CWP-18552-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Serial No.117 CWP-18552-2026 Decided on:08.07.2026 Ved Prakash . . . Petitioner Versus Permanent Lok Adalat, Faridabad and another . . . Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present: Dr. Deepak Jindal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Bhupender Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J.(ORAL) The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Faridabad, dated 18.08.2025, Annexure P-7, whereby the petitioner’s application challenging the deduction of ten per cent of the total cost of the plot on account of its surrender, has been rejected. 2. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner was allotted a residential plot in Sector 78, Urban Estate, Faridabad vide letter dated 09.08.2016. The tentative cost of the plot was `1,23,18,075. After enhancement, the total cost came to `1,44,96,525. Thereafter, the petitioner decided to surrender the plot and submitted an application dated 27.06.2017 to that effect, which was accepted and an amount of `16,29,866 MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.13 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment CWP-18552-2026 -2- was refunded after deducting ten per cent of the total cost of the plot. This deduction was not permissible since there was no such condition in the letter of allotment issued to the petitioner. The circular, based upon which the deduction has been made, was not in the knowledge of the petitioner. 3. Learned State counsel appearing for respondent no.2/Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) [now known as Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP)] submits that the deduction has been made in accordance with the stipulations contained in the circular dated 07.05.1999, Ex.R-7. All the relevant facts and circumstances have been duly considered by the Permanent Lok Adalat while rejecting the petitioner’s/applicant’s contentions and, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be affirmed. 4. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered. 5. Apparently, after accepting the petitioner’s request for surrender, the due amount of `16,29,866 was refunded to him by deducting ten percent of the total cost of the plot out of the deposited amount. This was in terms of the circular dated 07.05.1999, which laid down the terms and conditions of surrender of plots. It is not the petitioner’s case that the respondent-Authority violated any of those terms, nor has he challenged the validity of the said circular. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the deduction. 6. The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) 08.07.2026 JUDGE Mehak Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.13 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment