CWP-28152-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CWP-28152-2026 Date of decision : 02.09.2026 Naresh Kumar ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA Present: Ms.Deepika Choudhary, Advocate for Mr.Vishal Garg Narwana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Bhardwaj, Addl. A. G. Haryana. VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL) 1. This is a Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for setting aside the transfer permission / NOC dated 24.07.2023 (Annexure P-5) granted by respondent no.5 in favour of respondent no.7. 2. Admittedly, the petitioner is neither the owner nor the transferee nor the purchaser and has no locus standi to file the present petition. The petition has been filed after a delay of more than 3 years from the date, the permission has been granted vide order dated 24.07.2023. A detailed report dated 30.04.2025 has also been submitted by the Chief DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.04 15:44 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-28152-2026 2 Vigilance Officer, HSVP, in pursuance of the complaint filed by the petitioner. The said report has not been challenged before this Court. A perusal of the detailed report which has been annexed as Annexure P-10 would show that the entire issue has been considered by the Chief Vigilance Officer, HSVP and it has been stated that the transfer of the plot in question i.e., House no.1481, Sector 18, HSVP, Panipat by Gaje Singh in favour of Sunita Devi was valid and the same was issued after the compounding fee amounting to Rs.11030/-and Rs.44050/- for the compoundable violation were paid by the original allottee. It has been specifically observed that the transfer permission has been issued only after receipt of the said fee and that the sale deed dated 05.09.2023 has also been executed. It is further stated that the present petitioner who is the complainant is a complete stranger and without having any right in the plot in question has filed frivolous complaint on account of some hidden motive against the officials of the HSVP and that the said complainant/petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the same. It has also been stated that there is no complaint made by the original owner who has transferred the property and by the vendee in whose favour the same has been transferred and also by the department who has transferred the same after receiving the due compounding fee. 3. The Chief Vigilance Officer has further stated that in the present case, the transferor and the transferee had suffered a lot, inasmuch as, several hyper technical objections were raised on several occasions and all the said objections have been duly met and even the compounding fee DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.04 15:44 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-28152-2026 3 has been paid. The Officer has, in fact after considering the facts of the case, directed the competent authorities to avoid such situation in future. 4. The said report is well reasoned and as stated hereinabove, the same has not been challenged before this Court and nothing has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioner before this Court to show that the said report is against law or against any rule. 5. As stated hereinabove, the petitioner has no locus standi to challenge the said transfer and further the petitioner is also barred by the principle of delay and laches, inasmuch as the said challenge has been made after a period of more than three years. 6. Finding no merits in the present writ petition, the same is dismissed. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (DIVYA SHARMA) JUDGE September 02, 2026. Davinder Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.04 15:44 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment