RA-CW-264-2022 in -1- CWP-24406-2021 and IOIN-CWP-24406-2021 in CWP-24406-2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (102 + 209) RA-CW-264-2022 in CWP-24406-2021 and IOIN-CWP-24406-2021 in CWP-24406-2021 Date of Decision: - 02.07.2026 Rita Arora and another ....Petitioners Versus Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioners. (Through VC). Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate, and Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate, for the review applicants-respondents/HSVP. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. Present review application has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with Order XVII Rule 1 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for review of the judgment and order dated 23.05.2022 and 05.08.2022 passed in CWP-24406-2021 titled as 'Rita Arora and another Vs. Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran and others'. 2. Learned counsel for the review applicants/respondents has submitted that the review applicants were respondents No.1 and 2 in the NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement RA-CW-264-2022 in -2- CWP-24406-2021 and IOIN-CWP-24406-2021 in CWP-24406-2021 main writ petition and are restricting their prayer for review/recall of direction No.13 incorporated in order dated 23.05.2022. The said direction is reproduced herein below: - “13. Yet further, it is directed that in each letter of allotment issued to any allottee anywhere in the State of Haryana by the respondent-HSVP, a condition shall be added as a part of the allotment conditions, that immediately upon receipt of any notice as regards litigation qua the plot being allotted, within fifteen days thereafter, the status thereof would be updated in the records and on the website of the respondents; also stating in the allotment letter that if the said updation is not made on the website, the allottee/any bona fide purchaser, shall be entitled to penal interest from the HSVP.” Learned counsel for the review applicants has pointed out that vide order dated 05.08.2022, the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, when the case was listed for compliance of the said order, had clarified that paragraph 13 shall be applicable only qua such litigation in which any interim order/injunction orders have been passed and not if simply notice has been issued. The relevant portion of the said order dated 05.08.2022 is reproduced herein below: - “Though learned counsel for the respondents also submits that in fact the respondents may be permitted to file an application as regards the difficulties that may be faced by them in implementing the aforesaid directions, however, as regards the direction as issued hereinabove (as modified), as also the direction contained in paragraph 10 of the order dated 23.05.2022, and further, also the direction contained in paragraph 13, we see no reason to alter our directions, except to clarify that what is stated in paragraph 13 shall NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement RA-CW-264-2022 in -3- CWP-24406-2021 and IOIN-CWP-24406-2021 in CWP-24406-2021 also be applicable only qua such litigation in which any interim orders/injunction orders have been passed, and not simply upon notice of a particular suit/petition being received” 3. Learned counsel for the review applicant has further prayed that the observation in the above order to the effect that “we see no reason to alter our directions” other than what has been clarified be also reviewed/recalled. 4. Learned counsel for the review applicants has submitted that the primary reason for giving directions as contained in para 13 was to make the allottee as well as the bona-fide purchaser aware about any litigation regarding the property in question. It is further submitted that the said purpose could be served by directing the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) to update the records, on the receipt of any notice of any case, by mentioning the details of the litigation on the portal of the respondents within a period of 15 days from the date of the receipt of the said notice. It is stated that the directions given in paragraph 13 would be in contradiction to the new proforma of allotment letters which has been incorporated in the regulations for auction of plots. It is further stated that as per the proforma allotment letter 'FORM CC-R', clauses have been incorporated in the same to the effect that in case there is any stay by any Court or there is litigation pending and on account of the said fact the authorities are not able to offer possession of the plot/site within three months after deposit of the full amount by the allottee, then, the full amount would be liable to be refunded to the allottee with interest and NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement RA-CW-264-2022 in -4- CWP-24406-2021 and IOIN-CWP-24406-2021 in CWP-24406-2021 that the allottee would have no claim on the site thereafter. It is submitted that all allotments to be made by HSVP is now by way of public auction. The relevant sub-para (x) of para 8 of the review application where the said aspects along with Clauses 10 and 11 of the proforma of allotment letter incorporated in the regulations have been mentioned and which has been highlighted by learned counsel for the review applicants, is reproduced herein below: - “The following decisions are important to be brought to notice of this Hon'ble Court: (a) 'Pradhikaran' considered the matter and amendment in sub regulation 3 regulation 5 of regulations, 1978 has been carried out in the year 2016/ 2017. Since the allotment by HSVP is now by way of public auction, a new proforma of allotment letters has been incorporated in the regulations for auction of plots and as per allotment letter FORM CC-R, a provision regarding possession provides that: 10. The possession of the site/plot shall be offered only after full bid amount has been paid to HUDA by you. In case possession of the plot is not offered within a period of 30 days after deposit of full bid amount, HUDA will pay interest @5.5% per annum (or as may be fixed by Authority from time to time) on the amount deposited by you till the date of offer of possession. However such interest shall be payable for the period calculated after expiry of 30 days as aforesaid and till the date of offer of possession. 11. However, if due to stay by the Court or litigation or any other circumstances beyond its control, HUDA is not able to offer possession of the plot/site within three months after deposit of full (100%) highest bid amount, the full amount deposited by you shall be refunded back with simple interest @ 5.5% per annum to be calculated from the date of respective deposits. You will not have any claim, on NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement RA-CW-264-2022 in -5- CWP-24406-2021 and IOIN-CWP-24406-2021 in CWP-24406-2021 this site/sites or any other site/sites” 5. It is thus submitted that as far as the allottee is concerned, his rights are well protected, inasmuch as, in case the offer of possession is not made within three months, then, the amount would be required to be refunded along with 5.5% per annum interest. It is stated that once the necessary updation is done on the portal with respect to the pending litigation, the rights of the purchaser would also be protected as it is expected from the said purchaser to verify the record before purchasing the property. It is submitted that in the said circumstances, the directions, more so, with respect to penal interest and also the incorporation of the condition in the allotment letter are unnecessary. It is further submitted that the said directions are also contrary to the new proforma of allotment letter which has been incorporated in the regulations and is also dehors the regulations/rules which govern the allotment in question. It is argued that the direction with respect to penal interest, apart from being contrary to the regulations/rules, is also vague, inasmuch as, neither the rate of penal interest nor the manner of levy has been prescribed in the direction in the para No.13 and thus, in case the said direction is not modified, then, the same would lead to multiplicity of litigation. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that as far as their rights are concerned, they have been protected. It is further submitted that the respondents be bound by the statement made before this Court that on the receipt of notice with respect to any NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement RA-CW-264-2022 in -6- CWP-24406-2021 and IOIN-CWP-24406-2021 in CWP-24406-2021 litigation, they would update the portal within a period of 15 days and they would mention the details of the litigation on the said portal. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the review applicants as well as learned counsel for the petitioners and are of the opinion that the directions given in para 13 of the order dated 23.05.2022 deserve to be modified and thus, para 13, as mentioned in the said order dated 23.05.2022, would stand substituted with the following direction/observation:- “The respondents/HSVP, on the receipt of any notice with respect to any litigation, would within a period of 15 days from the said receipt, update their portal and would specifically mention the details of the litigation on the said portal.” 8. The above direction would, in our understanding, be sufficient to protect the rights of the allottee and of the purchaser. In a case where neither the allottee nor the bona fide purchaser is a party and the respondent authorities are a party, the said allottee or the bona fide purchaser would come to know about the litigation after checking the portal/verifying the record. Moreover, since as per clause 11 of the policy in question, in case the authorities are not able to offer possession after the entire amount has been paid by the allottee on account of any stay order or any litigation, then, the authorities are bound to return the money along with interest and it has also been provided in the said policy that the allottee will not have any claim left on the said site in such a case and NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement RA-CW-264-2022 in -7- CWP-24406-2021 and IOIN-CWP-24406-2021 in CWP-24406-2021 thus, in the said circumstances in case of there being any stay or litigation, the allottee would be duly compensated. In the said circumstances, we are of the opinion that the direction to incorporate the same in the allotment letter would not serve any further purpose and would result in incorporating conditions which are not provided under the policy or any rules/regulations, and which are contrary to the clauses of the new proforma of allotment letter which has been incorporated in the regulations. The direction with respect to penal interest, apart from being dehors the rules/regulations, is also vague, inasmuch as, even the rate of penal interest has not been mentioned and thus, would result in multiplicity of litigation. Moreover, in case the respondents do not update the portal, as stated herein above, then, they would be liable to face serious consequences including Contempt of Court proceedings and the same would be a sufficient reason for the respondent authorities to comply with the directions with respect to updating the record on the portal. 9. In view of the above, the present review application as well as IOIN stands disposed of. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE July 02, 2026 naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes Whether reportable? No NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.06 16:26 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement