of this litigation alone. The Amended Memo of Parties as well as Power of Attorney on behalf of newly impleaded legal representatives of deceased/review applicant/respondent Ravinder Mohan, annexed with the application are taken on record. The Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place.

RA-RS-118-C-2015

Prayer in the present application 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 :-

“Assailed in this appeal is the judgment dated 26.3.2009 passed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, accepting the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the judgment and decree dated 27.3.2008 passed by the trial court, whereby the suit for mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff-respondent (oustee) directing the appellants-defendants 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 dismissed. 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 allottees had been allotted plots.

After hearing learned counsel for the review applicants/respondents, 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 class