Nirmala Gurawa vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-15826-2022 (O&M) [1]
240
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH

CWP-15826-2022 (O&M)
Date of decision: 02.11.2026
Nirmala Gurawa ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA
Present: Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.K. Panwar, Addl. A.G. Haryana.
Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the respondents-HSVP.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. 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 the issuance of a writ in the nature of Certiorari for setting
aside the order dated 01.03.2021 (Annexure P-6), order dated
14.12.2021 (Annexure P-8) and order dated 15.06.2022 (Annexure P-
10) vide which the SCO site of the petitioner has been resumed in an
illegal, arbitrary manner and without following the due procedure of
law.
AND/OR
For the issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction, as
may be deemed necessary in the facts and circumstances of the present
case.”
2. The undisputed facts of the present case are that SCO Site
No.70 (3 Storey with basement) in Sector 55-56 Gurugram was allotted to
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-15826-2022 (O&M) [2]
the petitioner in an auction conducted by the respondents on 24.05.2004 for
an amount of Rs.1,08,00,000/- and allotment letter was also issued to the
petitioner on 24.09.2004. The petitioner had paid 25% of the said amount
i.e., Rs.27,00,000/- within the time as prescribed. The balance 75% of the
sale consideration was to be paid and since the petitioner did not pay the
same, the respondent authorities had issued notices under Section 17(1) and
17(2) of the HUDA Act, 1977 which as per the case of the petitioner were
never served upon the petitioner and thereafter, the resumption order was
passed on 01.03.2021 on account of non-payment of the outstanding dues.
Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed on 14.12.2021 and the revision
petition filed by the petitioner was further dismissed on 15.06.2022. It is the
said orders which have been challenged in the writ petition before us.
3. On 22.09.2022, a Coordinate Division Bench of this Court had
passed the following order:-
“Present: Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.
Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the respondents-HSVP.
The petitioner purchased SCO Site No.70 (3 storey with
basement) in Sector 55-56, Gurugram in an auction held on 24.05.2004
by giving a bid of Rs.1,08,00,000/-. Allotment letter dated 24.09.2004
was issued to her. The petitioner has so far deposited only 25% of the
bid amount. A notice under Section 17(1) of the Haryana Shehri Vikas
Pradhikaran Act, 1977 (for short “the Act”) was issued to her on
18.05.2005. Thereafter, another notice dated 17.07.2007 was issued.
No other proceedings have been carried out in this regard. The
petitioner is stated to have submitted an application in the office of
HSVP on 13.07.2020 seeking status of her account, which was shown
as de-activated on the portal of the HSVP. On 01.03.2021, a letter was
communicated to her that the premises has been resumed under Section
17 of the Act and 10% of the consideration amount with interest had
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-15826-2022 (O&M) [3]
been forfeited as per HSVP Policy.
The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that
resumption order under Section 17(4) of the Act has been passed
without taking recourse to the mandatory provisions of Section 17(3)
of the Act as no notice under Section 17(3) of the Act was ever issued
to the petitioner. He relies on a decision rendered by this Court in
Sham Lal Nagpal vs. State of Haryana, 1997(3) RCR (Civil) 99 to
contend that the order is illegal and not sustainable in law . He states
that the respondents-HSVP is proposing to auction the site in question
on 23.09.2022.
Notice of the application.
Ms. Tanisha Peshawaria, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Deepak
Sabherwal, Advocate accept notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2
and respondent Nos.3 to 7 respectively. They seek some time to have
instructions.
List on 22.11.2022.
Meanwhile, auction of SCO Site No.70 located in Sector 55-
56, Gurugram shall remain stayed.
September 22, 2022”
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has reiterated the arguments
as noticed in the said order and has submitted that the impugned orders
deserve to be set aside solely in view of the fact that no notice under Section
17(3) of the Act was issued to the petitioner before passing the resumption
order. The fact that no notice under Section 17(3) was issued could not be
disputed on behalf of the respondents. Section 17(3) which has been
highlighted on behalf of the petitioner is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“ 17. Resumption and forfeiture for breach of conditions of transfer:
(1) Where any transferee makes default in the payment of any
consideration money, or any instalment, on account of the sale of any
land or building, or both, under section 15, the Estate Officer may, by
notice in writing, call upon the transferee to show cause within a period
of thirty days, why a penalty which shall not exceed ten percent of the
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-15826-2022 (O&M) [4]
amount due from the transferee, be not imposed upon him.
(2) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the transferee and
after giving him a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter,
the Estate Officer may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, make an
order imposing the penalty and direct that the amount of money due
alongwith the penalty shall be paid by the transferee within such period
as may be specified in the order.
(3) If the transferee fails to pay the amount due together with the
penalty in accordance with the order made under sub-section (2), or
commits a breach of any other condition of sale, the Estate Officer
may, by notice in writing, call upon the transferee to show cause
within a period of thirty days, why an order of resumption of the land
or building, or both, as the case may be, and forfeiture of the whole or
any part of the money, if any, paid in respect thereof which in no case
shall exceed ten per cent of the total amount of the consideration
money, interest and other dues payable in respect of the sale of the
land or building, or both, should not be made.
(4) After considering the cause, if any, shown by the transferee in
pursuance of a notice under sub-section (3) and any evidence that he
may produce in support of the same and after giving him a reasonable
opportunity of being heard in the matter, the Estate Officer, may for
reasons to be recorded in writing, make an order resuming the land or
building or both, as the case may be, and directing the forfeiture as
provided in sub-section (3) of the whole or any part of the money paid
in respect of such sale.
xxx xxx xxx””
5. A perusal of Section 17(3) would show that it is incumbent
upon the respondent-authorities, in case the petitioner fails to pay the
amount due along with penalty, to issue notice in writing calling upon the
transferee to show cause within 30 days as to why the order of resumption
of the premises in question be not passed. Thus, the petitioner has rightly
agitated that the impugned orders deserve to be set aside on the short
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-15826-2022 (O&M) [5]
ground alone as the mandatory procedure has not been adopted. However,
since the fact that the petitioner has not paid substantial amount thus, on
08.10.2026, this Court was pleased to pass the following order:-
“Present:- Mr. Divyam Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. S.N. Panwar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the respondent(s)-HSVP.
*
Learned counsel for the respondents is directed to inform the
reserve price of similarly placed plot in the last auction held. The
respondent-authorities would also inform the Court the present
collector rate of the property in question. Both the said aspects would
be stated on an affidavit.
Learned counsel for the petitioner would also get instruction in
the view of the judgment dated 25.09.2026 passed by this Court in
CWP-14697-2024 titled as 'Shobhana Devi and another Vs. State of
Haryana and others' .
Adjourned to 02.11.2026.
To be taken up after the urgent list.
October 08, 2026”
6. In pursuance of the above order, the respondent authorities
have filed an affidavit dated 29.10.2026 today in the Court which is taken
on record. Para 3 of the said affidavit reads as under:-
“3. That it is respectfully submitted that the reserve price of the
similarly placed site i.e. SCO No. 83, Sector 56, Gurugram in the last
auction held on 21.03.2023 was Rs.7,44,08,300/- which was sold in e-
auction at the price of Rs.7,46,08,300/-. A copy of allotment letter
dated 04.07.2023 is annexed herewith as Annexure R-1 for kind
consideration of this Hon'ble Court.”
7. It is the case of the respondent authorities that similarly placed
Site i.e., SCO No.83, Sector 56, Gurugram was sold for an amount of
Rs.7,46,08,300/- on 21.03.2023 and reserve price of the same was
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-15826-2022 (O&M) [6]
Rs.7,44,08,300/-.
8. Vide judgment dated 25.09.2026 passed by this Court in CWP-
14697-2024 titled as 'Shobhana Devi and another Vs. State of Haryana
and others', this Court while examining the matter in which resumption
order has been passed on account of non-payment of the installments had
tried to balance the equity by deriving a formula. Relevant portion of the
said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
“18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Teri Oat
Estates (P) Ltd. (supra), had observed that the drastic power of
resumption and forfeiture is to be taken recourse to as a last
resort. It was observed that the Estate Officer, while passing the
resumption order must take into consideration the facts and
circumstances of the case, to see as to whether the order of
resumption should be passed or not. In the said judgment, it was
however held that the question as to whether the extreme power
of resumption and forfeiture has been rightly applied or not will
depend on the factual matrix of each case and thus, every case is
to be viewed separately and no hard and fast rule could be laid
down. In the said judgment, the principle of proportionately was
also emphasized. The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced hereinbelow:-
“22. One of the questions which, therefore, must always
be posed by the Estate Officer, while initiating a
proceeding under Section 8A of the Act is as to whether
the drastic power of resumption and forfeiture has been
taken recourse to as a last resort. The order of the Estate
Officer dated 13.3.1992, does not say so. No reason has
also been assigned in the said order.
xxx xxx xxx
24. It is, therefore, not a case where the court will have
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-15826-2022 (O&M) [7]
to take one stand or the other in the light of the statutory
provisions. The question as to whether the extreme power
of resumption and forfeiture has rightly been applied or
not will depend upon the factual matrix obtaining in
each case. Each case may, therefore, have to be viewed
separately and no hard and fast rule can be laid down
therefor. In a case of this nature, therefore, the action of
the Estate Officer and other statutory authorities having
regard to the factual matrix obtaining in each case must
be viewed from the angle as to whether the same attracts
the wrath of Article 14 of the Constitution of India or
not.”
19. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Krishan Lal
(supra), by applying the principles laid down in the abovesaid
judgment and after taking into consideration the facts of the said
case, set aside the impugned orders therein and restored the
booth subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of Rs.1.35 crore.
The said case was also a case where the re-allottee / petitioner
therein had defaulted in the payment of installments and the
resumption order was passed on 27.09.2017 with respect to the
re-allotment dated 14.05.2009. The said judgment of the Division
Bench has been upheld by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, as the SLP
against the same was dismissed on 01.07.2025.
xxx xxx
21. The next question which arises for consideration is as to
what amount the petitioners should be directed to pay so as to
balance the equities. It would always be the plea of the allottees
that even in case there is a default of several years, they should
only be asked to pay the outstanding principal amount along
with interest and penalty to save the property from being
resumed, whereas it would invariably be the stand of the
authorities that the order of resumption should be upheld and
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-15826-2022 (O&M) [8]
some amount of deposit should also be forfeited, as the prices of
the property in question have increased.
22. We have considered both the aspects and pleas. Although
no straightjacket formula can be applied, but a broad principle
could be laid down to deal with such cases, where the resumption
order has been passed on account of non-payment of installments.
After considering all the aspects, we are of the opinion that the
balance of equity can be maintained in case the allottee / re-
allottee is directed to pay the amount calculated in the following
manner:-
I) To first calculate the percentage of the total allotment
price paid by the allottee on or before the date of the resumption
order. The formula to calculate the same would be:
Amount paid x 100 = %
Total Allotment price
II) Second, to calculate the percentage of total allotment price
which was outstanding on the date of resumption order. The
formula to calculate the same would be:-
100 - % calculated under Step (I) = %
III) Third, to find out from the respondent authorities as to
what was the reserve price fixed by the authorities in the last
auction held with respect to the similarly placed property. In
case no auction has been held in the recent past, from the date
of adjudication, then the present day Collector’s rate could also
be taken into consideration.
IV) The amount payable could then be calculated by the
following formula:-
% of total allotment price which was
outstanding on the date of resumption
order [as calculated under Step (II)] x Reserve Price/Collector’s rate determined
100 under Step (III)

V) From the abovesaid amount which is payable as calculated
under Step (IV), amount which has been paid after the date of
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-15826-2022 (O&M) [9]
resumption order or during the pendency of the writ proceedings
should be deducted to find out the exact amount payable.
The said principle could be best explained by giving an
example. In a case where the allottee / re-allottee has paid 40%
of the allotment price on or before the passing of the resumption
order, and 60% of the amount has not been paid, then, the
allottee could be required to pay 60% of the reserve price fixed
by the authorities for the last auction conducted, of the similarly
placed property/ plot. However, in case the interest and penalty
together amounts to a higher amount, then, depending upon the
facts and circumstances of every case, the allottee could be asked
to deposit the higher amount. We hasten to clarify, that we have
not analysed every factual situation, and thus the facts and
circumstances of every case would have to be considered to see
whether the present principle / formula is to be applied in the said
case.”
9. In view of the law laid down by this Court in the abovesaid
judgment, this Court had put to learned counsel for the petitioner as to
whether the petitioner was ready to pay the amount as per the abovesaid
formula i.e., 75% of the reserve price/auction price.
10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has fairly submitted before
this Court that the petitioner is ready to pay 75% of the reserve price fixed
with respect to SCO No.83, Sector 56, Gurugram i.e., Rs.7,44,08,300/- and
has further submitted that the petitioner is even ready to pay 75% of the
amount at which the e-auction was held i.e., of Rs.7,46,08,300/-.
11. The said stand is a very fair stand taken on behalf of the
petitioner and also shows the bona fide of the petitioner as in spite of having
a strong legal argument in his favour, as has been noticed hereinabove, in
order to balance the equity, the petitioner is ready to pay balance amount
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document

CWP-15826-2022 (O&M) [10]
payable as per the last auction.
12. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and the
law laid down by this Court in the case of Shobhana Devi and another
(Supra) , the present writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned orders
dated 01.03.2021, 14.12.2021 and 15.06.2022 are set aside and the plot in
question is restored to the petitioner, subject to the petitioner as undertaken
before this Court depositing an amount of Rs.5,59,56,225/-
(75 x 7,46,08,300/-) rounded off to Rs.5,60,00,000/- within a period of
100
two months from today.
13. It is made clear that in case the said amount is not deposited
within the aforesaid period, then the present writ petition would be deemed
to have been dismissed.
14. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
( DIVYA SHARMA )
JUDGE
02.11.2026
Pawan
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No
Whether reportable:- Yes/No
PAWAN KUMAR
2026.11.04 10:40
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document