Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

J.B. Pardiwala, J.

For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the following parts: -

INDEX*

A. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION ............................................ 5

i. Few Salient Features of the Policy of 1992 ....................... 15

ii. Institution of the Suits under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for seeking Mandatory Injunction for Enforcement of The Policy. ........................................... 25

iii. Impugned Judgment of the High Court ....................... 32

iv. Filing of the Special Leave Petitions before this Court 36

* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.

p. 783

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

B. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES ......................................... 37

i. Submissions on behalf of the Appellants ................... 37

ii. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents ............... 46

C. ANALYSIS ............................................................................... 49

i. Dictum as laid by this Court in Brij Mohan (Supra) and the Ratio Decidendi ................................................. 53

a. Wambaugh’s Test / Inversion Test ............................. 57

b. Halsbury’s Test ........................................................... 58

c. Goodhart’s Test .......................................................... 60

ii. Maintainability of the Suit filed under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for seeking Mandatory Injunction for Enforcement of the Obligations in terms of the Scheme of 1992 ................................................... 63

a. Conditions for granting a Mandatory Injunction .......... 66

D. CONCLUSION ......................................................................... 84

1. Delay condoned in Diary No. 9756 of 2017. Leave granted in all the Special Leave Petitions.

2. Since the issues involved in all the captioned appeals are same and the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.

3. This batch of appeals arises from a common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 12.08.2016 by which the Second Appeals filed by the appellant herein came to be dismissed, affirming the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court affirming the decrees passed by the trial court in favour of the respondents herein.

p. 784

A. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION

4. Our order dated 05.03.2025 by itself would give more than a fair idea as regards the history of this litigation and the issues involved in the matter. Our order dated 5.03.2025 reads thus:

“ ORDER

1. We heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the Haryana Urban Development Authority i.e. the petitioners – herein and the learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents in each of the petitions before us.

2. Having heard the matter for quite some time, we have been able to understand the controversy involved in this litigation. What we have been able to understand prima facie is that in the State of Haryana, there is a very unusual policy with respect to land acquisition. If the Government wants to acquire land for public purpose, it proceeds in accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act. However, it has its own policy of even providing alternate plots of land to the oustees. It all started in the year 1989 with the issue of Notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act. In 1990, the Section 6 Notification came to be issued. In the year 1992, the awards were passed.

3. We were taken through the relevant features of the policy relating to allotment of residential plots/commercial sites to the oustees. The same is at Annexure ‘P1’ in the first matter before us.

4. Thereafter, we were taken through the various pleadings in the plaint which is at Annexure ‘P6’.

5. Prima facie, it appears that the suits filed by the individuals/oustees are one invoking Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.

6. We also take notice of the fact that in some of the cases, the Trial Court dismissed the Suits whereas few came to be allowed.

p. 785

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

7. However, the fact is that all these petitions arise from a common Judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing in all 27 Second Appeals.

8. Today, Ms. Bhati, the learned Additional Solicitor General invited our attention to the order passed by this Court dated 8-5-2017, the same reads thus:- “Delay condoned Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner will abide by the policy framed on 11.08.2016 and every eligible oustee will be accommodated according to the said Policy. Issue notice restricted to the question of correctness of the general direction made by the High Court in granting allotments to all claimants who may not be similarly situated. In the meantime, there shall be stay of execution.”

9. The plain reading of the aforesaid order would indicate that at the relevant point of time, a statement was made on behalf of the Authority that they were ready and willing to consider the claims of the oustees in accordance with the policy of 2016.

10. Therefore, this Court thought fit to issue notice limited to the general direction which has been issued by the High Court in its impugned judgment and order, referred to above. To the aforesaid, there is a strong objection at the end of the learned counsel appearing for the individual oustees. Their claim is that they are entitled to the benefit of the Policy of 1992 and not 2016.

11. To a very specific question put to them as to why they are objecting to the Policy of 2016, the reply was that the rates have been increased over a period of years. They want allotment at the rate which were prevalent in accordance with 1992 policy and not in accordance with 2016 policy. This aspect will have to be looked into.

12. Ms. Bhati put forward three contentions. First, all those oustees who had actually not applied in accordance with

p. 786

the policy prevalent at the relevant point of time, could not have instituted the suits invoking Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. According to Ms. Bhati, such suits by itself were not maintainable.

13. Her second contention is that each co-sharer is not entitled to individual plots and the third contention is with regard to limitation.

14. Before we proceed to hear these matters finally, we want the following information to be placed on record for better and effective determination of the issues falling for our consideration:- (i) in how many cases before us, the concerned outstee(s) had not applied at all; (ii) How many had actually applied; (iii) the fine distinguishing features between the policy of 1992 and 2016 respectively; (iv) how many suits were allowed, whereas how many were dismissed by the Trial Court.

15. We would also request Ms. Bhati, the learned ASG to make us understand the purport of the judgment delivered by this Court in “Brij Mohan and Others vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. (2011) 2 SCC 29 (Civil Appeal No.1 of 2011), decided on 3-1-2011.

16. In the last paragraph of the impugned order passed by the High Court, we find reference of Udai Singh’s case. It appears that the entire impugned judgment is based on the ratio of Udai Singh’s case.

17. We are informed that Udai Singh’s Judgment was carried to this Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) Nos.8766-8767/2023 which came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 24-11- 2025.

18. We would also like to know from Ms. Bhati whether the High Court was justified in relying on the dictum as laid in the Udai Singh’s case.

p. 787

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

19. Let the aforesaid information come on record by way of an affidavit. 20. Post these matters on 25-3-2025 as Item No.1 to be treated as Part-heard.”

5. In pursuance of our order dated 5.03.2025 referred to above, the appellant through its Estate Officer has filed an additional affidavit answering the four specific questions put by us.

6. To the first two questions put by us, the reply of the appellant is as under: “(i & ii) In reply to the information as sought for in para 14(i)(ii) of the order dated 05.03.2025, it is submitted that from the subsequent paras it is evident that any of the respondent did not submit application as per the specific format provided in brochure issued seeking allotment of plot under Oustees quota and further failed to pay 10% of the earnest money as mentioned over there. Therefore, it cannot be said any of the concerned oustees had applied seeking allotment of plot under Oustees quota as per the brochure issued by the petitioner authority inviting applications for an allotment of plot. It is submitted that as per condition of the brochure issued by the petitioner authority the application shall be deemed to be valid only in those cases where the application so submitted are accompanied by earnest money. In present case any of the respondent has not submitted the earnest money with the application if any so submitted. iv.) In respect to para 14(iv) of the order it is submitted that in total 30 civil suit instituted (26 in respect to impugned order dated 12.08.2016), (3 in respect to impugned order dated 30.07.2019) & (1 in respect to impugned order dated 07.01.2016) by the respondents and out of 30 civil suits, 12 civil suits were dismissed and 18 civil suits decreed by the Ld. Civil Judge. A chart in respect to each suit dismissed/decreed has been annexed with this additional affidavit.

xxx xxx xxx

p. 788

28. I say and submit that under all the policies framed by petitioner HDUA from time to time and amended the requirement of the public notice/advertisement to be issued inviting applications from the interested persons including the oustees and the applications are to be submitted in the prescribed format along with earnest money and terms and conditions of the brochure so issued the application shall be deemed to be valid application if the same has been submitted with earnest money.

xxx xxx xxx

29. I say and submit that when the applications have not been submitted in the prescribed format that to without the earnest money therefore the respondents are not entitled for any relief and it will amount to wind full gain if the respondent to have been fully compensated in accordance with statutory scheme for the land acquired for public purpose by the state if despite have not paid a single penny if they are giving their plot as per the 1992 rates.”

7. As regards the distinguishing features between the Policy of 1992 and the revised Policy of 2016 respectively, the appellant has explained the same in the following manner: “DISTINGUISHING FEATURES BETWEEN THE POLICY OF 1992 AND POLICY OF 2016 Terms and conditions of Terms and conditions Modifications done in Policy dated policy dated 01.08.2016 of Policy dated 18.03.1992 as modified on 11.08.2018 08.05.2018 VI) Claims of the oustees for allotment of plots under this policy shall be invited by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority concerned before the sector is floated for sale.

p. 789

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

2. An oustee shall be 2. An oustee shall be entitled to seek allotment entitled to seek allotment of plot in the same sector of plot in the same sector for which land has been for which land has been acquired for residential/ acquired for residential/ commercial purpose. commercial purpose and However, where the land in case the plots are not has only been acquired available in the same for any non-residential sector for which land purpose such as industrial has been acquired for institutional group residential/commercial housing sites, completely purpose, then such an commercial sector etc. oustee may also be then such an oustee considered for allotment shall be entitled to seek in an adjoining sector allotment of plot in the except where the land adjoining sector. Adjoining was acquired prior sector for this purpose to 10.09.1987. Where shall mean the sector with the land has only been boundaries abutting to the acquired for any non- said sector. Where there residential purpose such are more than one sector as industrial, institutional, adjoining to the sector Group Housing sites and for which land has been completely commercial acquired in that case an sector etc. then such an oustee shall be entitled oustee shall be entitled to make an application to seek allotment of plot in any one sector of his in an adjoining sector. choice. However, where Adjoining sector for this any such application is purpose shall mean any made in more than one sector where boundary sector then only his one abuts that of the said application in any such sector. However, if no sector at the discretion plot is available for one of the HUDA Authority or more oustees in any shall be considered and of the adjoining sectors, earnest money in respect then a sector adjoining of other applications to any of the original and shall automatically stand adjoining sectors, may be forfeited and no claim for considered for purpose such forfeiture shall lie of allotment of plots. An in future. oustee shall be free to apply for allotment of an ouste quota plot in one, more or all the adjoining sectors. It is clarified that once any of these applications is successful all remaining applications shall be automatically assumed to have been cancelled.

p. 790

3. The application of 3. The application an oustee shall be of an oustee shall be considered against considered against the plots determined the plots determine under oustees quota under oustee quota as per the instruction as per the instruction issued vide memo issued vide Memo No. no. UB-A-62016/2213 UB-A-6-2016/2213 dated 04.121.2015. The dated 04.12.2015. The number of plots shall percentage of plots shall be determined on basis be determined on the of total available plots basis of plots in a sector advertised. and it shall be ensured that number of plots allotted under all the reserved categories shall not exceed maximum limit of 50% of the plots in a sector. The charge in number of plots in a sector subsequently should be taken into account for determining the reservation of oustees quota plots.

4. An oustee shall have the right to make such application only till the plots are available for oustees in the sector as per condition no. 2 and 3 above. i) Plots to the 6. An oustee should have been the owner of the land oustees would be offered as on the date when the if the land proposed to notification under Sec. 4 be acquired is under the of the Land Acquisition ownership of oustees prior Act, 1894 is issued. Any to the publication of the subsequent purchaser of notification under section land after said notification 4 of the Land Acquisition has been issued will Act and if 75% of more of not be entitled to make the total land owned by the such application. Any land owners in that sector application made by such is acquired. purchaser shall entail automatic rejection of application and forfeiture o f e a r n e s t m o n e y. However, the forfeiture of earnest money will be

table as extracted; see Source PDF

p. 791

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

done only after giving opportunity of hearing to the defaulting applicant.

7. An oustee shall be eligible to make such application only if 75% or more of his total land in the concerned revenue estate is acquired. For this purpose, the total land to be considered for such determination will mean the land comprised in the same revenue Estate(s) where the concerned sector is situated. iii) The above policy shall 8. The eligibility of each also apply in case there co-sharer for allotment of are a number of co-sharers plot under oustees quota of the land which has been shall be determined on acquired. If the acquired the basis of his individual land measures more holding i.e. each co- than one acre. Then for sharer will be entitled to the purpose of granting seek allotment of plot on benefits under this policy, basis of his own individual the determining factor holding. should be the area owned by each co sharer respectively as per his her share in the joint holding. In case the acquired land of the co sharer is less than one acre, only one plot of 250 sqd would be allotted in the joint name of the co sharers. (Amended vide Memo No.A-11P-93/7996-8013 dated 12.03.1993 as under:

2. Benefit under oustees policy shall be restricted to one plot according to the size of the holding irrespective of the number of co-sharers.

p. 792

v i i ) T h e c o m m e r c i a l 10. No commercial site sites/building are sold by will be allotted to the auction. The sites/buildings oustees be also allotted to oustees on reserve price as and when the auction of the same is held. While putting such sites/buildings to public auction, the oustees who want to purchase the sites /buildings could represent before hand for them. However, if the area acquired of the commercial site is equivalent or less to the area of booth shop cum flat being auctioned by HUDA they may be given a booth /SCO sites keeping in view the size of acquisition under this policy. (Amended vide Memo No.A- 11P-98/24402-22 Dated: 28.08.1998.)

table as extracted; see Source PDF

13. A co-sharer in the land will not be eligible to claim allotment of plot if he had given a no objection certificate in favour of his co-sharer and on account of submission of such no objection certificate a plot was allotted to such co-sharer in any previous floatation of plots for oustees. v) As per the policy the 14. An o ustee who has oustees shall be entitled already been allotted a to a developed plot/plots, plot under the oustees the size of which would policy on any previous depend upon the area of occasion as a co-sharer his acquired land subject shall not be entitled to to a maximum of 500 stake claim for allotment syd. The oustee shall of plot under oustees be entitled to this benefit quota. under this policy only once in the same town where the land of a person situated / located. However, in cases

p. 793

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

where the land of a person situated in the same town is acquired in pockets at different times. The owner shall be entitled to claim the benefit on account of the entire area acquired at different times for purposes of claiming the benefit under this policy.

15. An oustee who has In Clause 15 of the made an application for guidelines, following allotment of plot under clause may be added oustees policy on any 15(a). Where an previous occasion and application is made said application either by an oustee in an is pending for decision advertisement issued or was rejected on any afresh, the price of plot ground and said rejection that may be charged from order was impugned him if he is successful in before any Court of law draw of lots out of plots or authority or forum of reserved for oustees any nature and matter shall be the rate as has been remanded advertised in a new back to the authority for advertisement in cases fresh decision shall be where the allotment of informed of the decision plot could not be effected in Bhagwan Singh’s case despite determination and Sandeep’s case and of his eligibility, the may also be advised to prevalent price at the apply for allotment of plot time of application by the in fresh advertisement oustee in pursuance to which will be issued an advertisement may be after determination of charged alongwith simple reservation and their interest @ 11% per annum earnest money may till date. It is clarified that be refunded along eligibility for the purpose with interest @ 55% as aforesaid shall be per annum from date treated as determine only of deposit till date of when Sachin completed payment. However, where and satisfied all the litigation is pending then formalities/conditions as the court of law authority per the applicable policy. or forum where it is pending may be informed of the aforesaid decision and efforts may be made to get the litigation disposed of in terms specified herein.

p. 794

16. The applications of the oustees as received shall be put in draw of lots and eligibility of only those oustees who are successful in draw of lots shall be determined. Mere submission of such application or success in draw of lots shall not create any vested right for such allotment as eligibility will be determined only after oustee is declared successful in draw of lots.

17. The list of applicants shall be compiled within a period of 15 days of closing of the scheme and draw shall be held within a period of 30 days of closing of scheme for advertised plots. The eligibility of the oustees who are successful in draw of lots shall be determined within a further of if any outstay who is declared as successful in draw of Lords is found in eligible as per policy then his draw shall be cancelled the plot which will become available on account of such cancellation of draw me again be put to draw of lots out of remaining out these who were earlier and unsuccessful in the same bro the earnest money of successful applicants may be refunded their after no inter shell be payable on the said amount if it is a refunded within a. of from closing of 1226 - HSVP policies and structures the scheme otherwise interest @ 55% per annum may be paid on earnest money after expiry of 6 months till date of payment.

p. 795

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

8. So far as the fourth question is concerned as to how many suits were allowed and how many came to be dismissed, the information provided by the appellant is as under: “iv.) In respect to para 14(iv) of the order it is submitted that in total 30 civil suit instituted (26 in respect to impugned order dated 12.08.2016), (3 in respect to impugned order dated 30.07.2019) & (1 in respect to impugned order dated 07.01.2016) by the respondents and out of 30 civil suits, 12 civil suits were dismissed and 18 civil suits decreed by the Ld. Civil Judge. A chart in respect to each suit dismissed/ decreed has been annexed with this additional affidavit.” (emphasis supplied)

i. Few Salient Features of the Policy of 1992

9. Although we have given a fair idea as regards the distinguishing features of the Policy of 1992 and the Policy of 2016 as modified in 2018 referred to above, we are of the view that for better and effective adjudication of the issue in question we must highlight few salient features of the Policy of 1992. The salient features of the Policy of 1992 and in what manner the oustees were expected to apply for the plot in accordance with the policy, has been highlighted by the appellant in its written submissions as under:

“ISSUANCE OF BROCHURE/ADVERTISEMENT FOR INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR ALLOTMENT OF PLOT UNDER OUSTEES QUOTA (i) BROCHURE/ADVERTISEMENT DATED 01.10.1992 The Petitioner Authority issued a brochure on 01.10.1992 for a free hold residential plot in Sector 19 Part – II and Sector 20 in Kaithal. The salient features are: (i) The application is to be addressed to the Estate Officer, HUDA as: “To The Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kurukshetra

p. 796

Dear Sir, I/we request that I/WE may be allotted a residential site as stated on reverse side in Sector 19(Part ii) & Sector 20. I/ We agree to conform to abide by the terms and conditions as contained in the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 and in the rules and Regulations applications thereunder. I/we own no residential plot/house in my / our name(s) or in the name(s) of my/our dependent family/ member(s)/spouse in Kaithal Urban Estate if applying under General Category or any Urban Estate of Haryana if applying under any Gender Category or any Urban Estate of Haryana if applying under any Reserve Category. Yours faithfully, Signature of Applicant(s)” (ii) Terms and conditions for the allotment of Residential Plot: “1(i) Only such applications shall be deemed to be valid as are accompanied by specified earnest money equivalent to 10% of the tentative sale price in the form of cash receipt/ demand draft in favour of the Estate Officer, Kurukshetra drawn at the place at which the application is deposited. However, Earnest Money shall not be accepted in cash by the Estate Officer, Kurukshetra, Bank branches will accept cash also. (iii) The application form to be submitted was serial no. ed and the price of PRICE RS. 5/- AT THE COUNTER Rs. 15/- by Registered Post. Indian Postal Orders are not accepted. No responsibility of postal delay. (iv) The last date for receipt of application is 01.10.1992.

(ii) BROCHURE/ADVERTISEMENT DATED 22.12.1999 The salient features are: (i) there is prescribed application with serial no. seeking allotment of residential plot.

p. 797

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

(ii) The application is to be addressed in the prescribed format to the Estate Officer, HUDA. (iii) Terms and Conditions: “1(i) Only such applications shall be deemed to be valid as are accompanied by specified earnest money equivalent to 10% of the tentative sale price in the form of a cash receipt/demand draft in favour of the concerned Estate Officer, HUDA drawn at the place at which the application is deposited. However, earnest money shall not be accepted in cash by the concerned Estate Officer, HUDA Bank branches will accept cash also.

3. The price is tentative to the extent that any enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the Competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable proportionately, as determined by the Authority, within 30 days or in such specified period of its demand.

OTHER NOTES:

1. No interest shall be payable on the money for the applicant for the period for which the same remains lying with the authority.

3. An application without the prescribed earnest money shall not be entertained and is liable to be rejected outright.

4. The applicants under the reserved categories shall not be eligible without the requisite certificates/documents.

xxx xxx xxx

6. Affidavit, wherever required, shall be furnished on judicial stamp paper worth Rs. 3/- duly attested by a Magistrate 1st Class/Executive Magistrate.

7. Allotment of plots and all matters connected therewith shall be governed by the provisions contained in the HUDA Act and Rules /Regulations framed thereunder as amended from time to time.

p. 798

8. Dispute if any regarding allotment related matters should be settled within the jurisdiction of the concerned Estate Officer, HUDA.” The price of the brochure mentioned as Rs. 20.00

(iii) PUBLIC NOTICE / ADVERTISEMENT DATED 13.03.2025 (i) Oustees to apply alongwith application money Rs. 50,000/- for the concerned sector. (ii) the claims of the oustees will be decided in terms of the policy dated 11.08.2016 and 08.05.2018. (iii) The terms and conditions available on HSVP website.

1. Any land owner whose land is acquired prior to 10.09.1987 by Urban Estate Department are not eligible against the advertisement at hand for which separate advertisement has been issued.

3. As held by Hon’ble High Court in Rajiv Manchanda’s case (supra), the policy applicable to an oustee is the one which is in force when an application is made pursuant to an advertisement issued by HUDA and in pursuance of which the plot is allotted. Therefore, for deciding the claims of oustees the applicable policy would be policy dated 04.12.2015, 11.08.2016 and 08.05.2018 as per which only the entitlement and eligibility shall be decided.

4. the allotment shall be made on the current reserve price mentioned in the table attached and in case finalization of allotment takes time, for any reason in that eventuality bank rate of interest be charged till the date of allotment on the rate mentioned in the advertisement. (v) It is pertinent to mention here that in regard to advertisement dated 13.03.2025 number of oustees have already applied online paying Rs. 50,000.00.

p. 799

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

(vi) That earlier as per advertisement, the closing date was 31.03.2025 and now the same has been extended to 31.05.2025. (vii) It is submitted that from the above, it is evident that there is a prescribed form of application with serial no. and the same is to be submitted with earnest money. (True copies of the advertisement dated 01.10.1992, 22.12.1999 and public notice dated 13.03.2025 are being annexed marked as ANNEXURE A-7, Pg. 68-82.) (viii) At the outset it is submitted that in regard to advertisement/brochure dated 01.10.1992 and 22.12.1999 any of the respondents did not submit any application as per prescribed format and even did not deposit the earnest money. Therefore, any application submitted by any of the respondents not in the prescribed form with earnest money cannot said to be submission of application and once they failed to comply with the mandatory condition of the policy/advertisement cannot claim entitlement of a plot under oustee policy.”

10. In addition to the aforesaid, the appellant has narrated the following facts as regards the applicability of the policy etc. The same reads thus: “The Petitioner Authority introduced a scheme whereby a plot is offered to the oustees whose land has been acquired. Size of the plot is decided as per criteria and the area of land acquired. The person whose land has been acquired may apply to the Estate Officer, concerned as and when oustees claim for sector are invited along with copy of Award, Nakaljamabi or registry as the case may be alongwith 10 % earnest money. (i) It is submitted that the petitioner Authority from time to time issued policies for the allotment of residential plots/ commercial sites to the land owners those have become oustees due to acquisition of their respective land. The relevant oustees policies in regard to the present batch of SLP’s are as under:

p. 800

Petitioner-HUDA vide Memo No. A-2-92/2076 dated 18.03.1992 (policy) decided to offer a plot to the Oustees in case where the land has been acquired (P-1 Pg. 31-33 with SLP No. 15148 of 2017 Paper Book). The relevant terms and conditions as mentioned in the said policy are as under: (i) Plots to the oustees would be offered if the land proposed to be acquired is under the ownership of oustees prior to the publication of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and if 75 % or more of the total land owned by the Landowners in that sector is acquired. (ii) Oustees whose land acquired is: (a) Less than 500 sq. yards would be offered a plot of 50 sq. yards. (b) Between 500 sq. yds. And one acre would be offered a plot of 250 sq. yds. (c) From 1 acre and above would be offered a plot of 500 sq. yds where 500 or where 500 sq. yds. Plots are not provided in the layout plan two plots of 250 sq. yds. Each may be given. (iii) The above policy shall also apply in case there are no. of co-sharers of the land which has been acquired. If the acquired land measures more than one acre. Then for the purpose of granting benefits under this policy, the determining factor should be the area owned by each co-sharer respectively as per his/her share in the joint holding. In case the acquired land of the co-sharer is less than one acre, only one plot of 250 yds. Would be allotted in the joint name of the co-sharers. (vi) Allotment of plots to the oustees will be made at the allotment rate advertised by the Haryana Urban Development Authority for that sector, Land owners will be given compensation for their land which is acquired. (vii) Claim of the oustees for allotment of plots under this Policy shall be invited by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority concerned before the Sector is floated for sale.

p. 801

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

(viii) … (A true copy of Memo dated 18.03.1992 is annexed herewith marked as ANNEXURE A-1, PG. 46-48) (ii) It is submitted that the Petitioner Authority in its 55th meeting held on 29.01.1993 approved the procedure for inviting, scrutinizing and finally accepting the claims of oustees and further modified the earlier policy dated 18.03.1992 on 12.03.1993 (P-3 Pg. 40-41) to the effect that (i) Benefit under the policy is not to be allowed to those oustees who have got residential/commercial plot from HUDA in the urban estate. (ii) Benefit shall be restricted to one plot according to the size of the holding irrespective of the no. of co-sharers. (A true copy of memo dated 12.03.1993 is annexed herewith marked as ANNEXURE A-2, pg. 49-50.) (iii) It is submitted that after passing of the judgment by the Hon’ble High Court in the case of HUDA v. Sandeep Kumar, during the pendency of the SLP’s issued a Memo dated 11.08.2016, i.e., another policy called as Policy of 2016. (iv) In the said memo it was specifically mentioned that the judgment dated 25.04.2012 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in LPA No. 2096 of 2011 titled as HUDA v. Sandeep has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide order dated 06.03.2014 passed in SLP © No. 27256 of 2012 titled as HUDA v. Sandeep whereby the special leave petition has been dismissed and as such the order passed by the Hon’ble High Court has been affirmed. (v) It is submitted that in order to ensure the implementation of the directions as issued in the case of Sandeep Kumar (supra) by the Hon’ble High Court and to ensure settlement of the oustees claim the Memo dated 11.08.2016 was issued. The relevant salient features of the said memo dated 11.08.2016(Policy of 2016) are as follows:

1. An oustee shall have to submit an application for allotment of plot under the oustees quota alongwith earnest

p. 802

money in pursuance of advertisement inviting claim for such allotment.

2. … (amended subsequently vide memo dated 08.05.2018)

3. …(amended subsequently vide memo dated 08.05.2018)

5. The allotment of plot to the oustees will be made through draw of lots.

6. And oustee should have been the owner of the land as on the date when the notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is issued. Any subsequent purchase of land after said notification has been issued will not be entitled to make such application. Any application made by such purchaser shall entail automatic rejection of application and for feature of earnest money. However, the forfeiture of earnest money will be done only after giving opportunity of hearing to the defaulting applicant.

8. The eligibility of each co-sharer for allotment of plot under oustee quota shall be determined on the basis of his individual holding each co-sharer will be entitled to seek allotment of plot on basis of his own individual holding.

12. An oustee who has already got the benefit of allotment of plot from Haryana Urban Development Authority in any reserved category including under oustee policy shall not be eligible to seek allotment of plot under oustee quota.

13. A co-sharer in the land will not be eligible to claim allotment of plot if he had given a no objection certificate in favour of his co-sharer and on account of submission of such no objection certificate, a plot was allotted to such co-sharer in any previous flotation of plots for oustees

p. 803

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

14. An oustee who has already been allotted a plot under the oustees policy on any previous occasion as a co-sharer and shall not be entitled to stake claim for allotment of plot under oustees quota.

15. … (amended subsequently vide memo dated 08.05.2018)

16. The applications of the oustees as received shall be put in draw of lots and eligibility of only those oustees who are successful in draw of lots shall be determined. Mere submission of such application or success in draw of lots shall not create any vested right for such allotment as eligibility will be determined only after oustee is declared successful in draw of lots.

18. … (A true copy of memo dated 11.08.2016 is annexed herewith marked as ANNEXURE A-3, PG. 51-57) (vi) It is submitted that the policy dated 11.08.2016 was clarified vide Memo dated 08.11.2016. (A true copy of memo dated 08.11.2016 is annexed herewith marked as ANNEXURE A-4 PG. 58-59. (vii) It is submitted that the said policy dated 11.08.2016 was amended vide Memo dated 08.05.2018 where clause 2, 3, 11 and 15 of the guidelines dated 11.08.2016 amended and clause 19 was added. A true copy of memo dated 08.05.2018 is annexed herewith marked as ANNEXURE A-5 PG. 60-64. (viii)It is submitted that the petitioner authority has already filed a comparative chart distinguishing the policies of 1992 and 2016 as asked for by this Hon’ble Court in Para 14(iii) of its order dated 05.03.2025 with the additional affidavit filed on 25.03.2018 (A-2, pg 29-31 with the additional affidavit), however, another copy of being annexed herewith marked as Annexure A-6 pg. 65-67. (ix) It is submitted that a bunch of special leave petition listed for hearing on 08.05.2017 and the Hon’ble court pleased to pass the order as:

p. 804

“Delay condoned. Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner will abide by the Policy framed on 11.08.2016 and every eligible oustee will be accommodated according to the said policy. Issue notice restricted to the question of correctness of the general direction made by the High Court in granting allotments to all claimants who may not be similarly situated. In the meantime, there shall be stay of execution.” (x) It is submitted that the said policy dated 11.08.2016 was formulated in view of the directions issued by the Hon’ble Court in the case of Sandeep Kumar and even the advertisement of public notice issued in 2025 inviting the applications for allotment of plots is also based on the policy dated 11.08.2016. (xi) It is submitted that even in the judgment dated 22.11.2017 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Manchanda vs. HUDA 2018 (2) PLR 422 there was issue in regard to the policy dated 11.08.2016. The said question NO. 14 is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “Whether the policy dated 11.08.2016 or any part of the thereof is illegal? (xii) It is submitted that the Hon’ble High court while passing the judgment dated 21.11.2017 dealt with all the clauses of the policy dated 11.08.2016 and upheld the same. (xiii) It is submitted that in the case of HUDA vs. Sandeep Kumar & Ors. the Hon’ble High court while answering question No. 3 arrived at the finding that the condition for allotment of a plot for the reason that 75% of the land has been acquired cannot be said to be unjustified and the landowner is the owner of the remaining land, the policy makers has found as a part of rehabilitation process and it to the object of rehabilitate.

p. 805

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

(xiv) It is submitted that in regard to applicability of the oustees policy, the Hon’ble High court in the case of Rajiv Manchanda vs. HUDA passed in Writ Petition No. 22252 of 2016 in Para 72 held that the policy applicable to an oustee is 1 which is in force when an application is made pursuant to an advertisement issued by HUDA and in pursuance to which the plot is allotted. In present case, the respondents have not submitted the applications seeking allotment of plot and the latest advertisement in 2025 has been issued where it has been mentioned that the policy dated 11.08.2016 will be applicable, therefore, in the case of respondents also the said policy will be applicable.”

ii. Institution of the Suits under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for seeking Mandatory Injunction for Enforcement of The Policy.

11. It appears from the materials on record that suits were instituted with almost stereotyped plaints. One such plaint of Suit No. 538 of 2007 instituted by one Smt. Nirmala Devi w/o Shishpal Verma r/o Kaithal reads thus:

“Suit For Mandatory Injunction It is submitted as under:

1. The plaintiff was the absolute owner in possession of the land measuring 225 sq. yards being 15/1518 share out of the total land mesuring 37 kanal 19 Marla comprised in Khewat no. 416 mn, khatoni No. 549 min, Rect. No. 117, Killa No. 6/2, 11, 12, 13/1, 13/2, 14/1, 14/2/1, 15/1 situated within the revenue estate of Patti Kaiseth seth Kaithal vide regd sale deed no. 2629/1 dated 21/9/89.

2. Hereinafter the land fully detailed and described in para no. 1 of the plaint shall be called the suit land for the aske of the brevity.

3. That the suit land is situate within the Municipla limits of Kaithal Distt kaithal.

p. 806

4. That total land of plaintiff i.e. suit land fully mentioned in para no. 1 of the plaint has been acquired by defendants for the purose of devleopment of sector 19 & 20 of HUDA Kaithal as residential sector and plaitiff is not having any other land in sector 19 & 20 HUDA Kaithal.

5. That the plaintiff has been totally ousted from the suit land.

6. That the suit land has been acquired in the year 1992 by defendants for the purpose of developmnet of sector 19 & 20 of HUDA, Kaithal as residential sector.

7. That there is policy of the defendant vide memo no. 2/92/2082 dated 18.03.1992 and vide advertisement of defendants for the allotment of freehold residential house at Kaithal.

8. That the policy dated 18.03.1992 vide memo no. 2/92/2082 is reproduced as under: i. The plots to the oustees would be offered in the land proposed to be acquired is under the ownership of oustees prior of the publication of the notification under section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, and if 75% of the total land owned by the land owner in that sector is acquired. ii. Oustees whose land acquired is: a. Less than 500 sq. yards should be offered a plot of 250 yards. b. Between 500 and one acre should be offered a plot of 250sq. yards. c. From one acre and above should be allotted a plot of 500 sq. yards or where 500 sq. yards plots are not provided to the layout plan, two plots of 250 sq. yards each may be given. iii. That the above said policy shgall be applied in case there area no. of cosharers of the land which has been acuired, if the acquired land measures more than one care then for the purose of granting benefit

p. 807

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

under the policy, the determing factor should be the area owned by the each cosharers respectively, as per his/her share in the joint holding. In case the acquired land of the cosharers is less than one acre only one plot of 250 sq. yards would be allotted in the joint name of cosharers. iv. That if the land of any landowner is released from acquisition, he would not be eligible to avail of any benefit under this policy (in respect of the area of land released). v. That as per the policy, the oustee shall be entitled to develop a plot/plots the size of which would depend upon area of his acquired land subject to a maximum of 500 sq. yards. The oustee shall be entitled to this benefit under this policy only one the same town where the land of a person is situated located. However, in case where the land of a person sitauted in the same town is acquired in pockets at different times, the owner shall be entitled to claim the beneift on account of the entire land acquired at differne times, for the purposes of claiming the benfits under this policy. vi. The claim of the oustees of allotment of plot under this policy shall be invited by the Estate Oficer, HUDA concerned before the sector is floated for sale vii. The commercial sites/buildings are sold by the auctions. The sites/buildings be also allotted to the oustees on reserved price, as and when the auction of the said is held. While puttingh such sites/ buildings to public auction to the oustees who wants to purchase the sites/building would represent before hand for them. However, if the area acquried of the commercial site is equivalent or less to the area of booth/shop cum flat being auctioned by HUDA, they may be given a booth/SCO site keeping in view the size of acqusition under this policy.

9. That the defendants have reserved the plot no. 175 to 200, of 500 sq. yards for the oustees in sector 20 HUDA

p. 808

Kaithal and plot nos. 930, 936, to 948, 778, 772 in sector 19(2) U/E Kaithal of 500 sq. yards for the oustees, and the plots, of 250 sq. yards bearing no. 10, 20, 30, 40 , 120 ,130, 150, 160, 170, 263, 273 , 283, 300, 344, 354, 364, 369, 406, 434, 438, 516 has been reserved for the oustees in sector 20.

10. That in the year 1992, the application were invited from the plaintiff for release of free holder presidential develop plots HUDA Kaithal. And the plainitff in accordance with the policy full detailed in para no. 7 of the plaint duly applied for the release of freehold residential develop plot vide regd. Notice dated 19.12.2006 and vide reg. dated 19.12.2006 which have been duly received by the defendants.

11. That the defendants have already allotted the plot to one Ravinder Parkash and one Kavinder Parkash sons of Manohar Lal Jain under the similar circumstances as that of the plaintiff and which Act of the defendants is totally discriminatory.

12. That the defendants in spite of submissions as stated above, failed to take any action for rerlease of ree hold residential develop plot.

13. That the defendants again invited the application from the plaintiff for release of free hold residential develop plot in Jan, 2000 and the plaintiff duly applied with all the formalities.

14. That the plaintiff in accordance with the policy and advertisement fully detailed and described above, applied to the defendants for release of ree hold residential develpo plots vide red. Notices stated above which was duly received by the defendants.

15. That the total land of the plaintiff is 225 sq. yds. has been acquired and the plaintiff is entitled to the plot of 50 sq. yard as per the policy dated 18.03.1992 on the reserved price of 1992.

16. The plaintiff is not goverened by the policy dated 12.03.1993.

p. 809

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

17. That the defendants are under legal obligations to allot the freehold residential plot of 50 sq. yard to the plaintiff as per the policy dated 18.03.1992 and for which the plaintiff represented the defendants many time as stated above, but defendants have failed to take any action and have finally refused and hence this suit.

18. That the cause of action has accrued to the plaintiff and against the defendants within the territorial jurisdiction on this learned court as therefore got the jurisdiction to entertain and try this suit.

19. That the value of the suit for the purposes of court fee and jurisdiction is Rs. 200/- and accordingly court fee is affixed.

20. That the plaintiff prays a decree for mandatory injection directing the defendants to deliver the free hold residential develop plot of 50 sq. yards as mentioned in Para no. 7 of the plaint be passed with costs in favour the plaintiff and against the defendants. Any other relief to which plaintiff is found entitled to may also be granted to him.”

12. By and large identical written statements were filed by the appellant herein as defendants. One such written statement filed in the above referred suit reads thus:

“ Written Statement on behalf of defendants. The defendants submit as under: Preliminary objections:

1. That the suit filed by the plaintiff is not maintainable in the eye of law. The plaintiff is not entitled to any plot as per oustees policies of HUDA.

2. That the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit in the Hon’ble court because he has not deposited 10 % earnest money along with his application which was mandatory to be deposited as per brochure issued by HUDA for inviting applications for allotment of residential

p. 810

plots to the landowners whose land was acquired for floating the HUDA sector. In one Writ Petition No. 13548 of 2001 the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana Chandigarh has held that such oustees who did not deposit the earnest money alongwith their application they have no legal right to claim allotment of plots and the rule of estoppels stands against them as they had waived the relinquished their right.

3. That the suit of the plaintiff is time barred. Reply on Merits:

1. That para no.1 of the plaint relates to description of land which is a matter of record. The plaintiff be directed to prove the alleged facts by cogent evidence.

2. That para no.2 of the plaint needs no reply.

3. That para no.3 of the plaint is wrong and denied. The plaintiff be directed to prove the alleged facts by cogent evidence.

4. That para no.4 of the plaint is wrong hence denied.

5. That para no.5 of the plaint is wrong and denied and not admitted to be correct.

6. That para no.6 of the plaint is a matter of record.

7. That para no.7 of the plaint is also a matter of record.

8. That para no.8 of plaint along with its sub clauses (i) to (vii) are matter of record, needs no reply.

9. That para no.9 of the plaint is also matter of record and needs no reply.

10. That para no.10 of the plaint is wrong and denied. The plaintiff did not deposit the earnest money along with his application, so he has no legal right to claim the allotment of plot and he had waived and relinquished his right.

11. That para no.11 of the plaint is wrong and denied. The case of the plaint is not similar as that of Ravinder Parkash mentioned in this para.

p. 811

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

12. That para no.12 of the plant is wrong and denied. The complete and detailed reply has already been given in above in pre objection same may kindly be read as part of reply of this para.

13. Para no.13 of the plant is wrong and denied.

14. That para no.14 of the plaint is wrong and denied. The plaintive has not deposited the 10% money with his application, so he has waived his right if any.

15. The para no.15 of the plaint is a matter of record. The plaintiff be directed to prove the alleged facts by cogent evidence.

16. Para no.16 of the plant is wrong and denied.

17. Para no.17 of the plant is wrong and denied. The plaintiff is not entitled to any free hold residential plot as he had waived and relinquished his right as he had no deposited the 10 % earnest money with the application form.

18. Para no.18 of the plant is wrong and denied. The plaintiff has got no cause of action against the defendants.

19. That para no.19 of the plaint is legal needs no reply.

20. That para no.20 of the plaint is wrong and denied. The suit of the plaintiff is against law and facts, false and frivolous the same may kindly be dismissed with special costs.” (emphasis supplied)

13. Thus, what is discernible from the averments made in the written statement is that the plaintiffs failed to deposit 10 per cent of the earnest money along with an appropriate application addressed to the authority concerned in accordance with the Policy of 1992. In the absence of any application with deposit of 10 per cent earnest money the benefits of the Policy of 1992 could not have been extended. Such was the stance of the appellant herein as defendants before the trial court.

14. On the other hand, the case of the plaintiffs before the trial court was that it was not mandatory to deposit 10 per cent of the earnest money.

p. 812

However, the fact remains that the suits came to be instituted almost after a period of fifteen years from the date of the Policy of 1992.

iii. Impugned Judgment of the High Court

15. The High Court in its impugned judgment took the view that the entire controversy could be said to be covered by the decision of this Court rendered in the case of Brij Mohan (supra) and the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Jarnail Singh (supra). Saying so, the High Court though fit to dismiss all the Second Appeals thereby affirming the original decree passed by the trial court in favour of the plaintiffs (oustees) & some cases the judgment and order passed by the First Appellate Court allowing the appeals filed by the original plaintiffs.

16. However, what is important for us to take notice of something in the impugned judgment are the submissions canvassed by the learned Advocate General, State of Haryana. The High Court in its impugned judgment has recorded the submissions canvassed by the learned Advocate General as under: “Mr. B.R. Mahajan, learned Advocate General, Haryana, assisted by Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate, in support of grounds of appeal has raised the multifold arguments which reads thus: i) the pre-requisites of the policy dated 18.03.1992 had not been fulfilled by the plaintiff for allotment of a plot under the oustee policy as the court below has not gone into that question and without any reason ordered for allotment of plot to the plaintiff. ii) the court below has filed to take into consideration the fact that the case of the plaintiff was not considered due to non-compliance of Rule 5 of Haryana Development (Disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations 1978 (hereinafter referred to as 1978 Regulations) which deals with the procedure in case of sale or lease of land or building by allotment, in essence, the purchaser is required to make an application to the Estate Officer concerned and it should be accompanied by 10% of the price/

p. 813

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

premium in the form of a demand draft table to the Estate officer. iii) The intended allottees under the oustee policy had not fulfilled the essential terms and conditions of the advertisement, brochure and 1978 Regulations. In the instant case, there was no advertisement against which the plaintiff had sought allotment of the plot.” (emphasis supplied)

17. Thus, the main plank of the submission canvassed on behalf of the State was that the oustees had failed to abide by the essential terms and conditions of the advertisement, brochure of the 1978 Regulations etc. In short, the argument before the High Court was that the oustees had failed to duly apply in a prescribed format with the Estate Officer in accordance with the Scheme with deposit of 10 per cent price/premium in the form of a demand draft payable to the Estate Officer.

18. In the aforesaid context, we may only observe that none of the submissions canvassed by the State have been dealt with by the High Court in its impugned judgment. When it was the specific case of the State that no applications in the prescribed format were preferred by the oustees with 10 per cent deposit of the requisite amount then it was expected of the High Court even while considering Second Appeal under Section 100 of the CPC to look into this aspect of the matter. Even the trial court does not seem to have considered this aspect of the matter including the First Appellate Court.

19. It was also brought to our notice by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents (oustees) that allotment letters were issued at the rate prescribed in accordance with the 1992 Policy subject to the outcome of the Special Leave Petitions and once such allotment letters are issued then there is no question in saying that the oustees had failed to apply in accordance with the terms and conditions of the scheme. In what circumstances such allotment letters were issued by the Estate Officer has been explained by the appellant in its written submissions. The same reads thus: “16. It is submitted that after passing of the order by Ld. District Judge and Ld. Civil Judge, some of the respondents

p. 814

filed Execution Petition before the Executing court for the execution of the order passed by the Trial court.

17. It is submitted that the Ld. Civil Judge issued warrant of arrest of the Estate Officer of the Petitioner Authority. The said letter is reproduced hereunder for ready reference: “To Director General of Police Panchkula (Haryana) Whereas the Judgment Debtor Lajpat Rai S/o Shiv Dayal R/o Kaithal, Tehsil and Distt. Kaithal was adjudged by a decree of the Court in Suit No. RBT382/2007 on 11.11.2011 to order that the suits of plaintiffs are decreed with costs to the effect that the plaintiffs of CS -I and C-II are held entitled for separate freehold residential plots measuring 250 sq. yards each and the plaintiffs or CS-I to CS-III are liable to deposit the prices of the respective plots as were applicable at the time of floating of Sec 19, Urban Estate, Kaithal formalities for allotment of plots be completed by defendants within two months from the even date under initiation to plaintiffs in writing. But defendants fail to comply all the condition which were imposed on them, executing this process to bring the said defendant before the court with all convenient speed. You are hereby directed to arrest the said Estate Officer HUDA and produce before me. Here fail not. If the Estate Officer HUDA fulfil the above said condition, he shall not be arrested. Youa re further commanded to return this warrant on or before the 31.05.2019 with an endorsement certifying the day on which and manner in which it has been executed or the reason why it has not been executed. Given under my hand and the seal of the court, this 28.05.2019. Amit Sharma Civil Judge (Senior Div) Kaithal”

p. 815

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

It is submitted that the application have not submitted in the prescribed format and even the earnest money was not paid but due to the order passed by the Civil Judge in regard to the arrest of the Estate Officer, the petitioner authority under compulsion issued allotment letter at the current rate subject to outcome of The special leave petitions pending before this Hon’ble Court. (A true copy of the one of such applications arrest warrant and allotment letter is annexed herewith marked as Annexure A-12 pg. 126-132.

18. It is submitted that similarly in some other cases also, where the application has not been submitted in the prescribed format, the earnest money has not been paid but since, the suit has been decreed therefore, the Execution petition filed and in Execution petition since the Ld. Civil judge issued the warrant of arrest, therefore the Petitioner Authority under compulsion issued allotment letter at the current price subject to outcome of the special leave petition.”

iv. Filing of the Special Leave Petitions before this Court

20. What is now important for us to note is the order passed by a coordinate bench dated 08.05.2017 at the time of issuing notice. The order reads thus: “Delay condoned. Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner will abide by the Policy framed on 11.08.2016 and every eligible oustee will be accommodated according to the said Policy. Issue notice restricted to the question of correctness of the general direction made by the High Court in granting allotments to all claimants who may not be similarly situated. In the meantime, there shall be stay of execution.” (emphasis supplied)

21. Thus, the appellant made itself explicitly clear before this Court that it would abide by the policy framed on 11.08.2016 and every eligible oustee would be accommodated according to the said policy. On such statement being made, this Court issued notice restricted to the question of correctness of the general directions issued by the

p. 816

High Court in its impugned judgment as regards granting allotments to all claimants who may not be similarly situated. This Court also stayed the execution of the decree.

22. The controversy before us as on date is in a limited compass, i.e., whether the respondents as oustees are entitled to the benefit of the scheme of 1992 or the scheme of 2016 as further modified in 2018 referred to above.

B. SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES

i. Submissions on behalf of the Appellants

23. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, the learned A.S.G., appearing for the appellants vehemently submitted that only those oustees are entitled to seek allotment of a plot under the policy who had filed appropriate application in a prescribed format, seeking allotment of plot with the deposit of the requisite earnest money. As regards this submission of Ms. Bhati, the following has been highlighted in the written submissions filed by the appellant: “(i) The Petitioner Authority issued advertisement inviting applications for allotment of plot under oustees quota in 1992 and 2000 whereas it has been mentioned in the preceding paras and as is evident from the documents placed on record that the application was to be submitted in the prescribed format alongwith the earnest money. (ii) It is submitted that from the perusal of the brochure so issued in 1992 and in 2000, it is evident that the application form is to be purchased upon payment as the same is serial no. ed also. Not only this, even in the brochure itself, the letter is to be addressed to the Estate Officer for the submission of the (ix) It is submitted that even in the procedure so prescribed by the Petitioner Authority in respect to allotment of plot under oustees quota, there is a condition of the inviting applications to be submitted in the prescribed format.”

24. The second submission canvassed by Ms. Bhati is as regards the price of the plot under the policy. This argument has been elaborated in the following manner:

p. 817

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

“(i) It is submitted that as far as price of plot so allotted under oustees quota is concerned, the Hon’ble High Court in the case of Rajiv Manchanda vs HUDA in question no. 8 and that in a case where the land was acquired in 1992 the oustees is liable to pay the price fixed in the advertisement by which the applications are invited and pursuant to which advertisement the plot is actually allotted to the oustees. (ii) It is submitted as far as the present specially petitions are concerned the respondents as mentioned here in above failed to submit the application in the prescribed format and even failed to deposit the earnest money therefore in fact the application submitted if any cannot be set to be submission of application as per advertisement/policy (iii) It is submitted that in the case of HUDA and ors. v. Sandeep and Ors. decided on 25.04.2012, the Hon’ble Court while deciding the issue in regard to the price to be charged under Question No. 8 held that the price that can be charged is the price prevailing at the time of allotment. The extract from the judgement reads as under: “17. Where there is a scheme but it does not regulate the allotment price it may be possible for the court to direct the State Government/Development Authority to allot plots to land-losers at a reasonable cost, in special and extraordinary circumstances, it may also indicate the manner of determining the allotment price. But where the scheme applicable specifies the price to be charged for allotment its terms cannot be ignored. If any land loser has any grievance in regard to such scheme, he may either challenge it or give a representation for a better or more beneficial scheme. But he cannot as the code to ignore the terms of an existing or prevailing scheme and demand allotment at cost price.” (iv) It is submitted that the judgment passed by this Hon’ble court in Brij Mohan vs. HUDFA 2011(2) SCC 29 is of no help to the oustees. Two questions arose for consideration in that case before this Hon’ble Court.

p. 818

In respect of first question i.e. whether HUDA should charge only the actual land cost plus development charges for the plots allotted to an oustee and not the market price/normal allotment price; the court returned a finding that the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 contemplates only benefits like solatium, additional amount and higher rate of interest to the oustees and not allotment of plots at cost p rice. HUDA or the State Government does not have any scheme providing for allotment of plots at actual cost of oustees. Therefore, it is not possible for the Court to direct the State Government or the Development Authority to allot plots to the oustees at a reasonable cost. In respect of second question i.e. what is the meaning of the words ‘normal allotment rate’, the court found that as a matter of fact the land-loser has made an application in the year 1990 for allotment of plot. A direction was issued by the Court in the year 1992 but the HUDA delayed allotment to the appellants. Therefore, the rate for which plots were initially offered was ordered to be charged. The said Question has been answered keeping in view the facts of the aforesaid case, wherein application was submitted by an oustee but still plot was not allotted to him. The said judgment does not lay down that the ‘normal allotment rate’ in all circumstances shall be the rate when the sector is first floated for sale. As a matter of fact, the norma allotment rate would be the rate advertised by the HUDA in pursuance of which applications are invited from the general public and the oustees, in pursuance of which the plots are allotted. (v) It is submitted that even otherwise in the case of Brij Mohan the applications submitted by the applicants but in present case no application in the prescribe format with earnest money has been

p. 819

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

submitted therefore it cannot be said that the respondents submitted any application in view of this the case of Bridge Mohan is distribution from the facts and circumstances of the present case. (vi) It is submitted that admittedly none of the respondent have deposited the earnest money as per the advertisement of 1992 and/or 2004 cannot claim the price as per 1992. (vii) it is submitted that in view the above and as per the policy in existence the respondents cannot claim the price of 1992. (viii) It is submitted that the Hon’ble court in the case of Rajiv Manchanda v. HUDA while passing the judgment dated 22.11.2017 in Civil writ petition no. 22252 of 2016 while answering the question no. 8 in regard to fixation of price in para 57 held that an oustee including 1 whose land was acquired prior to 1987 is liable to pay the price fixed in the advertisement by which the applications are invited from the oustee and pursuant to which advertisement of the plot is actually allotted to the oustee. (ix) It is submitted that since, no application in the prescribed format has been submitted by any of the respondents and even otherwise the earnest money has not been paid therefore, the respondents cannot ask for any price of 1992 especially when the no application has been submitted or if any application has been submitted, the same is not in the prescribed format with the earnest money which was the precondition for entitlement of allotment of plot. (x) It is submitted that when the respondents have not submitted the applications in the prescribed format that too without the earnest money therefore, the respondents are not entitled for any relief and it will amount to wind full gain if the respondent to have been fully compensated in accordance with statutory scheme for the land acquired for public purpose by

p. 820

the state if despite have not paid a single penny if they are giving their plot as per the 1992 rates. (xi) It is submitted that as it has been mentioned hereinabove the petitioner authority has already issued public notice inviting the applications from the oustees and the application is to be submitted online with Rs.50,000.00. It is submitted that any of the respondent can submit the application if so desired to avail the benefit of oustees policy dated 11.08.2016.”

25. The third submission of Ms. Bhati is that the respondents could not have instituted a civil suit after a period of almost 14 to 20 years of passing of the final award. She would submit that the suits filed by the individual respondents under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 were not maintainable, more particularly, when none of the respondents had applied for the plot in a prescribed format with deposit of earnest money. This argument has been further elaborated as under: “(i) It is submitted that admittedly the acquisition proceedings concluded in 1992 upon passing of the award and the State Government issued and advertisement inviting the application for allotment of plot under the oustees quota in 1992 itself but the respondents instituted Civil suit after 14-20 years which is barred by Article 113 of the Limitation Act where the limitation of 3 years for the institution of the suit has been provided (ii) It is submitted that the respondents field to comply with the terms and conditions as a numerated in the advertisement issued from time to time inviting the applications for allotment of plot under out these Kota their food the suit instituted under section 39 of Specific Relief Act for mandatory injunction not maintainable and the Ld. Civil Court dismissed one civil suits on the ground of maintainability and limitation. (iii) It is further submitted that even the Appellate court in some of the cases dismissed the appeals affirmming the order pass by the Civil judged dismissing the Civil suit.

p. 821

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

(iv) It is submitted that there is bar under section 50(2) of Haryana Development Authority Act, 1977 to the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to entertain any suit or proceeding in any matter (v) It is submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in Regular Second Appeal being RSA No. 3833 of 2010 titled as HUDA vs. Kashmiri Lal vide its judgment dated 06.08.2012 arrived at the conlusion that the suit is barred by limitaion because the plaintiff applied for the allotment of plot in the year 1992 and the suit was filed after 15 years. (vi) It is submitted that the Special leave petitoins preferred against he said order dated 06.08.2012 being SLP C NO. 8766-8767 of 2013 titled as Kashmiri lal vs. EO HUDA dismissed by this Hon’ble court vide order dated 15.07.2016.0 (vii) It is submitted that suit for mandatory injunction under Section 39 was not maintainable as there was no breach of an obligation. Ld. Civil judge ought not to have directed to allot a plot especially when the terms and conditions in regard to submission of application in the prescribed format with earnest money has not been complied with and further there is a bar of jurisdiction in the Act itself. (viii) It is submitted that this Hon’ble court in the caose State of Kerala vs. UOI 2024 (7) SCC 183, has discucsed about section 39 of the Specific Relief Act and held that there should be test in regard to (i) Prima facie case (ii) balance of convenience (iii) irreparable injury. In the present case, although there was no prima facie case, yet the Ld. Civil Judge erroneously decreed the Civil Suit in some of the cases, whereas in other similar cases the Civil Suit so instituted were dismissed.”

26. The fourth submission of Ms. Bhati is as regards the status of a co-sharer in respect to allotment of plot under the scheme. This submission has been elaborated in the following manner: “(i) It is submitted that in regard to the allotment of plot under oustees quota to the co-sharer it is submitted that

p. 822

initially in the policy dated 18.03.1992 wherein clause (iii) of the said policy it is mentioned that in case there are no. of co-sharer of the land which has been acquired and if the acquired land measures more than 1 acre than for the purpose of granting benefit under this policy the determining factor would be the area of co-sharer respectively as per his/her shareholding and in case the acquired land of the co-sharer less than only one plot of 200 sq. yards in the joint name of co-sharers. (ii) It is submitted that subsequently the said policy dated 18.03.92 was amended and the same was modified to the effect that “benefit under oustees policy shall be restricted to 1 plot according to the holding irrespective of co-sharers”. (iii) It is submitted that in the policy dated 18.03.1992 in regard to offering of the plot to the land owners it was mentioned that: (a) Less than 500 sq. yards would be offered a plot of 50 sq. yards. (b) Between 500 sq. yds. And one acre would be offered a plot of 250 sq. yds. (c) From 1 acre and above would be offered a plot of 500 sq. yds. Where 500. Where 500 or where 500 sq. yds. Plots are not provided in the layout plan, two plots of 250 sq. yds. Each may be given. (iv) It is submitted that in the policy dated 11.08.2016 in clause 8 about the eligibility of co-sharer it is mentioned that the eligibility of each co-sharer for allotment of plot under oustees quota shall be determined on the basis of individual holding i.e. each co-sharers will be entitlement to seeking allotment of plot on the basis of his owned individual holding. Further in Clause 13 of the said policy in regard to the eligibility of co-sharer who has given no objection certificate in his co-sharer it has been mentioned that a co-sharer in the land will not be eligible to claim allotment of plot if had given a no objection certificate in favour of the co-sharer and on account of submission of such no objection certificate a plot was allotted such

p. 823

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

co-sharer in prevailing flotation of plot for the oustees. It has also been made in case of any previous occasion a plot under the oustees policy has been allotted in that a co-sharer will not be entitled for allotment of plot under oustees quota.”

27. In the last, Ms. Bhati invited our attention to few relevant provisions of law. The same read thus: “(i) The Specific Relief Act, 1963 “Section 39. Mandatory injunction – When, to prevent the breach of an obligation, it is necessary to compel the performance of certain acts which the Court is capable of enforcing, the Court may in its discretion grant an injunction to prevent the breach complained of, and also to compel performance of the requisite acts.” (ii) Limitation Act

Article Any suit for which no Three When 113 period of limitation is years the right provided elsewhere in to sue this Schedule accrues

Section 3: Bar of limitation – (1) Subject to the provisions contained in Sections 4 to 24 (inclusive), every suit instituted appeal preferred, and application made after the prescribed period shall be dismissed, although limitation has been set up as a defence. (2) For the purposes of this Act- (a) A suit is instituted: (i) in an ordinary case, when the plaint is presented to the proper officer; (ii) in the case of a pauper, when his application for leave to sue as a pauper is made; and (iii) in the case of a claim against a company which is being wind up by the court, when the claimant first sends in his claim to the official liquidator;

p. 824

(b) any claim by way of a set off or a counter claim, shall be treated as a separate suit and shall be deemed to have been instituted: (i) in the case of a set off, on the same date as the suit in which the set off is pleaded; (ii) in the case of a counter claim, on the date on which the counter claim is made in court; (c) an application by notice of motion in a High Court is made when the application is presented to the proper officer of that court. (iii) HUDA Act and Rules. “Section 50 of HUDA Act, 1977. (i) Save as of otherwise expressly provided in the Act, every order passed or direction issued by the State government or order passed or notice issued by the Authority or its officer under this Act shall be final and shall not be questioned in any suit or legal proceeding. (ii) No Civil Court shall have the jurisdiction to entertain any suit or proceeding in respect of any matter the cognizance of which can be taken and disposed of by the authority empowered by this Act or the rules or regulations made thereunder. Regulation 5 of Haryana Urban Development (disposal of Land and Buildings) Regulations 1978, which lays: “5. Procedure in case of sale or lease of land or building by allotment: (i) In the case of sale or lease of residential and industrial land or building by allotment the intending purchaser shall make an application to the State Officer concerned in the prescribed form (annexed to these regulations) as given in Forms A and B respectively. (ii) No application under sub-regulation (1) shall be valid unless it is accompanied by such amount may

p. 825

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

be determined by the Authority, which shall not be less than ten per cent of the price/premium in the form of a demand draft payable to the Estate Officer, and drawn on any scheduled bank situated at the local place of the Estate Officer concerned or any other such place as the Estate Officer may specify” (iii) xxxx”

28. In such circumstances referred to above, Ms. Bhati very fairly submitted that although the suits were liable to be dismissed yet the appellant is ready and willing to allot the plots to the respondents if eligible otherwise, in accordance with the scheme of 2016.

29. She would submit that the appellant has already issued a public notice inviting appropriate applications from the oustees and such applications are to be submitted online with payment of Rs. 50,000/- towards earnest money.

30. What we have been able to gather from the aforesaid is that allotment letters were issued to the oustees but at the revised rate of Rs. 1122 per sq. yd. in accordance with the 2016 policy.

31. In such circumstances referred to above, Ms. Bhati submitted that this Court may pass an appropriate order, directing the appellant to consider the applications that may be filed online in accordance with the policy of 2016.

ii. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents

32. Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, the learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents in SLP No. 4787 of 2018 vehemently submitted that this Court may not interfere or rather disturb the concurrent findings recorded by three courts below. So far as the entitlement of the oustees to claim plots in accordance with the scheme of 1992 is concerned, the entire controversy is squarely covered by a decision of this Court in the case of Brij Mohan and Others v. Haryana Urban Development Authority reported in (2011) 2 SCC 29.

33. He further submitted that the issue as regards restricting the allotment of one plot to the oustees who have a joint holding came to be concluded by a Full Bench of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of Jarnail Singh & Ors. vs. State of Punjab reported in (2010) 10 P&H CK 0212.

p. 826

34. Dr. Hooda submitted that so far as his matter is concerned, the same is distinguishable on facts with the other connected matters. He pointed out that his client had submitted an application with the appellant authority for allotment of plot under 1992 scheme. Even a draw was held where the application of his client’s father was cleared successfully and a plot in Sector 20 was earmarked.

35. He further pointed out that the suit filed by his client came to be decreed. The decree came to be affirmed right up to the High Court. The principal argument of Dr. Hooda is that if the policy of 2016 is applied it would impose a substantial financial burden on the oustees.

36. Relying on the decision of this Court rendered in Brij Mohan (supra) referred to above, he would submit that the oustees are entitled to allotment of plots in accordance with the policy that was floated and advertised at the time of the land acquisition proceedings i.e. 1992 and not as per any subsequent revised policy.

37. Mr. Rajiv Raheja, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents in SLP No. 20614 of 2017 and connected matters submitted that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the High Court in passing the impugned judgment and order. His principal argument is that the policy of 2016 cannot be applied with retrospective effect.

38. Mr. Sidharth Mittal, learned counsel appearing for the respondents in SLP No. 20640 of 2017 would submit that so far as the price of allotment of plots is concerned, the same has been settled by this Court in Brij Mohan (supra).

39. The sum and substance of the submissions canvassed on behalf of the respondents is that they are ready and willing to deposit the requisite amount for the purpose of allotment of plots in accordance with the policy of 1992. In short, their case is that they are ready and willing to deposit the amount of Rs. 863 per sq. yd. but the demand of the revised rate of Rs. 1122 per sq. yd. is not tenable in law.

40. In such circumstances referred to above, learned counsel appearing for the respondents prayed that there being no merit in these appeals those may be dismissed and the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court may be affirmed.

p. 827

Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi

C. ANALYSIS

41. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record the only question that falls for our consideration is whether the respondents herein are entitled to claim plots as oustees at the rate prescribed by the 1992 policy or at the rate prescribed by the revised policy of 2016?

42. Before adverting to the rival submissions canvassed on either side, we must look into the two judgments; one of this Cout in Brij Mohan (supra) and the other of the Full Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Jarnail Singh (supra).

43. In Brij Mohan (supra), this Court dealt with the following two questions: (i) Whether HUDA should charge only the actual land cost plus development charges for the plots allotted to oustees/land- losers, and not the market price/normal allotment price? (ii) What meaning should be ascribed to the words ‘normal allotment rate’ used in the scheme for allotment to oustees?

44. In Brij Mohan (supra), this Court elaborately interpreted the policy dated 18.03.1992 and answered the aforesaid two questions as such: “10. No doubt, the contention that allotment of plots to land losers should be at actual cost (acquisition cost of land plus development cost), appears to be reasonable and attractive. That should be the ultimate goal in a changing scenario favouring acquisitions which are land loser- friendly. The arguments of the appellants do certainly make out a case for such a scheme to create a better settlement and rehabilitation policy in regard to land acquisitions. If there was any statutory provision in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (`Act’ for short) or other scheme, providing for allotment at cost price, a land loser could certainly claim allotment in terms of the scheme. But the Statute contemplates only benefits like solatium, additional amount and higher rate of interest to the land losers and not allotment of plots at cost price. Nor does the State Government or HUDA have any scheme providing for allotment of plots at actual cost to land losers. We

p. 828

are informed that State of Haryana is now proposing to introduce a more attractive and land-loser friendly rehabilitation and resettlement policy, which contemplates allotment of bigger residential/commercial/industrial plots to land losers and oustees. But that is for the future.

11. Where there is a scheme but it does not regulate the allotment price, it may be possible for the court to direct the State Government/Development Authority to allot plots to land losers at a reasonable cost, and in special and extraordinary circumstances, it may also indicate the manner of determining the allotment price. But where the scheme applicable specifies the price to be charged for allotment, its terms cannot be ignored. If any land loser has any grievance in regard to such scheme, he may either challenge it or give a representation for a better or more beneficial scheme. But he cannot ask the court to ignore the terms of an existing or prevailing scheme and demand allotment at cost price. The scheme of HUDA contemplates allotment of plots only in terms of the scheme, that is at normal allotment rates. This benefit is extended in addition to the benefits under sections 23(1A), 23(2) and 28 of the Act, and therefore the scheme provides for allotment at normal allotment rate. Necessarily, the allotment and the price to be charged, will have to be strictly in accordance with such HUDA Scheme. In this case the HUDA scheme requires the land loser-allottee to pay the normal allotment rates for the plots to be allotted to them under the scheme. Therefore, a land loser cannot claim allotment of a plot at acquisition cost of land plus development cost or at any other lesser price. The decision in Hansraj H. Jain was a case where the scheme did not provide for any allotment price, and the price demanded was Rs.13,200/- per sq.m. as against the compensation of Rs.4 per sq.m. which in effect was 3300 times the acquisition price. It was on those peculiar facts and circumstances, this court thought it fit to direct the respondents therein to adopt the acquisition cost plus development cost as the allotment price. That principle will not apply where there is a specific scheme which provides the rate of allotment.

p. 829