Allowed¶26

Smt Santra Devi v. State of Haryana and Another

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Jul 2026CWP/21305/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Refund of flat deposit; Housing Board Haryana; withdrawn housing scheme; unjust enrichment; refund not contingent on transfer of registration number; widow claiming deposit of deceased applicant-husband; mandamus under Article 226; interest as per Raj Pal Singh Gahlaut, CWP19124-2021 (decided 30.05.2022); Rs.1,61,000/- deposit; Flat No.82, Housing Board Colony, Sector 19, Type-B, Rewari; Punjab and Haryana High Court; CWP-21305-2026; decision date 17.07.2026; Vikas Bahl, J.; Subhas Mehla, J.

What did the court decide?

Refund to the petitioner of the amount deposited against Flat Registration No.82, Housing Board Colony, Sector 19, Type-B, Rewari, Haryana, payable by respondent No.1 within one month, along with interest as per the law laid down in Raj Pal Singh Gahlaut (supra); writ petition allowed. ¶26

Smt Santra Devi Vs State of Haryana and… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the amount deposited by the petitioner's husband against Flat No.82, Housing Board Colony, Sector 19, Type-B, Rewari, Haryana is liable to be refunded to the petitioner along with interest, and whether such refund can be deferred until the registration number is transferred to her.

¶14

Court's answer

Since the scheme stands withdrawn and the flat cannot be transferred, the limited prayer of the petitioner for return of money along with interest cannot be made contingent on transfer of the registration number in her favour.

¶24

Ratio / Principle

The respondents, by retaining the amount deposited by the petitioner's husband, have unjustly enriched themselves.

¶24

Key takeaways

Respondent No.1 is directed to refund the amount deposited against Flat Registration No.82, Housing Board Colony, Sector 19, Type-B, Rewari, Haryana within one month, along with interest as per the law laid down in Raj Pal Singh Gahlaut (supra).ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Writ Petition (CWP-21305-2026) under Article 226 of the Constitution of India — Santara v. State of Haryana and another (Punjab & Haryana High Court, decision dated 17.07.2026, coram Vikas Bahl and Subhas Mehla, JJ.; oral judgment by Vikas Bahl, J.). The petitioner's husband had applied for a flat in Housing Board Colony, Sector 19, Type-B, Rewari (Registration No.82) and deposited Rs.1,61,000/- after taking a loan; he died on 15.12.2014, and the Housing Board issued the final registration in his name by letter dated 06.02.2015. The petitioner's application dated 21.06.2023 for transfer of the registration was not acted upon for over three years, the respondents stating that the scheme had been withdrawn and no allotment could be made. Held: (i) as the scheme stands withdrawn and the flat cannot be transferred, refund with interest cannot be made contingent on transfer of the registration number to the petitioner; (ii) by retaining the deposited amount the respondents have unjustly enriched themselves; (iii) respondent No.1 directed to refund the deposited amount within one month along with interest as per the law laid down in Raj Pal Singh Gahlaut, CWP19124-2021 (decided 30.05.2022). Writ petition allowed.

¶1

CWP-21305-2026 [1]

¶2

107

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-21305-2026 Date of decision: 17.07.2026

Santara

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and another ...Respondents

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

¶10

Present: Ms. Vanshika Daaria, Advocate for Mr. Surinder Kumar Daaria, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana.

¶12

¶13

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

¶14

This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to refund the amount received from the husband of the petitioner against the allotment of Flat No.82, Housing Board Colony, Sector 19, Type-B, Rewari, Haryana.

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the husband of the petitioner had applied for flat in Housing Board Colony, Sector 19, Type-B, Rewari, Haryana bearing Registration No.82 and after the said application has been moved, he had deposited an amount of Rs.1,61,000/- after taking loan. It is further submitted that the husband of the petitioner had died on 15.12.2014, however vide letter dated 06.02.2015 issued by the Housing Board, Haryana, final registration number was in the name of the husband of the petitioner. It is submitted that the husband of the petitioner, in addition to Rs.1,61,000/-, had paid further amount also and the petitioner had also moved

¶16

PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.20 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶17

CWP-21305-2026 [2]

¶18

an application dated 21.06.2023 for transfer of the said registration number in favour of the petitioner but the petitioner was informed that since the scheme has been withdrawn thus, no allotment could be made in favour of the petitioner or any of her family members. It is submitted that thereafter, the petitioner had made a request to the respondents to refund the amount which has been deposited against the said flat, on which the respondents have been delaying the matter. It is submitted that since it is the respondents who have withdrawn the scheme, thus, the petitioner or her family members cannot be faulted for the same and the amount deposited by the husband of the petitioner deserves to be returned to the petitioner along with interest.

¶19

Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that the amount along with interest would be returned as per law laid down in CWP19124-2021 titled as “Raj Pal Singh Gahlaut Vs. Housing Board Haryana and another” and other connected matters, decided on 30.05.2022 but the

¶20

same would be done after registration number in favour of husband of the petitioner is transferred in favour of the petitioner.

¶21

On a pointed query raised by this Court, learned State counsel has fairly submitted that the scheme has been withdrawn and thus, the flat cannot be transferred to the petitioner. In the said circumstances, the payment to the petitioner cannot be deferred till transfer of registration number in favour of the petitioner who is admittedly the wife of the person in whose name the registration number stands. It is not disputed that the husband of the petitioner had deposited the amount and was assigned a registration number for a flat in Housing Board Colony, Sector 19, Type-B, Rewari, Haryana. It is also not disputed that the allotment of the said flat was not made to the husband of the

¶22

PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.20 17:00 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶23

CWP-21305-2026 [3]

¶24

petitioner while he was living and cannot be made to the petitioner on account of the fact that the scheme under which the said flat has been allotted has been withdrawn. Moreover, the petitioner had moved an application on 21.06.2023 for transfer of the said registration number in her favour. It is not disputed that till date, the respondents have not transferred the said registration number in the name of the petitioner in spite of lapse of more than three years. In the said circumstance, limited prayer of the petitioner to return money along with interest, cannot be made contingent to the transfer of the registration in favour of the petitioner. The respondents by retaining the said amount have unjustly enriched themselves.

¶25

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the limited prayer made by the petitioner to the effect that the amount deposited against Flat Registration No.82, Housing Board Colony, Sector 19, Type-B, Rewari, Haryana, be refunded to the petitioner, is allowed. Accordingly, respondent No.1 is directed to refund the amount deposited against Flat Registration No.82, Housing Board Colony, Sector 19, Type-B, Rewari, Haryana within a period of one month from today along with interest as per law laid down in the case of Raj Pal Singh Gahlaut (Supra).

¶26