Apoorva Setia Vs State of Haryana and Others

In the present writ petition, following prayers have been made:- “(i) Issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to allot Alternative Residential plot of the same category, size and terms in lieu of Plot No. 716, Sector-51, Urban Estate, Gurugram under the HSVP Policy dated 06.08.2024 (Annexure P-8 Pg No. 63-67), as the respondents have failed to deliver physical possession of the original plot for over 19 years despite receiving the entire sale consideration and despite the petitioner being duly recognized as a re-allottee, in the interest of justice. (ii) Direct the respondents to consider and decide the petitioner’s representations dated 09.02.2026 (Annexure P-10 Pg No. 69), 18.02.2026 (Annexure P-11 Pg No. 70) and 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-12 Pg No. 72) by granting the benefit of the Policy dated 06.08.2024 within a stipulated period expeditiously.

¶14

DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.17 16:54 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment

¶15

CWP-21302-2026 2

¶16

(iii) To issue any other writ, order or direction which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit to pass in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice, equity and fair play. (iv) To exempt the petitioner from filing certified and typed copies of Annexures.”

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the prayers made by the petitioner are squarely covered by the policy dated 06.08.2024 and has further submitted that several representations have been made by the petitioner to the respondent authorities but the same have not been considered. It is submitted that the petitioner would give a comprehensive detailed representation mentioning the specific clauses of the policy as per which the case of the petitioner is covered and prayed that at this stage the petitioner would be satisfied in case respondent no.4 considers the same in accordance with law in a time bound manner after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the representation submitted by the petitioner would be considered within a period of three months from the date it is submitted, in accordance with law and in case the pleas raised by the petitioner is found meritorious, then, necessary action in favour of the petitioner would be taken in accordance with law.

¶19

Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following observations / directions:-

¶20

DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.17 16:54 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment

¶21

CWP-21302-2026 3

¶22

i) It would be open to the petitioner to give a detailed representation to respondent no.4.

¶23

ii) In case the representation is given by the petitioner, respondent no.4 is directed to consider the same after granting opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the said representation by passing a speaking order and in case pleas raised by the petitioner is found meritorious, then, necessary relief be also granted to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible after the said consideration.

¶24

It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the case and the respondent no.4 would consider and decide the representation independently in accordance with law.

¶25

(VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE

¶26

(SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE

¶27

July 16, 2026. Davinder Kumar

¶28

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

¶29

DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.17 16:54 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment

Apoorva Setia v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Apoorva Setia v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hil India Limited Vs State of Haryana and Others

Kulbir Singh and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Subhash Chander Rawal Vs State of Haryana and Others

M/S Advance India Project Limited Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ram Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rakesh Kumar Garg Vs State of Haryana and Ors.