Lal Singh vs Hsvp And Anr on 16 February, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Lal Singh vs Hsvp And Anr on 16 February, 2024

Author: Arun Palli

Bench: Arun Palli

                                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022822-DB




CWP-29236-2023(O&M)                       1                  2024:PHHC:022822-DB



           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                          CHANDIGARH

                                                        CWP-29236-2023(O&M)
                                                      Date of decision: 16.02.2024

Lal Singh
                                                                         ... Petitioner
                                       Versus
Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran and another
                                                                     ... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present:     Mr. Sanjiv Ghai, Advocate,
             for the petitioner.
             Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate,
             for the respondents.
             ***

ARUN PALLI, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:

“Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution
of India, praying for issuance of an appropriate writ, order
or direction especially Writ in the nature of Certiorari
quashing the impugned Clause No.2 of the allotment letter
dated 06.10.2023 (Annexure P-5) to the extent, whereby
the petitioner being an allottee under the oustee category
has been directed to pay the price of the allotted plot to
the tune of Rs. 1,43,07,863/- at the rate of Rs. 56,308/- per
sq. Mtr. which is the current reserve price for the e-auction
of the plots and further quashing the impugned memo
dated 10.11.2023 (Annexure P-9) whereby, the
representation dated 03.11.2023 (Annexure P-7) submitted
by the petitioner has not been accepted and it has been
informed that the above-mentioned rate of the plot has
been charged from the petitioner as per advice regarding
charging of rate received from the Chief Administrator,
HSVP, Panchkula vide his office e-mail dated 18.09.2023
and the petitioner has been asked to deposit the balance

1 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 01:32:36 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022822-DB

CWP-29236-2023(O&M) 2 2024:PHHC:022822-DB

amount within prescribed period upto 04.01.2024, being,
illegal, arbitrary, unjust. improper and contrary to the law
laid down by the Han ble Full Bench of this Hon’ble Court
in the case of Rajiv Manchanda Vs. HUDA & Another.

And

For the issuance of a Writ in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondents to charge the rate of Rs.3,856/-
per sq, yard for allotment of plot made to the petitioner as
applicable at the relevant time when the petitioner
submitted his application and was even successful in the
draw of lots held by the Respondents on 28.10.2005,
pursuant to the advertisement issued on 05.07.2005 for
allotment of plots to the oustees:

And

For the issuance of Wit in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondents to refund the petitioner the
excess amount paid by him for the Plot in question allotted
to him over and above the rate of Rs.3,856/- per sq yard
mentioned in the public notice (Annexure P-1) ssued on
05.07.2005 by the Respondent Authonty;

And

For the issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus
directing the respondents to deliver the possession of the
Plot No. 1271-P Sector 18, Part-II, Urban Estate Jagadhri to
the petitioner as per Clause 7 of the allotment letter in view
of the petitioner having already deposited 25% amount le
Rs.34,75,507/- Plus Rs.1,01,459/- as per Clause 5 of the
allotment letter:

And

For the issuance of Writ of Prohibition restraining the
respondents from cancelling the allotment of plot made to
the petitioner vide allotment letter dated 06.10.2023
(Annexure P-5) under the garb of charging the unjustified

2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 01:32:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022822-DB

CWP-29236-2023(O&M) 3 2024:PHHC:022822-DB

and arbitrary rate of Rs.56,308/- per sq. mtr. from the
petitioner for the allotment made.”

Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties, this Court, on

December 22, 2023, had passed the following order:

“Notice of motion.

Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate, present in
Court on advance copy, accepts notice on behalf of the
respondents and prays for a short accommodation to
submit a response.

As prayed, adjourned to 31.01.2024.

Response, if any, be submitted three days’ prior to
the adjourned date with an advance copy to the learned
counsel for the petitioner.”

Today, at the outset, learned counsel for the respondents, on

instructions from the Chief Administrator (HSVP), submits that claim of the

petitioner would be re-considered. Whereafter, necessary orders in accordance

with shall be passed. And before any such orders are passed, the petitioner

would also be heard and till formal orders are passed, the respondents would

not resort to any coercive measures.

That being so, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that let

this petition be disposed of in terms of the statement made by learned counsel

for the respondents. However, he submits that as the competent authority

would re-examine the matter, the petitioner be granted liberty to furnish

additional documents/material to support/substantiate his claim.

To this, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the

event, any fresh material is submitted by the petitioner within a week from

today, the same shall be taken cognizance of by the respondent-authorities.

3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 01:32:37 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022822-DB

CWP-29236-2023(O&M) 4 2024:PHHC:022822-DB

And, the competent authority would pass necessary orders within a period of

four weeks thereafter.

In the wake of the position sketched out above, and in terms of the

statements made by learned counsel for the parties, the petition is accordingly

disposed of.

Needless to assert that in the event, the petitioner is aggrieved by

the order passed by the competent authority, he would be at liberty to avail the

remedy as shall be admissible in law.

( Arun Palli )
Judge

( Vikram Aggarwal )
16.02.2024 Judge
Rajan

Whether speaking / reasoned: YES/NO
Whether Reportable: YES/NO

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:022822-DB

4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 20-02-2024 01:32:37 :::