IN TH 221-II Estate Off and others Ravinder M CORAM: Present: NIDHI GU CM-15641 applicants, representat Ravinder M which is su same is application deceased/re just excepti Attorney RA-RS-118-C-2015 in RSA-2807-2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA AT CHANDIGAR RA-RS-118-C-20 in RSA-2807-200 Date of decision te Officer, Haryana Urban Develo others Versus nder Mohan through his LRs …..Ap AM:- HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NI Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta for the review applicants-respo HI GUPTA J. (Oral) 15641-C-2015 Prayer in the present applica cants, mentioned in para 3 of sentative(s) of the deceased/rev nder Mohan, who is stated to be expire In view of the reasons men h is supported by an affidavit of the is allowed and the applicants, me cation are hereby impleaded as leg ased/review applicant/respondent Rav xceptions and for the purpose of this l The Amended Memo of Par on behalf of newly impleaded 2009 1 UNJAB AND HARYANA IGARH 2015 2009 cision :-12.03.2026 evelopment Authority Kaithal …..Appellants Applicants-Respondents E NIDHI GUPTA diratta, Advocate respondents. pplication is for impleading the of the application as legal ed/review applicant/respondent expired on 31.8.2014. s mentioned in the application, of the applicant-Anurag Lall, the ts, mentioned in para 3 of the as legal representatives of the t Ravinder Mohan subject to all f this litigation alone. of Parties as well as Power of leaded legal representatives of VIJAY ASIJA 2026.03.13 19.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document deceased/re the applica same at app RA-RS-11 order dated predecesso RA-RS-118-C-2015 in RSA-2807-2009 ased/review applicant/respondent Ravi pplication are taken on record. The Re at appropriate place. 118-C-2015 Prayer in the present applica r dated 06.9.2012, vide which the main ecessor Bench of this Court, which rea “Assailed in thi dated 26.3.2009 passed Judge, Kaithal, accepti plaintiff-respondent ag decree dated 27.3.2008 whereby the suit for ma the plaintiff-responden appellants-defendants residential developed p pursuant to their circulated vide me dismissed. Feeling ag appellants have come u second appeal. At the very outse appellants-defendants h delivered by the Divisi LPA No.2096 of 2011, Development Authority others, decided on 25.4. principles of law and plots under oustees q instant appeal may be terms. 2009 2 t Ravinder Mohan, annexed with The Registry is directed to tag the application is for review of the e main appeal was disposed of by ich reads as follows :- this appeal is the judgment ssed by the Additional District cepting the appeal filed by the t against the judgment and 2008 passed by the trial court, r mandatory injunction filed by ndent (oustee) directing the nts to deliver free hold ed plot of 500 square yards, ir policy dated 18.3.1992, memo No.2-92/2082, was aggrieved, the defendants- me up before me in this regular outset, learned counsel for the nts has referred to the judgment ivision Bench of this Court in 011, titled as Haryana Urban rity & others vs. Sandeep and 25.4.2012, laying down detailed nd guidelines for allotment of s quota and prayed that the y be disposed of in the same VIJAY ASIJA 2026.03.13 19.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document learned cou review of t issued to t which was similarly si applicants settled by t Civil Appe Urban Dev it is held as RA-RS-118-C-2015 in RSA-2807-2009 Accordingly the disposed of in terms o Division Bench of this 2011, decided on 25.4.2 Thereafter, the present review ed counsel for the review applicant/r w of the said order inter alia on the d to the review applicants prior to h was decided in limini; and also arly situated allottees had been allotted After hearing learned co s/respondents, it is pointed out th d by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vid Appeal No.7707 of 2025 titled as Development Authority and others eld as follows :- “xxx xxx xxx (ix) This litigation is in this country. If land purpose law permits instrumentality of Go accordance with the Acquisition Act or any the purpose of acquisiti for any public purpose taken away is e compensation in acco principles of law. It is o case that the Governm any scheme for rehab 2009 3 the instant appeal stands ms of the order passed by the this Court in LPA No.2096 of 5.4.2012.” review application was filed by icant/respondent/plaintiff seeking n the ground that notice was not or to decide the second appeal, also on the ground that others allotted plots. ed counsel for the review out that the oustee issue stands urt vide order dated 14.7.2025 in led as Estate Officer, Haryana hers vs. Nirmala Devi, wherein n is an eye opener for all States land is required for any public its the Government or any Government to acquire in the provisions of the Land any other State Act enacted for uisition. When land is acquired pose the person whose land is entitled to appropriate accordance with the settled t is only in the rarest of the rare ernment may consider floating ehabilitation of the displaced VIJAY ASIJA 2026.03.13 19.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document review app judgment o March 12 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo RA-RS-118-C-2015 in RSA-2807-2009 persons over and above in terms of money. At t with a view to ap unnecessary schemes a difficulties. It would u number of litigations. T one at hand. What we w it is not necessary that compensation in terms the property owners i measures taken by th guided only by huma fairness and equity towa xxx xxx xxx” In view of the above said undi w application stands disposed of i ment of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Pending application(s), if any, 2, 2026 r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No 2009 4 bove paying them compensation At times the State Government appease its subjects float es and ultimately land up in ld unnecessarily give rise to ns. The classic example is the we would like to convey is that that in all cases over and above rms of money, rehabilitation of rs is a must. Any beneficial y the Government should be umanitarian considerations of towards the landowners. d undisputed position, the present of in terms of the aforesaid any, shall stand(s) disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.03.13 19.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document