*****

DEEPAK MANCHANDA, J.

CM-2353-CWP-2026

In view of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed and copy of the judgment passed by this Court in CWP-14243-2024 titled ‘Vishal Kandwal Vs. State of Haryana and others’ decided on 16.10.2025 annexed with the application is taken on record as (Annexures P-17).

CWP-18082-2024 (Main case)

1. The present petition has been filed seeking restoration of the status of originally allotted Plot No. 2373, Sector-1, Part-II, Hisar, allotted to the petitioner vide Allotment Letter No. ZO003/EO006/UE012/GALOT/0000000568 dated 27.06.2023 (Annexure P-3), and for handing over physical possession of the said plot after removal of the encroachment existing thereupon. In the alternative, the petitioner seeks issuance of directions to the respondent-HSVP to allot an alternative plot and hand over possession thereof in terms of the policy dated 18.02.2013 (Annexure P-12) framed by the respondent-authority.

2. A bare perusal of the pleadings as well as the material available on record reveals that the petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by this Court in CWP No. 14243 of 2024 titled Vishal Kandwal vs. State of Haryana and others, decided on 16.10.2025 (Annexure P-17). It has been contended that the controversy involved in the present petition is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgment, inasmuch as, even in the present case, actual physical possession of the plot was not delivered on account of the same being under encroachment by third parties, which is attributable to the negligence and inaction on the part of the respondent-authority. It has further been averred that prior to auctioning the plot in question, the requisite due diligence was not undertaken by the respondent-authority. Consequently, the petitioner has prayed that the present petition be disposed of in terms similar to those granted in the aforesaid judgment.

3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent – authority (HSVP) submits that the prayer of the petitioner for allotment of an alternative plot cannot be accepted and the present petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had agreed to the terms and conditions of the e-auction policy. He further submits that as per Clause 39 thereof, in the event of inability to deliver possession of the allotted plot, the petitioner is only entitled to refund of the amount deposited along with interest @ 5.5% per annum till the date of delivery of possession. He has further argued that once the petitioner had accepted the terms and conditions of allotment, he cannot now resile from the same.

4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have carefully gone through the record of the case with their able assistance.

5. A perusal of pleadings would show that while issuing notice of motion on 01.08.2024, following order was passed by this court and same is reproduced hereinunder:

“Vide allotment letter dated June 27, 2023 (P-3), petitioner (Laxmi Devi) was allotted a site/plot No.2373 (measuring 135 sq. meters), Sector 1, Part II, Urban Estate, Hisar. It is not disputed that after allotment the petitioner remitted the entire sale consideration, i.e. Rs.76,45,900/-. Whereupon, vide communication dated June 27, 2023 (P-4), the respondent-authorities offered possession of the allotted site to the petitioner. However, the authorities failed to deliver the actual physical possession.

With reference to the report of the Committee dated September 27, 2023 (P-9), learned counsel for the petitioner submits that, in fact, plot Nos.2373 to 2364-P, Sector 1, Part II, Hisar were encroached by pucca structure/house that existed on the said site(s). And, therefore, it was not viable for the authorities to deliver the actual physical possession. Further, he refers to the directions issued by the Chief Administrator, HSVP, Panchkula, dated January 2, 2024 (P-10), whereby the Administrator as also the Estate Officer, HSVP, Hisar were