03.2026 Estate Off te Officer, Haryana Urban Develo others evelopment Authority Kaithal & Ors. v. Ravinder M nder Mohan

Mr. Jasdev Singh Mehndiratta for the review applicants-respo diratta, Advocate respondents. NIDHI GU HI GUPTA J. (Oral) CM-15641 15641-C-2015 Prayer in the present applica pplication is for impleading the applicants, cants, mentioned in para 3 of the application as representat sentative(s) of the deceased/rev ed/review applicant/respondent Ravinder M nder Mohan, who is stated to be expire expired on 31.8.2014. In view of the reasons men s mentioned in the application, which is su h is supported by an affidavit of the of the applicant-Anurag Lall, the same is is allowed and the applicants, me ts, mentioned in para 3 of the application cation are hereby impleaded as leg as legal representatives of the deceased/re ased/review applicant/respondent Rav t Ravinder Mohan subject to all just excepti xceptions and for the purpose of this l f this litigation alone. The Amended Memo of Par of Parties as well as Power of Attorney on behalf of newly impleaded leaded legal representatives of VIJAY ASIJA 2026.03.13 19.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2009 RA-RS-118-C-2015 in RSA-2807-2009 2 deceased/re ased/review applicant/respondent Ravi t Ravinder Mohan, annexed with the applica pplication are taken on record. The Re The Registry is directed to tag the same at app at appropriate place. RA-RS-11 118-C-2015 Prayer in the present applica application is for review of the order dated r dated 06.9.2012, vide which the main e main appeal was disposed of by predecesso ecessor Bench of this Court, which rea ich reads as follows :- “Assailed in thi this appeal is the judgment dated 26.3.2009 passed ssed by the Additional District Judge, Kaithal, accepti cepting the appeal filed by the plaintiff-respondent ag t against the judgment and decree dated 27.3.2008 2008 passed by the trial court, whereby the suit for ma r mandatory injunction filed by the plaintiff-responden ndent (oustee) directing appellants-defendants to deliver free hold residential developed p ed plot of 500 square yards, pursuant ir policy dated 18.3.1992, circulated vide me memo No.2-92/2082, was dismissed. Feeling ag aggrieved, the defendants- appellants have come u me up before me in this regular second appeal. At the very outse outset, learned counsel for the appellants-defendants h nts has referred to the judgment delivered by the Divisi ivision Bench of this Court in LPA No.2096 of 2011, 011, titled as Haryana Urban Development Authority rity & others vs. Sandeep and others, decided on 25.4.

25.4.2012, laying down detailed principles of law and nd guidelines for allotment of plots under oustees q s quota and prayed that the instant appeal may be y be disposed of in the same terms. VIJAY ASIJA 2026.03.13 19.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2009 RA-RS-118-C-2015 in RSA-2807-2009 3 Accordingly instant appeal stands disposed of in terms o ms of the order passed by the Division Bench of this this Court in LPA No.2096 of 2011, decided on 25.4.2

5.4.2012.” Thereafter, the present review review application was filed by learned cou ed counsel for the review applicant/r icant/respondent/plaintiff seeking review of t w of the said order inter alia on the n the ground that notice was not issued to t d to the review applicants prior to or to decide the second appeal, which was h was decided in limini; and also also on the ground that others similarly si arly situated allottees had been allotted allotted plots. After hearing learned counsel review applicants s/respondents, it is pointed out th out that the oustee issue stands settled by t d by the Hon’ble Supreme Court vid urt vide order dated 14.7.2025 in Civil Appe Appeal No.7707 of 2025 titled as led as Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Dev Development Authority and others hers vs. Nirmala Devi, wherein it is held as eld as follows :- “xxx xxx (ix) This litigation is n is an eye opener for all States in this country. If land land is required for any public purpose law permits its the Government or any instrumentality of Go Government to acquire accordance with the the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act or any any other State Act enacted for the purpose of acquisiti uisition. When land is acquired for any public purpose pose the person whose land is entitled e appropriate compensation in acco accordance with the settled principles of law. It is o t is only in the rarest of the rare case that the Governm ernment may consider floating any scheme for rehab ehabilitation of the displaced VIJAY ASIJA 2026.03.13 19.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2009 RA-RS-118-C-2015 in RSA-2807-2009 4 persons over and above bove paying them compensation in terms of money. At t At times the State Government with a view to ap appease its subjects unnecessary schemes a es and ultimately land up in difficulties. It would u ld unnecessarily give rise to number of litigations. T ns. The classic example is the one at hand. What we w we would like to convey is that it is not necessary that that in all cases over and above compensation in terms rms of money, rehabilitation of the property owners i rs is a must. Any beneficial measures taken by th y the Government should be guided only by huma umanitarian considerations of fairness and equity towa towards the landowners. xxx” In view of the above said undi d undisputed position, the present review app w application stands disposed of i of in terms of the aforesaid judgment o ment of Hon’ble Supreme Court. Pending application(s), if any, any, shall stand(s) disposed of. 2, 2026 March 12 Vijay Asija Whether spea Whether Repo r speaking/reasoned Yes / No r Reportable Yes / No ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE VIJAY ASIJA 2026.03.13 19.40 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document