IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 135 SAHIL KHAN THROUGH HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Mr. Chetan Bansal Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to alternative plot or to re have deducted from the payment made by the petitioner for allotment of 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plot Sector 77, Urban Estate, Faridabad 15.11.2016. He had paid a sum of Rs.41,5 pay the renaining from 450 square metr plot and sought refund of the amount amount, he was refunded a sum of Rs.24,02,654/ that the respondents have arbitrarily also submits that the petitioner had IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-27666-2025 DATE OF DECISION: SAHIL KHAN THROUGH HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Kunal Muthreja, Advocate Mr. Chetan Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to alternative plot or to refund an amount of Rs.17,55,009/ deducted from the payment made by the petitioner for allotment of Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plot Sector 77, Urban Estate, Faridabad had been re . He had paid a sum of Rs.41,57,003/ renaining amount as the cost had escalated square metres to 574.35 square metres. He had sought refund of the amount paid but instead of refunding the entire amount, he was refunded a sum of Rs.24,02,654/ that the respondents have arbitrarily deducted an amount of Rs.17,55,009/ submits that the petitioner had moved representation IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2025 DATE OF DECISION: 17.09.2025 SAHIL KHAN THROUGH HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER … Petitioner (s) ... Respondent(s) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL DEEPAK MANCHANDA , Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Haryana. The petitioner is seeking a direction to the respondents to offer an Rs.17,55,009/- which the respondents deducted from the payment made by the petitioner for allotment of the plot. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plot No.189P, had been re-allotted to the petitioner on ,003/- till 24.01.2017. He could not escalated due to increase in the area s to 574.35 square metres. He had later surrendered the but instead of refunding the entire amount, he was refunded a sum of Rs.24,02,654/- only. He, therefore, submits an amount of Rs.17,55,009/-. He representations on 28.09.2018 SAHIL KHAN THROUGH HIS GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER offer an which the respondents plot. No.189P, on till 24.01.2017. He could not area surrendered the but instead of refunding the entire . He, therefore, submits . He SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.09.22 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27666-2025 -2- (Annexure P-8) and 16.05.2024 (Annexure P-9) but the respondents have not responded to the representations. 3. Heard. 4. The plot measuring 450 square metres is stated to have been allotted to one Mohan Lal Pulyani vide allotment letter dated 05.08.2016 (Annexure P-1). The petitioner is stated to have purchased the plot from the original allottee and paid Rs.41,57,003/-. The allotment was transferred in the name of the petitioner on 15.11.2016 (Annexure P-2). The petitioner had surrendered the plot due to escalation in cost, as the area of the plot had increased from 450 square metres to 574.35 square metres. He had moved an application on 07.07.2017 for refund of the entire amount deposited by him or for allotment of an alternative plot in similar area. The respondents had accepted the application for surrendering the plot and refunded an amount of Rs.24,02,654/- through RTGS after deducting an amount of Rs.17,55,009/-. 5. The petitioner had not raised any objection at that time and it was only after 5 months i.e., on 14.12.2018 that he is stated to have sent a representation to the respondents seeking refund of Rs.17,55,009/-. Moreover, the petitioner has approached this Court 8 years after the amount had already been refunded to him. He ought to have been vigilant and should have exercised his legal remedy promptly for redressal of his grievances. Reliance can be placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Hameed Joharan (D) And Ors vs Abdul Salam (D) By Lrs. And Ors, AIR 2001 SC 3404, and the relevant extract of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:- “Xxxxx It cannot, but be the general policy of our law to use the legal diligence and this has been the consistent legal theory from the ancient times. Even the doctrine of prescription in Roman Law prescribes such a concept of legal diligence and since its incorporation therein, the doctrine has always been SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.09.22 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-27666-2025 -3- favoured rather than claiming dis-favour. Law courts never tolerate an indolent litigant since delay defeats equity. The Latin maxim ‘Vigilantibus non dormientibus jure subventiunt' (law assists those who are vigilant and not those who are indolent). As a matter of fact, lapse of time is a species for forfeiture of right. Wood, V.C. in Manby v. Bewicke, (3 K. & J. 342 at 352) stated : " ..the legislature has in this, as in every civilized country that has ever existed, thought fit to prescribe certain limitations of time, after which persons may suppose themselves to be in peaceful possession of their property and capable of transmitting the estates of which they are in possession, without any apprehension of the title being impugned by litigation in respect of transactions which occurred at a distant period, when evidence in support of their own title may be most difficult to obtain.” 6. Therefore, we do not deem it appropriate to exercise the writ jurisdiction in view of the huge delay on the part of the petitioner in preferring the writ petition. Consequently, the petition stands dismissed. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 17.09.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.09.22 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document