Ranjit Singh, J.@mdashThe petitioners purchased two marlas plot from the farmers of Village Bhainsa Tibba in the year 1985-86. On 2.6.1999, the Government of Haryana issued a notification u/s 4 of the Land Acquisition Act proposing to acquire the land of the Village Bhainsa tibba, which included the land purchased by the petitioners, whereby they had constructed their houses. The purpose for this acquisition was for development work and for providing facility to the devotees of Shri Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Board, Panchkula. On 29.5.2000, a notification was issued and thus, the land was finally acquired.
2. The petitioners filed writ petition No. 7972 of 2000 before this court challenging the said acquisition. The matter was taken up for hearing on completion of the pleadings on 8.1.2002. The writ petition was disposed of on the statement made by the Advocate General appearing in the case, who gave an undertaking before, this Court that all the petitioners, who owned residential houses, would be given plots of almost similar size as acquired from them within the vicinity of the acquired land.
3. The petitioners have placed on record the site plans of their houses. These were constructed on two marlas of land Complying with the undertaking given before this Court, the respondent-Board issued letter on 23.11.2007 holding the petitioners eligible for allotment of two marlas alternative plots. The Petitioners accordingly, were allotted two marlas plots No. 1-P and 2-P comprising of area of one marla each in the draw of lots held on 2.4.2008: The petitioners were directed to take possession of two plots of one marla each respectively.
4. On 5.1.2009. the respondent-Board directed the petitioners to deposit the development charges of two marla plots held by them. The petitioners, accordingly, deposited the amount of Rs. 52,260/-, which was the charge for development of two marla plots. Similar amount was deposited by petitioner No. 2 on 3.1.2009. On 7.1.2009, the Board, however, without issuing any notice and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, cancelled the allotment of their plots and instead allotted one marla plot to each petitioner. The petitioners, thereafter, approached the respondents several times to make a grievance against the cancellation order, but have remained unsuccessful. The petitioners have, accordingly, filed the present writ petition to challenge the said order.
5. In response to the notice, the Board has filed reply. It is stated that one Jodh Kumar was owner of two plots measuring one marla. The Committee under the chairmanship of Chief Executive Officer Shri Mata Mansa Devi Shrine Board, Panchkula. found Sh. Jodh Kumar provisionally eligible on certain terms and conditions, which were accepted by him and he was allotted two plots adjoining staff colony. The Committee subsequently reviewed the decision on 5.11.2008 and had decided to allot one marla plot. Sh. Jodh Kumar died on 15.7.2008. Petitioner No. 2 submitted an application for transferring the plot in her name. Public notice was issued invited objections. Petitioner No. 2 has stately not vacated the acquired land.
6. On merit, the stand of the respondent-Board is reflected in para 13 of the reply. It is pointed out that the Chief Minister Haryana-cum-Chairman constituted a Committee for rehabilitation under the chairmanship of Chief Executive Officer for assessing the eligibility framing terms and conditions, allotment and decide each and every aspect involved. As per the orders, the Committee assessed the eligibility of the petitioners and had decided the cases. The petitioners were also, offered allotment on certain terms and conditions. Apart from this, nothing more is stated in the reply to justify the action taken which is impugned in the writ petition.
7. No justification is forthcoming as regards cancellation of two marlas plot after having been allotted and even after accepting the development charges. The respondent-Board has apparently backed out from the undertaking, which was given on its behalf by none other than the Advocate General of the State. There being no apparent justification in this regard, counsel appearing for the Board was offered more than one opportunity to seek instructions from the respondent-Board. If it would like to stand bye the under taking given before this Court and provide plots of almost similar size to the petitioners. Counsel for the Board sought more than one adjournment, but Ultimately, could not either come out with any justification to adopt a fair stand. This Court noticed in its order dated 13.1.2011 that no reasons are forthcoming or given by the State counsel as to why allotment of the two marlas plots was cancelled, even after accepting the development charges. It was noticed that this is not a case where there is some paucity of land for which this decision might have been taken. It was, accordingly, considered that if the land is still available and reasons for cancellation are not forthcoming, the action would sound arbitrary and discriminatory. An another opportunity was still granted to the counsel to have instructions if the petitioners could be allowed to have those plots, which were initially allotted to them. The Court is not made wise in any manner by the attitude adopted by the Board. In fact, it would reflect that there is no valid reason available with the Board to cancel the two marlas plots, which were initially allotted to the petitioners. This action is, thus, seen as totally arbitrary and discriminatory. If there had been any justification in this regard, same would have been disclosed before the court on various occasions for which this case was adjourned.
8. I do not find any justification in the decision of the board to cancel the plots allotted to the petitioners. Since no reason has been provided in this regard, the action to cancel the plots cannot be sustained. The same is set aside. The petitioners shall be entitled to claim the allotment of two marlas plots as earlier allotted and to claim possession of the same. Since the order passed by the Board has been considered to be without any justifiable reason, the petitioners, who are poor persons, are entitled to costs of Rs. 10,000/-The petitioners shall not be dispossessed from their houses till they are not offered the possession of the plots allotted.
The writ petition is, accordingly, allowed.
