CWP-18168-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (113-1) CWP-18168-2026 Date of Decision: - 27.07.2026 Usha Rani ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Nishant Maini, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. In the present writ petition, the following prayers have been made in the headnote: - “Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction, especially a writ in the nature of MANDAMUS, directing the respondents to allot an alternative residential plot of the same size to the petitioner in the same sector or adjoining sector, in lieu of disputed plot allotted to the petitioner, as the said plot is admittedly under litigation in CWP No. 5540 of 2000 and possession thereof has not been delivered for more than 20 years, the case of the petitioner having already been recommended by HSVP itself for allotment of an alternative plot vide recommendation dated 25.02.2026 (P-3), the claim of the petitioner being fully covered under HSVP Policy dated 06.08.2024 (P-5), NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.29 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CWP-18168-2026 -2- along with interest as per rules. AND/OR It is further prayed for directing the respondents to extend identical and non-discriminatory treatment to the petitioner as has already been extended in the case of adjoining/similarly situated plot holder namely Smt. Neelam Sharma (Plot No. 889), by considering the case of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot from all available developed/general category plots in the same sector and not by restricting the consideration only to oustees category/reserved plots, in the interest of justice. AND/OR It is further prayed for directing the respondents to consider and decide the Legal notice dated 29.04.2026 (P-4) (sent through email) seeking allotment of an alternative plot of the same size in the same sector or adjoining sector along with interest, within a time bound manner. AND/OR It is further prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue any other writ, order or direction, as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present writ petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that the respondents are going to carry out draw of lots by associating the present petitioner with respect to 27 plots. The detail of the said available 27 plots by virtue of the certificate issued has been produced before this Court during the course of hearing, which is taken on record and has been marked as "Mark D". The relevant portion of the said certificate is reproduced herein below:- “"It is hereby certified that in Sector 52, Gurugram following plots of 4 Marla category are vacant/un-allotted, clear from litigation. However, trees exists on Plot No.928, 929, 931, 932 NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.29 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CWP-18168-2026 -3- 933, 938, 2071-2080 for which Executive Engineer, HSVP Horticulture Division, Gurugram has been requested vide memo No.616 dated 17.07.2026 for removing/transplantation. Plot No.831, 916, 921, 922, 928, 929, 931, 932, 933, 936, 938, 1013, 1014, 1015, 1016, 1892, 1893, 1894, 1896, 1897, 2071, 2073, 2074, 2075, 2076, 2077 and 2080 (Total 27 Nos.).” 3. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has fairly submitted that a Public Interest Litigation has been filed, in which, the respondents have been restrained from cutting the trees and the A competent authority has taken a decision to not to cut trees. The details of the plots on which the said trees are present have been highlighted in the letter which is signed by Mr.Vikas, J.E., HSVP, Gurugram and a copy of the same has been produced during the course of hearing, which is taken on record and has been marked as "Mark D". The relevant part of the said letter is reproduced as under: - “2071/52 → 2 Nos trees 2073/52 → 2 Nos trees 2074/52 → No. tree 2075/52 → 1 No. tree 2076/52 → 1 No tree falls in front of plot 2077/52 → No tree 2078/52 → 1 No. tree 2080/52 → 1 No tree XXX XXX XXX 928/52 → 1 No. tree 929/52 → 1 No tree 931/52 → 2 Nos trees XXX XXX XXX 933/52 → No tree NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.29 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CWP-18168-2026 -4- 938/52 → 3 Nos trees” 4. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that the above-said fact be noted by the petitioner before accepting any plot in the draw of lots. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the primary grievance of the petitioner stands resolved in view of the above- said stand taken by the respondents-State. It is further submitted that since substantial number of plots have been offered, the petitioner would participate in the draw of lots with the understanding with respect to trees being there on certain plots as has been highlighted by the State counsel. It is stated that the petitioner has also raised a plea with respect to grant of interest on account of delay in handing over the possession and for the said purpose the petitioner has given a legal notice dated 29.04.2026 (Annexure P-4) and would be satisfied in case respondent No.3 takes a decision on the said legal notice dated 29.04.2026 with respect to the aspect of interest. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that a decision on the said legal notice dated 29.04.2026 (Annexure P-4) with respect to the aspect of interest would be taken within a period of three months in accordance with law by passing a speaking order. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the above-said statement satisfies the petitioner and has prayed that the present writ petition be disposed of but the respondents-State be bound by the statement made before this Court. NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.29 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CWP-18168-2026 -5- 8. Ordered accordingly. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE July 27, 2026 naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes Whether reportable? No NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.29 12:04 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement