CWP-21571-2026 [1] 112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-21571-2026 Date of decision: 17.07.2026 Vivek Arya ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. R.N. Lohan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to issue the reallotment letter in favour of the petitioner of plot No.1466, Sector 10, Urban Estate, Jind. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that plot No.1466, Urban Estate, Jind was allotted to Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta vide allotment letter dated 08.06.1979 and conveyance deed dated 06.10.1988 was executed in his favour. It is submitted that Sangeeta Arya, wife of Sudesh Kumar, purchased the above said plot vide sale deed dated 03.10.1988 on the basis of permission granted by the Estate Officer vide letter dated 28.10.1988 and thus, Sangeeta Arya who was the mother of the present petitioner was the bona fide purchaser. It is submitted that the mother of the petitioner had repeatedly sought issuance of re-allotment letter, however, the same was not issued and ultimately, it was learnt that the plot falls in “multiple allotments” and even the proceedings which were initiated to resolve the same were not PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.17 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-21571-2026 [2] finally decided and in the meantime, the mother of the petitioner had died on 15.11.2025 and now the petitioner has become the owner of the said house by virtue of the registered Will dated 24.05.2022. It is submitted that for the redressal of his grievance, the petitioner has already given several representations including legal notice dated 09.04.2026 (Annexure P-10). It is further submitted that at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent No.1 is directed to decide the same in a time bound manner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the said legal notice dated 09.04.2026 would be considered and decided by respondent No.1, within a period of three months from today and in case the pleas of the petitioner are found to be meritorious then necessary relief would also be granted to the petitioner. 4. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.1 to consider and decide legal notice dated 09.04.2026 by passing a speaking order within a period of three months from today. In case, respondent No.1 finds that the pleas raised by the petitioner are meritorious then necessary relief be also granted to the petitioner expeditiously. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 17.07.2026 Pawan Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.17 17:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document