Partly allowed

Mohit Sindhu and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC11 Sept 2026CWP/29578/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court directed Estate Manager, HSIIDC, to within four months decide a legal notice filed by petitioners claiming allotment of residential plots in lieu of acquired land under the Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy of 2010.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Estate Manager, HSIIDC to decide legal notice dated 07.04.2026 within four months; reserved further relief if pleas are meritorious.

Mohit Sindhu and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

¶1

CWP-29578-2026 [1]

¶2

112

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP-29578-2026 Date of decision: 11.09.2026

¶5

Mohit Sindhu and others

¶6

...Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

...Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA

¶11

Present: Ms. Nevadita Malik Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners. (Through Video Conferencing)

¶12

Mr. Karan Jindal, DAG, Haryana, for respondent No.1.

¶13

Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana for respondent Nos.2 and 3.

¶14

¶15

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

¶16

In the head note of the petition, following prayers have been

¶17

made:-

¶18

“CIVIL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO ALLOT A RESIDENTIAL PLOT WITH ALL BASIC AMENITIES TO THE PETITIONERS IN LIEU OF THEIR ACQUIRED LAND, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT POLIC DATED 09.11.2010 (ANNEXURE P-1)

¶19

PAWAN KUMAR 2026.09.12 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶20

CWP-29578-2026 [2]

¶21

AND/OR

¶22

FURTHER DISPENSING WITH THE ISSUANCE OF ADVANCE NOTICES UPON THE RESPONDENTS AND EXEMPT THE PETITIONERS FROM FILING CERTIFIED OF ANNEXURES P- 1 TO P-6, AND ALLOW PLACING ON RECORD PHOTOCOPIES OF THE SAME: AND/OR

¶23

FURTHER PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR ORDERS AS YOUR LORDSHIPS MAY DEEM FIT AND PROPER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE.”

¶24

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the land of the petitioners was acquired and the award regarding the same was passed on 30.11.2009 and the petitioners/their legal representatives, being oustees, had applied for the plot according to their entitlement under the oustees quota. It is submitted that Certificates of entitlement have been issued to all the petitioners in the year 2023 and they have also deposited 10% of the tentative price but till date, neither draw of lots have been conducted nor any plot has been allotted to them. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in support of his arguments, has relied upon the order dated 05.03.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in COCP-399-2026 titled as “Veena Malik Vs. Arun Kumar Gupta and another”. It is submitted that for the redressal of their grievances, each of the petitioners has given legal notice dated 07.04.2026 which has been annexed as Annexure P-5 (Colly) along with the present petition and at this stage, they would be satisfied in case respondent No.3-Estate Manager, HSIIDC, is directed to decide the same in a time bound manner and in case the pleas of the petitioners are found to be meritorious then necessary relief would also be granted to the

¶25

PAWAN KUMAR 2026.09.12 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶26

CWP-29578-2026 [3]

¶27

petitioners.

¶28

Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the said legal notice dated 07.04.2026 {Annexure P-5 (Colly)} would be considered and decided by respondent No.3-Estate Manager, HSIIDC within a period of four months from today

¶29

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.3-Estate Manager, HSIIDC, to consider and decide legal notice dated 07.04.2026 {Annexure P-5 (Colly)} by passing speaking order(s) within a period of four months from today. In case, respondent No.3-Estate Manager, HSIIDC, finds that the pleas raised by the petitioners are meritorious then necessary relief would also be granted to the petitioners expeditiously.

¶30

(VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE

(DIVYA SHARMA)

JUDGE

11.09.2026

Pawan

Whether speaking/reasoned:Yes/No

¶36

Whether reportable:-

¶37

Yes/No

¶38

PAWAN KUMAR 2026.09.12 12:59 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Mohit Sindhu and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohit Sindhu and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases