Poonam Kamboj vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-6375-2023 (O&M) -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(273)
CWP-6375-2023 (O&M)
Date of decision: 11.11.2026
Poonam Kamboj
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA
Present: Mr. Ravindra Jain, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl. A.G., Haryana.
Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate, and
Ms. Hitika Sabherwal, Advocate
for respondents No.2 and 3-HSVP.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. In the head note of the petition, the following prayers have been
made:-
“CIVIL WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF A WRIT IN THE
NATURE OF CERTIORARI SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER DATED
19.11.2003 PASSED BY THE ESTATE OFFICER, HUDA, JAGADHRI,
YAMUNA NAGAR (ANNEXURE P-6) AND ORDER DATED
01.09.2020 PASSED BY THE ADMINISTRATOR, HUDA,
PANCHKULA (EXERCISING THE POWERS OF CHIEF
ADMINISTRATOR, HUDA, ( ANNEXURE P-14) AND THE ORDER
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-6375-2023 (O&M) -2-
DATED 11.05.2022 WHICH WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE
PETITIONER VIDE ENDST. NO.85934 DATED 26.05.2022
(ANNEXURE P- 15)
FURTHER TO ISSUE WRIT IN THE NATURE OF
MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO RESERVE ONE
PLOT IN THE BACKWARD CLASS CATEGORY CLAIMED BY THE
PETITIONER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
FURTHER TO ISSUE ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT,
ORDER OR DIRECTION, WHICH THIS HON'BLE COURT MAY
DEEM FIT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE
PRESENT CASE”
2. The undisputed facts of the present case are that the petitioner,
who belongs to BC category, was successful in the draw of lots and was
allotted a residential Plot No.237, Sector 18, Urban Estate, Jagadhri, on free
hold basis from HUDA (presently called as HSVP) and an allotment letter
dated 12.09.2000 (Annexure P-1) was issued in favour of the petitioner. The
tentative price of the said plot was Rs.2,49,970/- and the said plot measured
220 sq. mts. The petitioner had deposited 10% of the tentative price of the
plot along with the application form. It is also not in dispute that the
petitioner subsequently deposited an amount of Rs.37,495.59/- being the
remaining 15% of the amount due to complete 25% of the requisite amount
vide demand draft dated 09.10.2000. The petitioner thereafter received a
letter dated ‘nil’, whereby she was informed that the area of the plot in
question had been increased from 220 sq. mts. to 231 sq. mts. and thus she
was required to pay an additional amount of Rs.12,690/-. Against the said
demand, an amount of Rs.12,750/- was paid by the petitioner on time.
3. The balance amount of the total tentative price was to be paid
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-6375-2023 (O&M) -3-
in lump sum or in six annual installments. The same was not duly paid by
the petitioner on time and thus proceedings for resumption were initiated by
the respondent-authorities. Order dated 19.11.2003 was passed by the Estate
Officer, HUDA, Jagadhri, vide which the plot of the petitioner was resumed
and an amount of Rs.48,392/- was also forfeited. The said sum included
10% of the consideration money, interest of delayed period, penalty,
extension fee as well as the possession interest. It was the case of the
petitioner that no notice was ever sent to the petitioner prior to taking the
said action. The petitioner filed an appeal before the Appellate Authority
and a perusal of the grounds of appeal dated 12.12.2003 (Annexure P-7)
would show that it was specifically stated in the same, more so in paras 7, 8
and 9, that the petitioner was ready to deposit the outstanding dues and was
also ready to pay interest on the same. The said appeal was however
dismissed in default on 28.02.2006.
4. It was also the case of the petitioner that the minor son of the
petitioner is 100% disabled, being deaf and dumb and that the petitioner had
to repeatedly go for his medical treatment to various hospitals. The medical
certificates of the son of the petitioner, which includes the certificate issued
by the PGIMER, has been annexed along with the present petition as
Annexure P-8 (Colly.). It is further the case of the petitioner that even the
husband of the petitioner is suffering from eye problem and heart problem
and the certificates regarding the same have been annexed as Annexure
P-11 (Colly.). It is highlighted that the certificates (Annexure P-11
(Colly.)) also include the certificate showing that the present petitioner was
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-6375-2023 (O&M) -4-
also having health issues and it is on account of the said health issues that
she could not attend the proceedings before the Appellate Authority on
28.02.2006. The petitioner further filed an application for setting aside the
said order but the said application was also dismissed vide order dated
04.10.2007 against which the petitioner filed a revision petition which was
allowed by the Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Town &
Country Planning Department vide order dated 26.04.2016 (Annexure P-13)
and the matter was remanded to the Administrator, Panchkula to decide the
same on merits.
5. In the meantime, the respondents had returned an amount of
Rs.26,850/- as refund amount vide cheque No.470745 dated 26.06.2006
which the petitioner had sent back vide letter No.37602 dated 13.07.2006.
The said aspect has not been disputed and thus, the petitioner did not accept
the refund amount and has been pursuing her case.
6. After remand, however, the Administrator, HSVP, Panchkula
dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on merits and rejected the
arguments on behalf of the petitioner to the effect that she was ready and
willing to make the payment. The Revisional Authority also, vide order
dated 11.05.2022, rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioner and
did not accept the plea of the petitioner regarding illness. The said orders
have been challenged before this Court.
7. On 15.10.2026, this Court was pleased to pass the following
order: -
“Present: Mr.Ravindra Jain, Advocate
for the petitioner.
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-6375-2023 (O&M) -5-
Mr. S. K. Panwar, Addl.A.G. Haryana.
Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate and
Mr.Hitika Sabherwal, Advocate
for the respondent-HSVP.
*
Learned counsel for the respondent-HSVP is directed to get
specific instructions with respect to reserve price of similarly situated
plots in the last auction.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is also directed to get
instructions in view of the judgment passed by this Bench in CWP-
14697- 2024 titled as “Shobhana Devi and another Versus State of
Haryana and others” decided on 25.09.2026.
Adjourned to 04.11.2026.
To be taken up after the urgent list.
October 15, 2026”
8. In pursuance of the same, learned counsel for respondents No.2
and 3-HSVP has got instructions to the effect that a similarly placed
residential plot i.e., Plot No.246, Sector 18 Part-I, Urban Estate, Jagadhri,
which is very close to the plot in question, was auctioned by the respondent-
authorities on 22.05.2025 and the reserve price for the same was kept as
Rs.1,35,65,100/- and the said plot was actually sold for an amount of
Rs.1,65,20,100/-. It is submitted that since the said auction took place in the
year 2025, thus, the amount has now further increased. It is argued that the
petitioner was required to make the payment of installments within time and
the same was not done and thus, the respondent-authorities, after having
adopted the procedure in accordance with law, had passed the order of
resumption which has been upheld by the Appellate Authority and the
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-6375-2023 (O&M) -6-
Revisional Authority.
9. Learned counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, has stated
that as has been recorded by the Appellate Authority as well as by the
Revisional Authority, the petitioner was always ready and willing to pay the
balance amount along with interest. It is submitted that the petitioner and
her family members suffer from several health issues, including the fact that
the minor son of the petitioner was 100% disabled, being deaf and dumb
and that even husband of the petitioner was having heart problems in
addition to other problems. The petitioner was also stated to be not keeping
good health and in support of the same, the petitioner has highlighted the
medical certificates (Annexures P-8 (Colly.) and P-11 (Colly.)). It is further
submitted that the Additional Chief Secretary to Govt. of Haryana, Town &
Country Planning Department, vide order dated 26.04.2016, had in fact set
aside the order which was passed without hearing the petitioner and that the
petitioner has been bona-fidely pursuing her case and even the cheque given
by the respondent-authorities on account of refund was returned by the
petitioner within a period of one month from the date the same was
received.
10. 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 equities by deriving a formula. Relevant portion of the
said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:-
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-6375-2023 (O&M) -7-
“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
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
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-6375-2023 (O&M) -8-
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
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-
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-6375-2023 (O&M) -9-
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
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
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-6375-2023 (O&M) -10-
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.”
11. In the present case, the impugned order of the Estate Officer
(Annexure P-6) does not record that the drastic power of resumption and
forfeiture is being taken as a last resort and thus the said order is not in
consonance with the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of M/s Teri Oat Estates (Private) Limited Vs. U.T., Chandigarh,
reported as 2004(1) HRR659 SC. Moreover, in the facts and circumstances
of the present case, we are of the opinion that the principle/formula as
laid down in the case of Shobhana Devi and another (Supra) would
apply. Thus, 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.
12. Learned counsel for the petitioner after getting instructions has
fairly submitted before this Court that the petitioner is ready to pay 75%
(which percentage of total amount is outstanding) of the reserve price fixed
with respect to the residential Plot No.246, Sector 18 Part-I, Urban Estate,
Jagadhri and has further submitted that the petitioner is even ready to pay
75% of the amount at which the said plot was actually sold in the last
auction i.e., 75% of Rs.1,65,20,100/- and thus, is ready to pay an amount of
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-6375-2023 (O&M) -11-
Rs.1,23,90,075/- within three months from today. The said stand is a very
fair stand taken on behalf of the petitioner and the same, along with the
other facts noticed herein-above, shows the bona fide of the petitioner.
13. 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 19.11.2003, 01.09.2020 and 11.05.2002 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.1,23,90,075/-
(75 x 1,65,20,100/-) within a period of three months from today.
100
14, 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.
15. All the pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall stand
disposed of in view of the abovesaid order.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
(DIVYA SHARMA)
JUDGE
November 11, 2026
naresh.k
Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes
Whether reportable:- Yes
NARESH KUMAR
2026.11.14 12:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document