CWP-28131-2026 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CWP-28131-2026 Date of decision : 02.09.2026 Suresh Isukapalli ... Petitioner Versus Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA Present: Mr.Aadil Singh Boparai, Advocate, Mr.Gurlabh Singh Bhaika Sidhu, Advocate, Mr.Nikunj Bindal, Advocate and Mr. Ronit Bose, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Bhardwaj, Addl. A. G. Haryana. VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL) 1. In the present writ petition, following prayers have been made:- “CIVIL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, INTER-ALIA SEEKING ISSUANCE OF THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT/ORDER/DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENT TO EXECUTE CONVEYANCE DEED IN FAVOUR OF THE PETITIONER IN RESPECT OF PLOT NO. 442, SECTOR 75, URBAN ESTATE, FARIDABAD, TO THE PETITIONER, THE SAME HAVING BEEN ALLOTTED TO HIM VIDE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 13.04.2023 ISSUED BY RESPONDENT AUTHORITY. AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO HAND OVER THE PEACEFUL AND VACANT PHYSICAL POSSESSION OF PLOT NO. 442, SECTOR 75, URBAN ESTATE, FARIDABAD, TO THE PETITIONER. DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.04 15:44 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-28131-2026 2 AND ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION TO THE RESPONDENTS TO PAY TO THE PETITIONER PENAL INTEREST @5.5% PER ANNUM (OR AT SUCH RATE AS MAY BE APPLICABLE) ON THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY HIM, CALCULATED IN TERMS OF CLAUSE 5 OF THE ALLOTMENT LETTER DATED 13.04.2023 (ANNEXURE P-5), FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD OF DELAY IN DELIVERY OF POSSESSION; AND PASS ANY OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY DEEM FIT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the HSVP had conducted an e-auction of the residential plots in Sector 75, Urban Estate, Faridabad, on 23.10.2022 and the petitioner was declared as successful bidder for plot no.442 for a total bid amount of Rs.61,19,200/- and after the bid of the petitioner was accepted, a letter of intent was issued on 30.11.2022. It is submitted that the petitioner had applied for a Home Loan which was also approved and the HSVP had issued letter offering the possession on 13.04.2023 and thereafter the petitioner vide letter dated 02.11.2023 had sought physical possession which was rejected on the ground that no development has taken place at the site. It is submitted that even though a period of more than 2½ years has lapsed, till date, the physical possession has not been given. It is submitted that for the redressal of his grievance, the petitioner has given a detailed representation dated 08.08.2026 and has stated that at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent no.2 takes a final decision on the same by passing a speaking order in a time bound manner. It is further submitted that in case DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.09.04 15:44 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-28131-2026 3 the plea raised by the petitioner is found meritorious, then, necessary relief be given to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that respondent no.2 would consider the said representation in accordance with law and pass a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of the present order. 4. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and the limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with the direction to respondent no.2 to consider the representation dated 08.08.2026 and to pass a speaking order on the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of 3 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the present order. In case the plea raised by the petitioner is found meritorious, then, necessary relief be given to the petitioner and in case the same is not found meritorious, then, valid reasons for rejection of the same be given. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the case and the same would be decided independently in accordance with law. (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