CWP-23818-2022 (O&M) & CWP-23827-2022 (O&M) [1] 265 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. CWP-23818-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.07.2026 Sangeeta Dhull ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents 2. CWP-23827-2022 (O&M) Date of decision: 14.07.2026 Sangeeta Dhull ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Jayantika Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4-HSVP. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. This order will dispose of two writ petitions i.e., CWP-23818- 2022 and CWP-23827-2022 both titled as “Sangeeta Dhull Vs. State of Haryana and others”. In both the cases, prayer made by the petitioner is for PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.16 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-23818-2022 (O&M) & CWP-23827-2022 (O&M) [2] directing the respondents to allot the alternate plot. Rights are being claimed by the same petitioner in two writ petitions as she was subsequent purchaser with respect to two plots i.e., Plot No.868, Sector 6II, Urban Estate, Hansi, Hisar and Plot No.896, Sector 6II, Urban Estate, Hansi, Hisar. 2. On 13.07.2026, this Court had passed the following order:- “Present:- Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Senior Advocate, with Ms. Jayantika Dhull, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate, (Through VC), and Mr. Jatin Kaushal, Advocate for the HSVP. *** Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in the present case, the petitioner had purchased a plot from the original allottee and had paid the entire amount due, however his case for alternate plot was rejected on the basis of a policy which was in vogue in the year 2021. It is further submitted that subsequent to the same, a new policy dated 06.08.2024 has been issued by the HSVP, vide which even the subsequent purchaser/allottee is entitled to an alternate plot. A copy of the said policy dated 06.08.2024 has been handed over to the Court, which is taken on record and has been marked as “Mark A”. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied in case the respondents- HSVP consider the case of the petitioner under the latest policy. Learned counsel for the respondent(s)-HSVP prays for an adjournment to get instructions in the matter. Adjourned to 14.07.2026. To be taken up after the urgent list. A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of other PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.16 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-23818-2022 (O&M) & CWP-23827-2022 (O&M) [3] connected case. July 13, 2026” 3. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 4-HSVP has submitted that the competent authority of HSVP would consider the case of the petitioner under policy dated 06.08.2024, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. 4. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and fair stand taken on behalf of the petitioner and respondent Nos.2 to 4-HSVP, both the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction to the competent authority of HSVP to consider both the cases of the petitioner under policy dated 06.08.2024, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from today. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the pleas raised by the petitioner and same would be considered independently by the competent authority of HSVP. In case pleas of the petitioner are found to be meritorious and covered under policy dated 06.08.2024, then, necessary relief would also be granted to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 14.07.2026 Pawan Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.16 09:40 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document