Oustee quota plots scam in HUDA | chandigarh | Hindustan Times
Today in New Delhi, India
Apr 27, 2017-Thursday
-°C
New Delhi
  • Humidity
    -
  • Wind
    -

Oustee quota plots scam in HUDA

With a scam in oustee quota plots coming to fore in the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), the Punjab and Haryana high court has ordered the chief secretary of Haryana to hold a probe in the entire allotment of oustee quota plots in Sectors 2, 4 and 6 of Mansa Devi Complex, take appropriate action and submit a report to the court.

chandigarh Updated: Dec 27, 2013 15:02 IST
Bhartesh Singh Thakur
Panchkula

With a scam in oustee quota plots coming to fore in the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), the Punjab and Haryana high court has ordered the chief secretary of Haryana to hold a probe in the entire allotment of oustee quota plots in Sectors 2, 4 and 6 of Mansa Devi Complex, take appropriate action and submit a report to the court.


The matter, in essence, pertains to alleged illegal allotments in MDC Sector 6, where realty rates are higher due to its proximity with Chandigarh.

Gurdeep Kaur, a resident of Panchkula, had 10 kanals and 3 marlas in Bhainsa Tibba village. The state government acquired and announced the award on February 2, 1984, for her land and other acquisitions for establishing MDC Sector 4. In terms of the ‘Oustees Policy’, she was entitled for a plot.

In 2004, HUDA invited applications for allotment of residential plots in Sectors 2 and 6 of the MDC, but her claim was rejected on December 9, 2005, on the ground that her land was in Sector 4 and she could not get a plot in Sector 6. In 2012, she filed a civil writ petition in the high court and informed it that though her claim was rejected, there were many instances where people got a plot in Sector 6, MDC, under oustee quota though their land was also acquired for setting up Sector 4.

On the directions of HC, HUDA filed an affidavit informing it on September 2 that there were actually 19 persons to whom plots were allotted in Sector 6, MDC, in spite of the fact that their land was not acquired for that sector.

The court was further informed that there were five persons to whom plots were allotted despite the fact that their land was acquired in 1975 when there was no policy for allotment of plots to the oustees and it was not acquired for Sector 6, MDC. Also, there were four persons who were allotted plots in Sector 6, MDC, whose land was acquired along with Gurdeep in Sector 4.

On September 3, the court ordered HUDA to submit a list of persons whose acquired land fell in Sectors 1, 3, 3-4 road, 4, 5, 5A, 5B, 5C, 6 and 4 dividing road and whose claims for oustee quota plot were rejected or pending consideration.

Panchkula estate officer Vandana Disodia filed an affidavit informing the court about the rejected claims. She also informed the court that in 2012, HUDA invited applications from land owners whose land was acquired either for Sectors

2 or 6, MDC, for allotment of plots and pursuant to that advertisement a total of 128 applications were received and were pending.

The HC bench comprising justices SK Mittal and Mahavir S Chauhan in their order stated, “…prima facie, emerges that the HUDA authorities are not following any set rules or policies and are acting discriminately and have adopted the policy of ‘pick and choose’ regarding the allotment of plots to land oustees. On the one hand, claim of a person has been rejected on the ground that his land was not acquired for Sector 6, MDC, and on the other, several persons, whose land also was not acquired for Sector 6, MDC, have been allotted plots in that sector without any justification.”

They added, “Rather, in the affidavit (of HUDA) it has been admitted that some illegalities have been committed and action is required to be taken against the wrongdoers.”

The order stated, “It seems that the HUDA authorities are guided by their whims and fancies, and not by any rules and policy, as regards allotment of plots to land oustees even though HUDA being an instrumentality of state is expected to act with fairness and transparency.

In our opinion, the entire issue requires a deeper probe by an independent authority.”

Is Your Couch Making You Cough?
Promotional Feature