CWP-29445-2026 [1] 107 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-29445-2026 Date of decision: 10.09.2026 Ahmed Wasi ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA Present: Mr. Kunwar Rajan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. In the head note of the petition, following prayers have been made:- “PETITION under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for the issuance an appropriate Writ, order or direction, especially in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the arbitrary, unilateral, and illegal cancellation/deactivation of Plot No.861, Sector-78, Faridabad, passed vide cancellation order Memo No.710 dated 25.01.2024 (Annexure P-14), whereby the respondents deactivated/cancelled the allotment of the plot in question and subsequently refused to accept the petitioner's Demand Draft of Rs.48,48,626/- dated 22.10.2025, which actions are in total violation of Section 17 of the HSVP Act, 1977, and are illegal, arbitrary, discriminatory, and unconstitutional, having been passed with mala fide intentions and for extraneous considerations, and thus not sustainable in the eyes of law. AND Issue a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to deposit the entire consolidated plot price of Rs.48,48,626/- (representing the PAWAN KUMAR 2026.09.11 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-29445-2026 [2] original tentative price of Rs.37,92,000/- plus the enhanced compensation of Rs.10,56,626/-) and execute the conveyance deed of the Residential Plot No.861, Sector-78, Faridabad, and deliver physical vacant possession of the same forthwith, in the spirit of law, equity, and good conscience. AND It is further prayed that during the pendency of the writ petition, the cancellation/ re-auction/re-allotment of Plot No. 861, Sector- 78, Faridabad, may kindly be stayed. AND It is further prayed, for directing the respondents to consider and decide upon the latest representation dated 29.07.2026 (Annexure P-16) within a specified timeframe, as expeditiously as possible. 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 petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was the absolute owner of land measuring 1240 square yards comprising in khasra No.18//3/1/2(0-8), 8/2/1(0-8), 9/1(4-3), 12/3(2-7), 13/1(0-10), and 8/2/2(0-8) situated within the revenue estate of Village Faridpur, Tehsil and District Faridabad and had constructed a residential house and commercial shops on the said land to sustain his family. It is submitted that the same was acquired and the award regarding the same was passed on 04.02.2011 and thereafter the petitioner applied for residential plot under the oustees category on 26.03.2012 and initially deposited Rs.50,000/- as earnest money and thereafter, the allotment letter dated 30.05.2017, allotting residential plot No.861, Sector-78, Faridabad, PAWAN KUMAR 2026.09.11 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-29445-2026 [3] measuring 200 square meters on free hold basis, was issued to the petitioner and the petitioner was required to pay 25% of the tentative price but on account of there being financial hurdles as well as there being typographical/clerical errors in the allotment letter, the petitioner did not get the bank loan within time to make the payment. It is submitted that the petitioner had made a prayer for extension of time but no specific order was passed on the same. It is further submitted that the demand for enhanced compensation was also made by the respondents and at that time also, spelling of the petitioner’s name was incorrect and vide letter dated 25.01.2024, without issuing any notice to the petitioner, the said allotment of the petitioner had been cancelled and the earnest money had been forfeited. It is submitted that as per the allotment letter dated 30.05.2017, under Clause 22, the petitioner can refer the dispute to the Sole Arbitration of the Chief Administrator. It is submitted that for the redressal of his grievance, the petitioner had given a detailed representation dated 29.07.2026 and that in the said circumstances, the said representation be treated as an application for referring the matter to the Sole Arbitration of the Chief Administrator. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents-State, on the other hand, has submitted that Clause 22 of the allotment letter dated 30.05.2017 would come into play only after the petitioner has paid 25% of the amount. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner in the abovesaid circumstances, has prayed that the petitioner be given one opportunity to explain his case before the competent authority and has prayed that respondent No.2 be requested to consider the representation filed by the PAWAN KUMAR 2026.09.11 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-29445-2026 [4] petitioner on 29.07.2026 in a time bound manner, after hearing the petitioner or his authorized representatives. It is further submitted that, in order to show his bona fide, the petitioner has prepared a demand draft amounting to Rs.48,48,626/- in the name of the Estate Officer, HSVP, Faridabad and a photocopy of the same has been annexed at page 73 of the paper book and he would be ready to tender the same or any other amount, along with interest and penalty, which the respondents may direct the petitioner to pay. 5. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and limited prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.2 to consider and decide the representation dated 29.07.2026 filed by the petitioner by passing a speaking order on the same, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of four months from today, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner or his authorized representatives. In case, respondent No.2 finds that the pleas raised by the petitioner are meritorious then necessary relief would also be granted to the petitioner expeditiously. 6. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand disposed of in view of the abovesaid order. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (DIVYA SHARMA) JUDGE 10.09.2026 Pawan Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No PAWAN KUMAR 2026.09.11 15:27 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document