Meenu Goel Vs State of Haryana and Others

This is a Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for directing respondents No.2 to 4 for issuance of No Objection Certificate for transfer of Plot No.1030, Sector 25, Phase II, Panipat.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that one Industrial Worker Housing Scheme for allotment of residential plots was launched by HUDA in the year 2001 for Sector 25, Phase II, Panipat and allotment of Plot No.1030 was made to the original allottee Ashok Kumar in terms of allotment letter dated 28.02.2002. It is submitted that thereafter the conveyance deed of the plot in question

¶17

was executed in favour of the said allottee vide conveyance deed

¶18

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.08 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

CWP No.7068 of 2026 2

¶20

No.8602 dated 30.01.2009 and thereafter the said Ashok Kumar had sold the plot to petitioner vide registered sale deed dated 04.07.2018, who further sold the property to Rajpal Khurana on 09.05.2022 and had executed General Power of Attorney on 09.01.2026. It is submitted that in spite of the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner, no NOC has been issued to the petitioner by HSVP. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that for the grievances raised by the petitioner, the petitioner has given a detailed representation dated 30.01.2026 and would be satisfied at this stage in case, the competent authority of the HSVP is directed to consider the same in a time bound manner and pass a speaking order thereon.

¶21

Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has fairly submitted that the competent authority would consider the representation dated 30.01.2026 in accordance with law within a period of three months from today and pass a speaking order on the same.

¶22

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the competent authority of the respondents-State to take a decision on the representation dated 30.01.2026 (Annexure P-7) within a period of three months from today and to pass a speaking order on the same. In case the competent authority finds that the case of the petitioner is meritorious, then, the necessary relief be also granted to the petitioner

¶23

as expeditiously as possible. It is made clear that this Court has not

¶24

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.08 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶25

CWP No.7068 of 2026 3

¶26

opined on the merits of the case and the competent authority would decide the said representation independently. It is further made clear that the competent authority would decide the case within the time frame given by this Court and in case the same is not done, then respondents would be liable to pay 15,000/- as litigation expenses to₹ the petitioner.

¶27

(VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE

¶28

July 7^th , 2026 (SUBHAS MEHLA) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes Whether reportable : No

¶29

PUNEET SACHDEVA 2026.07.08 09:33 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Meenu Goel v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Meenu Goel 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Amit Vs State of Haryana and Others

Ram Niwas Vs State of Haryana and Others

Amarnath Verma Vs State of Haryana and Others

Rambir Vs State of Haryana and Others

Inderjeet Kaur Vs State of Haryana and Others

Radha Charan and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others