Samunder Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC9 Jul 2026CWP/5251/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches; writ petition under Article 226/227 challenging clause 4 of allotment letters (2018-2019) issued under the oustee scheme for land acquired for Rajiv Gandhi Education City, Sonipat; payment schedule of 25% within 30 days and balance within 60 days with automatic cancellation and forfeiture of Rs. 50,000/- earnest money; parity with Ombir v. State of Haryana (CWP-22302-2024, decided 25.02.2026; SLP (C) Diary No.20929/2026 dismissed 08.05.2026); seven-year delay bars instalment relief; liberty to apply afresh under oustee category; petition dismissed.

What did the court decide?

Liberty to the petitioners, as granted in paragraph 28 of the Ombir Division Bench judgment, to apply afresh as and when any advertisement is issued under the oustee category, in accordance with law. ¶¶112

Samunder Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and… — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Liberty to the petitioners, as granted in paragraph 28 of the Ombir Division Bench judgment, to apply afresh as and when any advertisement is issued under the oustee category, in accordance with law.

¶¶112

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition challenging clause 4 of the allotment letters issued in 2018-19 is covered by the coordinate Division Bench judgment in Ombir, particularly on the aspect of delay in approaching the Court. +2 more

¶¶8

Court's answer

The case of the present petitioners is covered by the judgment of the coordinate Division Bench in Ombir, more so on the aspect of delay in approaching the Court in challenging clause 4 of the allotment letters issued in 2018-19.

¶¶8

Ratio / Principle

The writ petition challenging the clause of the allotment letter issued in 2018-19 was filed in 2026 after a delay of more than seven years; the petitioners therefore cannot be granted the benefit of making payment in instalments, for the reasons given by the coordinate Division Bench in Ombir.

¶¶101

Key takeaways

The absence of specific cancellation orders does not make the Ombir judgment inapplicable; the challenge to clause 4 after a delay of more than seven years is squarely covered by its ratio, and no meaningful distinction of that judgment was pointed out on behalf of the petitioners.ratio¶¶107
The writ petition is dismissed, but the petitioners are granted the same liberty as in paragraph 28 of the Ombir judgment, namely to apply afresh as and when any advertisement is issued under the oustee category, in accordance with law.ratio¶¶112

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India challenging clause 4 of the allotment letters (Annexure P-11) issued in 2018-2019 to the petitioners, oustees whose land was acquired vide notification dated 17.11.2005 under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (award dated 02.03.2006) for Rajiv Gandhi Education City, Sonipat. Clause 4 required deposit of Rs. 2,115,625.00 (25% of the tentative price, including Rs. 50,000/- earnest money) within 30 days and the balance of Rs. 6,496,875.00 within 60 days, failing which the allotment would stand cancelled without notice and earnest money forfeited. The writ petition filed in 2026, i.e. after more than seven years, was held squarely covered by the coordinate Division Bench judgment in Ombir and others v. State of Haryana and others (CWP-22302-2024, decided on 25.02.2026), which stands upheld as SLP (C) Diary No.20929/2026 was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court on 08.05.2026. The delay of more than seven years disentitles the petitioners from the benefit of payment in instalments; the absence of specific cancellation orders does not distinguish the case, cancellation under clause 4 being automatic on non-payment, and no meaningful distinction of Ombir was pointed out. Writ petition dismissed, with the same liberty as in paragraph 28 of Ombir to apply afresh as and when any advertisement is issued under the oustee category, in accordance with law.

¶1

¶2

CWP No.5251 of 2026

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

123

¶5

CWP No.5251 of 2026 Date of decision: July 9^th , 2026

¶6

Samunder Singh and others

¶7

.....Petitioners

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Haryana and others

¶10

.....Respondents

¶11

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

¶12

Present: Mr. Sunny Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners (through V.C.).

¶13

Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

¶14

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)

¶15

This is a civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India in which the following prayers have been made:

¶16

“i. Civil Writ Petition under article 226/227 of the constitution of India for the issuance of issue writ of certiorari for quashing the impugned allotment letters (ANNEXURE P- 11).

¶17

ii. Further, issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondentsto charge/fix/demand allotment rates applicable in the year 2010-2011 i.e. @ 3960 per square meter, as were charged from SRM University, Chennai for allotment of plots to oustees who had applied in the year 2010-2011.

¶18

iii. Further, for issuance of direction to the respondents to issue fresh allotment letters after re-determination of the price of the plot, upon the price of land applicable on 25.07.2010 i.e. when the petitioners applied for allotment of plots under

¶19

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.13 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶20

CWP No.5251 of 2026

¶21

¶22

oustee scheme and deposited Rs. 50,000/- as booking amount for allotment of plots.

¶23

iv. Further for the issuance of direction to the respondents to not charge/recover the cost of the plot from the petitioners without re-determination of the same and to not cancel the allotment of plot of the petitioners in absence of non depositof cost of the plot.

¶24

V. Any other appropriate order or direction which this Hon'bleCourt may deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

¶25

vi. To call the complete records of the case;

¶26

vii. Condition of filing of certified copies/photocopies of Annexures may be dispensed with;

¶27

viii. Condition of service of advance notices upon the respondents may be dispensed with;

¶28

ix. Costs of the writ petition may be awarded in favour of the petitioner;”

¶29

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are primarily aggrieved with clause 4 of the allotment letters issued to the petitioners. The allotment letter issued to petitioner No.1 has been highlighted by the learned counsel for the petitioners and clause 4 of the same is reproduced hereinbelow:

¶30

“4. You shall deposit amount of 2,115,625.00 at the authorized bank and duly credited to HUDA account within a period of 30 days i.e. on or before of 21/08/2019 from the date of issue of this allotment letter which together with an amount of 50,000.00 paid by you along with your application form as earnest money, will constitute 25% of the total tentative price, Further, the balance amount i.e. 6,496,875.00 of the tentative price of the

¶31

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.13 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶32

CWP No.5251 of 2026

¶33

¶34

plot/building shall be paid in lump-sum without interest within 60 days i.e. on or before Dt. 20/09/2019 from the date or issue of the allotment letter, falling which this allotment shall stand cancelled without any notice and earnest money deposited by you, shall stand forfeited and you shall have no claim for the damages”

¶35

It is submitted that similar allotment letters have been issued to the other petitioners and the other petitioners have also challenged the said clause of the allotment letter. It is submitted that the said amount sought to be charged is excessive and against law and the said clause deserves to be set aside.

¶36

On 09.04.2026, the coordinate Division Bench of this Court was pleased to pass the following order:

¶37

“Present: Mr. V.P. Singh, Advocate for the petitioners (Through VC).

¶38

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

¶39

¶40

State counsel submits that the matter is squarely covered by judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Ombir and Others Vs. State of

¶41

Haryana and Others, Law Finder Doc ID # 2859104 .

¶42

List on 04.05.2026.

¶43

09.04.2026”

¶44

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.13 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶45

¶46

CWP No.5251 of 2026

¶47

Thereafter, on 11.05.2026, the coordinate Division Bench had passed the following order:

¶48

“Present: Mr. Sunny Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioners (THROUGH V.C.).

¶49

Mr. Anant Kataria, DAG, Haryana.

¶50

¶51

Let the counsel for the petitioners examine the judgment passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Ombir and others Versus State of Haryana and others (CWP-22302-2024, decided on 25.02.2026) and assist the Court.

¶52

List on 08.07.2026.

¶53

11.05.2026”

¶54

Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the judgment passed in the case of Ombir and others Versus State of Haryana and others would not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case.

¶55

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the case of the petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment passed in CWP No.22302 of 2024 in the case of Ombir and others Versus State of Haryana and others decided on 25.02.2026.

¶56

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners as well as the learned counsel for the respondents and have perused the paper

¶57

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.13 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶58

¶59

CWP No.5251 of 2026

¶60

book and are of the opinion that the case of the present petitioners is covered by the judgment of the coordinate Division Bench of this Court, more so on the aspect of delay in approaching the Court in challenging clause 4 of the allotment letters issued in the year 2018-19. 9. It is the case of the petitioners in the present writ petition that the land of the petitioners was acquired by Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) vide notification dated 17.11.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for development of commercial, institutional and residential Sectors 65 to 68, Urban Estate, Sonipat, also known as Rajiv Gandhi Education City, Phase-I and the award in the same was passed on 02.03.2006. It is further the case of the petitioners that the petitioners had applied for rehabilitation and resettlement under the Government of Haryana Policy and since the petitioners are oustees, they were issued allotment letters in the year 2018-2019. The allotment letter in favour of petitioner No.1 is stated to be dated 23.07.2019.

¶61

It is clause 4, which has been reproduced hereinabove, of the said allotment letter and the similar clauses in the other allotment letters as issued to the other petitioners which has now been challenged by the petitioners by filing of writ petition in the year 2026 i.e. after a period of seven years from the date of issuance of the said allotment letter. A perusal of clause 4 of the said allotment letter would show that

¶62

PUNEET SACHDEVA after the deposit of the 25% of the total tentative price, the further 2026.07.13 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶63

¶64

CWP No.5251 of 2026

¶65

balance amount was to be paid in lump sum within 60 days i.e. on or before 20.09.2019 from the date of issuance of the allotment letter and it was specifically stated that failing the same, the allotment would stand cancelled without any notice and the earnest money deposited shall be forfeited. 11. In Ombir and others’s case (supra), the facts, to the extent noticed above, were similar. In the said case also, with respect to the land of the petitioners therein, the notification under Section 4 was issued on 17.11.2005 as in the present case and the same was also for the establishment of Rajiv Gandhi Education City, Sonipat and the award was announced on 02.03.2006 and the petitioners therein were issued allotment letter in the year 2019 and the writ petition was filed in the year 2024. Even the rate, which was sought to be charged from them i.e. 19,200/- per square metre, was about the same as the rate₹ which is being sought to be charged from the present petitioners which fact is apparent from paragraph 2 of the allotment letter (Annexure P- 11). Several pleas were raised in the said petition, including the plea that petitioners therein should be permitted to pay the amount in instalments and that the condition requiring payment within 60 days was liable to be cancelled as the same was onerous. Reliance by the petitioners in the said case was placed upon the judgment of the Full Bench in the case of Rajiv Manchanda and others Versus Haryana

¶66

Urban Development Authority and another 2018(4) RCR (Civil) 508

¶67

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.13 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶68

¶69

CWP No.5251 of 2026

¶70

and the judgment of coordinate Divison Bench in the case of Ram Lal Mahendru Versus State of Haryana and others, CWP No.16389 of 2025, decided on 22.12.2025.

¶71

The coordinate Division Bench had framed three issues in the said case out of which issue No.2 was on the aspect as to whether the delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching the Court would disentitle them to claim the relief as given in the judgments relied upon by the petitioners therein or not. After considering the entire matter, the coordinate Division Bench of this Court had observed that since the clauses had been challenged after a period of six years by filing the writ petitions in the year 2024, thus, the petitioners therein, could not be granted the said relief at a belated stage and even while upholding the orders of cancellation which were passed in the said case, the Division Bench had granted liberty to the petitioners therein to apply afresh as and when any advertisement is issued in future under the oustee quota category. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:

¶72

“2. That the facts giving rise to the present writ petition are that the land of the petitioners was acquired vide Notification dated 17.11.2005 issued under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 for the establishment of Rajiv Gandhi Education City, Sonipat, and Award was announced on 02.03.2006. Subsequently, in the year 2010, the respondents framed a policy for allotment of residential plots to the oustees

¶73

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.13 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶74

CWP No.5251 of 2026

¶75

¶76

whose land had been acquired for the aforesaid project. Applications were invited from eligible landowners and the last date for submission of applications was 25.07.2010. The petitioners, being eligible oustees, duly applied within the prescribed period and deposited an amount of Rs.50,000/- as earnest money along with their respective application forms. Thereafter, the respondents issued allotment letters dated 19.03.2019, 20.03.2019, 26.03.2019 and 29.07.2019 (Annexures P-12 to P-16) demanding a rate of Rs.19,200/- per square meter and imposed erroneous conditions requiring the petitioners to deposit 25% of the total cost within 30 days and the balance amount within 60 days, failing which the allotments were liable to be cancelled.

¶77

It is pleaded that similarly situated oustees were granted the benefit of instalment payments vide letter dated 25.01.2017 (Annexure P-8), whereby they were permitted to deposit the remaining 75% amount in six equal annual instalments spread over six years. Aggrieved by the arbitrary terms, the petitioners earlier filed CWP No.571 of 2024, which was dismissed as withdrawn on 06.02.2024 with liberty to approach the respondent-authority. However, instead of granting relief, the respondents rejected the claim of the petitioners vide speaking orders dated 12.07.2024 (Annexures P-22 & P-22-A).”

¶78

XXX XXX XXXX

¶79

“5. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the action of the respondents in charging the current price applicable for the year 2019, i.e. ₹ 19,200/- per square meter, as stipulated in Clause 4

¶80

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.13 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶81

CWP No.5251 of 2026

¶82

¶83

of the allotment letters, is wholly arbitrary, illegal, unjust, non-transparent and discriminatory. It is contended that such action is in clear violation of the law laid down in the case of Rajiv Manchanda and others Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another, 2018 (4) RCR (Civil) 508 , and in the case of Ram Lal Mahendru Vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.16389 of 2025, decided on 22.12.2025 .”

¶84

XXX XXX XXXX

¶85

“10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. A plain reading of the pleadings and the material available on record would show that present bunch of petitions along with this petition centers around three issues as carved out hereinbelow, which require adjudication by this Court.

¶86

Whether the petitioners violated the terms and conditions of the allotment letters by failing to make the payment in accordance with the prescribed schedule and, if so, whether the consequent cancellation of the allotment and forfeiture of the earnest money disentitling the petitioners from claiming any damages is legal and sustainable in law?

¶87

Whether the delay on the part of the petitioners in approaching this Court disentitles them from claiming relief on the ground of parity with similarly situated petitioners/oustees?

¶88

Whether, after cancellation of the allotment, the

¶89

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.13 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶90

CWP No.5251 of 2026

¶91

¶92

petitioners, being oustees, are entitled to apply afresh at a subsequent stage as a distinct category in terms of the judgment rendered in Rajiv Manchanda (supra)?”

¶93

“12. While considering the first framed issue, i.e., whether the petitioners are entitled to relief, despite non-compliance with the terms and conditions of the allotment letters, it is noticed that the allotment letters were issued to the petitioners in the year 2019, requiring them to deposit 25% of the tentative price within 30 days and the remaining 75% within the subsequent 60 days. However, despite the said stipulation, the petitioners remained silent for a considerable period of about six years and, for the first time, approached the respondent-authority by serving a legal notice dated 01.01.2024 followed by a representation dated 21.02.2024. The said legal notice and representation came to be decided by the respondents vide the impugned orders dated 12.07.2024 (Annexures P-22 & P-22-A), which was passed in compliance with the directions issued by this Court on 06.02.2024 in CWP-571-2024 filed by the petitioners.

¶94

Further, in view of the aforesaid background, we are also of the considered opinion that, had the petitioners, immediately upon receipt of the allotment letters, raised their grievance and approached this Court seeking parity with the other petitioners/oustees who were granted relief in the light of Naresh (supra), an equitable relief could have been extended to them. By

¶95

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.13 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶96

CWP No.5251 of 2026

¶97

¶98

approaching the Court without any undue delay, the petitioners could have been placed at par with those petitioners and granted similar benefit. However, having failed to do so and having approached this Court at a highly belated stage, the benefit following from the above judgment cannot now be extended to them.”

¶99

XXX XXX XXXX

¶100

“28. In view of the foregoing discussion, the writ petition(s) are dismissed insofar as the prayers made therein are concerned. However, liberty is granted to the petitioners to apply afresh, as and when any advertisement is issued in future under the oustee category, in accordance with law.”

¶101

The said judgment of the coordinate Division Bench has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as the Special Leave Petition (Civil) Diary No.20929/2026 against the said judgment has been dismissed vide order dated 08.05.2026. In the abovesaid case, the delay in approaching the Hon’ble High Court was of a period of six years as the writ petitions were filed in the year 2024. In the present case, the delay in filing the writ petition challenging the clause of the allotment letter which was issued in the year 2018-19 is of more than seven years inasmuch as the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2026 and thus, the petitioners cannot be granted the benefit of making the payment in instalments on account of the reasons given by

¶102

the coordinate Division Bench of this Court in the abovesaid case.

¶103

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.13 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶104

CWP No.5251 of 2026

¶105

¶106

Although, apparently, there is one distinguishing feature between the abovesaid case and the present case inasmuch as in the said case, speaking order was passed vide which the claim of the petitioners was rejected on the ground of delay and the allotment was cancelled. In the present case, as has been stated on behalf of the petitioners, no specific cancellation orders have been passed but on the said aspect the learned State counsel has clarified that in case of non-compliance of clause 4, the cancellation is automatic as it has been specifically mentioned in clause 4 that in case the amount is not paid, then the allotment would stand cancelled without any further notice.

¶107

Be that as it may, the said aspect would not make the abovesaid judgment of the coordinate Division Bench inapplicable in the present case as the issue with respect to challenging clause 4 after a delay of more than seven years of the issuance of the allotment letter would stand squarely covered by the ratio of the law laid down by the judgment of the coordinate Division Bench. Moreover, no meaningful distinction of the said judgment has been pointed out on behalf of the petitioners.

¶108

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that since the allotment in favour of the petitioners is deemed to be cancelled, the limited relief granted to the petitioners in the said judgment in the case of Ombir and others (supra) be also granted to the petitioners.

¶109

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.13 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶110

¶111

CWP No.5251 of 2026

¶112

In the said circumstances, the present writ petition is dismissed. However, the liberty as has been granted to the petitioners therein in paragraph 28 of the Division Bench judgment is also granted to the present petitioners, who would be at liberty to apply afresh as and when any advertisement is issued under the oustee category, in accordance with law.

¶113

(VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE

¶114

July 9^th , 2026 (SUBHAS MEHLA) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : Yes

¶115

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.13 16:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Samunder Singh and Others v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Samunder Singh and Others 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Vijaypal Alias Vijay and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Sahab Singh Vs Commissioner Karnal Division and Others

Bakshish Singh Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rc Sood and Co.P.Ltd. Vs State of Hy.Etc.

Ram Mehar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Mehar Singh Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Anr.