HC: Co-owners entitled to plots under oustees’ quota

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, May 3

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that a co-owner was also entitled to a plot or a site in terms of government policies and schemes as a rehabilitation measure in the case of land acquisition.

The ruling by the Bench of Acting Chief Justice Shiavax Jal Vazifdar and Justice Arun Palli came on a bunch of 33 petitions filed against Haryana and other respondents by petitioner Santosh Kumari and other co-owners, whose land holdings were acquired by the government.

Their grievance was common. Being oustees, they were entitled to plots or sites in terms of rehabilitation and resettlement schemes. But their claims were rejected on the ground that they were co-owners in a joint “khata” and were not entitled to seek allotment independently in their names.

The Bench ruled that a co-owner was as good a landowner as a sole owner. He held the land’s absolute title or ownership in proportion to his share in a joint khata. As such, it did not make a difference in law whether the acquired land formed a part of a joint holding or not.

The co-owner’s title would not be diluted even a bit just because the acquired land was joint or un-partitioned. “Rather, what is to be borne in mind is that in either of the situation, a landowner loses his land and is termed as an oustee.

“It is precisely for that reason he is not only awarded compensation in proportion to his holding, but is also entitled to allotment of a plot/site in terms of the policies/schemes of the government as a rehabilitation measure.

“A co-owner always has an option to seek partition of the joint holding for a joint khata is for the mutual convenience and suitability of the co-owners. Therefore, even a co-owner shall be entitled to seek allotment of a site/plot individually and independently, in proportion to his/her share in a joint khata, provided he/she meets the eligibility conditions/ criteria set out in the policy/scheme in operation at the relevant time,” the Bench asserted.

During the course of hearing, the state Advocate-General submitted that the claim of each petitioner/co-owner/oustee would be re-examined. Quashing the impugned orders, the Bench directed the respondents to reconsider the claim of each petitioner within four months.