AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
In the head note of the petition, following prayers have been made:-
“Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to deliver the possession of Plot No.RR-33 and RR-34 to the petitioners respectively, allotted to them in the village Badmalik district Sonepat in terms of the allotment letter dated 31.01.2013 (Annexure P-1) under oustee/involuntary displacement quota, issued by the respondents in lieu the their land which was acquired by the respondents vide Award dated 28.11.2008. Since the land was acquired 13 years back, the possession of the aforesaid plot has not been delivered to the petitioners to till date, the inaction of the respondents to withheld the delivery of possession of aforesaid plots to the petitioners is an act which is not justifiable and unsustainable in the light of the National Rehabilitation and Resettlement Policy 2007. AND/OR Further prayed for issuance of a writ order or direction especially in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents not to interfere in the aforesaid plots by way of any manner which were specifically allotted to the petitioners vide the allotment letter dated 31.01.2013, as the respondents have in certain cases have changed the location of the plots especially those which were already allotted to the similar situated land owners in the year 2013 onwards without sending them any information before changing of the location. The petitioners have already approached to the authorities vide representation dated 27.03.2026 (Annexure P-14 in this regard as well as the delivery of possession which has not been decided till date. AND/OR Further prayed that during the pendency of the present writ petition, the respondents be directed to maintain status quo regarding the change of location of Plots No.RR-33 and RR-34, in the interest of justice. AND/OR Any other writ order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, in view of the facts and circumstances of the present petition.”
On 14.07.2026, this Court was pleased to pass the following order:-
“Present: Mr. Amit Aggarwal and Mr. Suman Nandal, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3.
Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has submitted that petitioner No.1 has been allotted Plot No.266 in the same sector where the initial allotment was made in his favour and even petitioner No.2-Rahul has been allotted Plot No.275 where the initial allotment was made. It is submitted that the said plots are of 14 marlas as were earlier allotted to the petitioners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners prays for an adjournment to get instructions.
Adjourned to 15.07.2026. July 14th, 2026”
Thereafter on 15.07.2026, this Court was pleased to pass the following order:-
“Present: Mr.Amit Aggarwal, Advocate and Ms.Suman Nandal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3.
***
Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are not satisfied with the location of the plots which have been allotted to them and it is far inferior to the location of the plots, which were earlier earmarked for them. It is further submitted that the plots, which were initially allotted to the petitioners, are still available and apparently the respondents want to give it to some other persons even though the petitioners have a prior right. Learned counsel for respondents no.2 and 3 is directed to verify and file an affidavit as to whether two plots of 14 marla are still available at the location where the petitioners were earlier being allotted plots no.R-33 and R-34 or not and in case they are available, then, as to why the same are not being allotted to the petitioners and as to whether these are being allotted to some other persons or not.
Adjourned to 23.07.2026.
To be taken up at 12:00 noon.
Till the next date of hearing, the two plots measuring 14 marla if available at the earlier location where the petitioners were initially allotted the plots will not be alienated.
Respondent no.3 is directed to be present through video conferencing. July 15, 2026”
On 23.07.2026, this Court had passed the following order:-
“Present: Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate and Ms. Suman Nandal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana. Mr. Sharad Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. Mr. Rishi Chauhan- respondent No.3 in person. (through video conferencing)
*****
Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 filed an affidavit in compliance of order dated 15.07.2026 passed by this Court, which is taken on record and a copy thereof has been given to the learned counsel for the petitioners.
Adjourned to 04.08.2026.
To be taken up at 03:30 p.m.
Respondent No.3 is directed to be present in person before this Court and respondent No.2-Managing Director, HSIIDC, is also directed to be present before this Court through video conferencing on the next date of hearing. 23.07.2026”
During the course of arguments, a consensus has been arrived at between the petitioners and respondents on instructions from Mr. Sushil Sarwan, Managing Director, HSIIDC-respondent No.2 who has appeared through Video Conferencing and thus, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions/observations:-
Petitioner No.1 would be allotted plot No.RR-11 and petitioner No.2 would be allotted plot No.RR-33 as depicted in the revised layout plan annexed as Annexure R-3/3 by the respondents.
The allotment letter would be issued within a period of six weeks from today subject to the petitioners complying with all the conditions of the policy in question.
All further actions in accordance with law would also be taken by the respondents authority as expeditiously as possible.
The present order has been passed in view of the exceptional facts and circumstances of the present case and would not be considered as a precedent.