Ved Prakash Vs Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) and Anr.

The petition has been filed inter alia seeking a writ of certiorari quashing the award passed by the Permanent Lok Adalat, Faridabad, dated 18.08.2025, Annexure P-7, whereby the petitioner’s application challenging the deduction of ten per cent of the total cost of the plot on account of its surrender, has been rejected.

¶15

Learned counsel contended that the petitioner was allotted a residential plot in Sector 78, Urban Estate, Faridabad vide letter dated 09.08.2016. The tentative cost of the plot was 1,23,18,075. After enhancement, the total cost came to 1,44,96,525. Thereafter, the petitioner decided to surrender the plot and submitted an application dated

¶16

27.06.2017 to that effect, which was accepted and an amount of `16,29,866 MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.13 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

¶17

CWP-18552-2026

¶18

-2-

¶19

was refunded after deducting ten per cent of the total cost of the plot. This deduction was not permissible since there was no such condition in the letter of allotment issued to the petitioner. The circular, based upon which the deduction has been made, was not in the knowledge of the petitioner.

¶20

Learned State counsel appearing for respondent no.2/Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) [now known as Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP)] submits that the deduction has been made in accordance with the stipulations contained in the circular dated 07.05.1999, Ex.R-7. All the relevant facts and circumstances have been duly considered by

¶21

the Permanent Lok Adalat while rejecting the petitioner’s/applicant’s contentions and, therefore, the impugned award deserves to be affirmed.

¶22

Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have been considered.

¶23

Apparently, after accepting the petitioner’s request for surrender,

¶24

the due amount of `16,29,866 was refunded to him by deducting ten percent of the total cost of the plot out of the deposited amount. This was in terms of the circular dated 07.05.1999, which laid down the terms and conditions of surrender of plots. It is not the petitioner’s case that the respondent-Authority violated any of those terms, nor has he challenged the validity of the said circular. Therefore, no exception can be taken to the deduction.

¶25

The petition, accordingly, stands dismissed.

¶26

(TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) 08.07.2026 JUDGE Mehak

¶27

Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No

¶28

MEHAK HURIA 2026.07.13 18:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment

Ved Prakash v. Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ved Prakash v. Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pankaj Periwal Vs State of Punjab and Others

Dharambir Singh Dhankar Vs Permanent Lok Adalat and Anr.

Indusind Nippon Life Insurance Company Limited Vs Aruna Sachdeva and Others

Gurpreet Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Others

Daksya Academy Pvt. Ltd. Vs Haryana State Industrial and Others

Prem Kaur Vs Reserve Bank of India and Anr.