Sachet Singh vs State Of Haryana And Others

CWP-27289-2026 and -1-
CWP-27306-2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
(109)
1 CWP-27289-2026
Sachet Singh ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
2 CWP-27306-2026
Sudhir ....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others ...Respondents
Date of Decision: - 26.08.2026
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DIVYA SHARMA
Present:- Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Aayush Bansal, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL)
1. This order would dispose of two writ petitions in which
admittedly common questions of facts and law are involved i.e., CWP-
27289-2026 titled as “Sachet Singh Vs. State of Haryana and others” and
CWP-27306-2026 tilted as “Sudhir Vs. State of Haryana and others”.
NARESH KUMAR
2026.09.01 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27289-2026 and -2-
CWP-27306-2026
2. On joint request, CWP-27289-2026 is taken up as the lead
case and the facts are being noticed from the same.
3. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the resumption
order dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure P-13) vide which the plot No.1115,
Sector 19 Part 1, Sirsa had been ordered to be resumed. Challenge is also
to the order dated 20.07.2022 (Annexure P-19) passed by respondent
No.2 vide which the revision petition filed by the Haryana Shehri Vikas
Pradhikarn (hereinafter to be referred to as “HSVP”) has been allowed
and the order dated 23.11.2021 has been set aside and the order of
resumption dated 13.02.2018 (Annexure P-13) has been upheld.
3. Undisputed facts of the present case are that the predecessor-
in-interest of the petitioner, namely, Partap Singh son of Ram Singh was
allotted the plot in question vide allotment letter dated 24.10.2008. The
said allotment letter has been annexed as Annexure P-1. A perusal of the
said allotment letter would show that the area of the plot was stated to be
136.8 sq. mtrs. and the tentative price of the plot was Rs.7,44,876/- and
the said plot was stated to be preferential plot. As per Clause 5 of the said
allotment letter, an amount of Rs.1,12,619/- was to be paid within 30 days
from the date of issue of the allotment letter, which together, with an
amount of Rs.73,600/-, was to constitute as earnest money being 25% of
the total tentative price. As per Clause 6, the balance amount i.e.
Rs.5,58,657/- of the tentative amount was either to be paid in lump sum
within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or in six annual
NARESH KUMAR
2026.09.01 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27289-2026 and -3-
CWP-27306-2026
installments and each installment was to carry interest @ 9% on the
remaining amount. In Clause 6-A, it was stated that the payment of
installment on due date was mandatory. Under Clause 10, it was stated
th
that in case the installment is not paid by the 10 of the month following
the month in which it falls due, then, the Estate Officer was to proceed to
take action which included the action of resumption. The Estate Officer
had a right to resume the property in the event of breach of any other
condition of transfer as stated in Clause 11. Importantly, in Clause 24, it
was specifically stated that no separate notice would be sent for the
payment of the installment. Clause 6 and Clause 24 of the said allotment
letter which are relevant for consideration are reproduced herein below: -
“[6) The balance amount i.e. Rs.558657.00 of the above
tentative price of the plot can be paid in lump sum without interest
within 60 days from the date of issue of allotment letter or an in 6
(six) annual installments. The first installment will fall due after the
expiry of one year of the date of issue of this letter. Each installment
would be recovered together with interest on the balance price at
9% on the remaining amount. Interest shall, however, accrue from
the date of offer of possession.
xxx xxx xxx
[24] No separate notice will be sent for the payment of the
installment. However the information regarding the installments
the amount, the due dates, etc. be sent as a matter of courtesy.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had purchased the said
plot from Partap Singh son of Ram Singh and was issued re-allotment
letter dated 26.11.2009 which has been annexed as Annexure P-3. A
NARESH KUMAR
2026.09.01 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27289-2026 and -4-
CWP-27306-2026
perusal of the said re-allotment would show that it was specifically stated
that the petitioner would abide by all the terms and conditions of the
original allotment letter as well as the provisions of Haryana Shehri Vikas
Pradhikarn Act, 1977 (hereinafter to be referred as 'Act of 1977') and the
instructions and guidelines, rules/regulations thereunder, as amended
from time to time. Further the due dates with respect to installments were
also specifically mentioned and as per the same, the last installment was
to be paid on or before 24.10.2014 and thus, the entire amount was
required to be paid by the said date. Under Clause 4, the power to resume
the property was mentioned in case of there being non-payment and under
Clause 5 in case of there being breach of any other condition. Even in the
said re-allotment letter, under Clause 17, it was specifically stated that no
separate notice would be sent to the petitioner for payment of the
installment. The relevant portions of the said re-allotment letter are
reproduced herein below: -
“ You shall have to pay balance Rs. Below installment of Rs.-
each on the date given below.
Sr.No. Due Date Amount Rs. P.
2 24.10.2010 93110.00
3 24.10.2011 93110.00
4 24.10.2012 93110.00
5 24.10.2013 93110.00
6 24.10.2014 93110.00
xxx xxx xxx
17. No separate notice will be sent for the payment of
the installment. However the information regarding the installments
NARESH KUMAR
2026.09.01 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27289-2026 and -5-
CWP-27306-2026
the amount, the due dates, etc. be sent as a matter of courtesy.”
5. Vide letter dated 21.05.2010 (Annexure P-4), the respondent
authorities had made an offer of possession and in the same, it was
specifically mentioned that the remaining amount was required to be paid
along with interest. When the installments were not paid by the petitioner,
then, various notices including notices dated 04.07.2016 under Section 17
(1) of the Act of 1977, dated 30.09.2016 under Section 17(2) of the Act of
1977, dated 25.11.2016 under Section 17 (penalty notice), dated
15.02.2017 under Section 17(3) of the Act of 1977 and dated 30.05.2017
under Section 17(4) of the Act of 1977 were issued to the petitioner. The
said aspect has been specifically stated in the order dated 23.11.2021 and
has not been shown to be false or perverse. Left with no other option, the
respondent authorities passed a resumption order dated 13.02.2018. Apart
from giving the details of the previous notices in the said order, an
additional opportunity was given to the petitioner vide letter dated
04.08.2017 and 07.11.2017 to turn up for hearing and to deposit the
balance amount, but the petitioner did not avail the same and thus, it was
observed that the petitioner was a willful defaulter and the resumption
order was passed by the respondent authorities while exercising the power
under Section 17 of the Act of 1977 and 10% of the amount deposited
was ordered to be forfeited.
6. The petitioner filed an appeal after a delay of more than eight
months and the Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.11.2021 without
NARESH KUMAR
2026.09.01 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27289-2026 and -6-
CWP-27306-2026
condoning the said delay, set aside the resumption order and directed the
petitioner to pay the amount along with the penalty within a period of 60
days from the date of the said order. It is not disputed that even within the
period of two months from 23.11.2021 i.e., up to 23.01.2022, the said
amount was not paid.
7. The respondent-HSVP filed a revision petition and the
Additional Chief Secretary, Haryana, vide order dated 20.07.2022
allowed the said revision petition and set aside the order dated 23.11.2021
and upheld the order dated 13.02.2018. The said order has been annexed
as Annexure P-19. A perusal of the said order would show that it was
recorded that in spite of several notices having been issued under Section
17 of the Act of 1977 including notices dated 04.07.2016, 30.09.2016,
25.11.2016, 15.02.2017 and 30.05.2017, the petitioner did not make the
payment. It was further observed that the appeal filed by the petitioner
before the Appellate Authority was after a delay of more than eight
months and the Appellate Authority had not even condoned the delay and
passed an order in favour of the petitioner. It was also observed that the
petitioner has defaulted at every stage and thus, was a willful defaulter
and that the entire schedule of payment was mentioned in the re-allotment
letter and the petitioner was bound to make the said payment as per the
schedule which the petitioner had not done. It was also noticed that
although the notice of revision petition was given to the petitioner, but he
did not choose to oppose the revision petition and thus, was proceeded
NARESH KUMAR
2026.09.01 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27289-2026 and -7-
CWP-27306-2026
ex-parte. The petitioner has challenged the said order dated 20.07.2022 by
filing the present writ petition after an unexplained delay of more than
four years.
8. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that
the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had paid 25% of the amount
and the petitioner had also paid one installment and is now ready to pay
all the installments along with penalty and has prayed that the impugned
orders be set aside.
9. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of the
petitioner and find that in the present facts and circumstances, no
indulgence can be granted to the petitioner as his conduct shows that the
default in making the payment is both willful and deliberate. A perusal of
the allotment letter as well as the re-allotment letter and the facts and
circumstances of the present case would show that specific timeline was
given to the petitioner to deposit the balance amount of consideration and
the last date was 24.10.2014. Even as per the own case of the petitioner,
installments which were due on 24.10.2011, 24.10.2012, 24.10.2013 and
24.10.2014 have not been deposited till date, much less deposited on the
date when the resumption order dated 13.02.2018 was passed. Clauses
of the allotment letter as well as the re-allotment letter specifically state
that no separate notice was required to be issued to the petitioner
for depositing the said installments as the petitioner was aware of the
dates on which the installments were to be paid. It is also not in
NARESH KUMAR
2026.09.01 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27289-2026 and -8-
CWP-27306-2026
dispute that even prior to the passing of the resumption order dated
13.02.2018 several notices under Section 17 of the Act of 1977 were
issued including notices dated 04.07.2016, 30.09.2016, 25.11.2016,
15.02.2017 and 30.05.2017 and yet, the petitioner did not choose to make
the payment of the balance amount. Even the appeal filed by the
petitioner against the order dated 13.02.2018 was filed after a delay of
more than eight months. The present writ petition has been filed after a
period of four years from the date of passing of the order dated
20.07.2022 and neither there is any plausible explanation for the said
delay nor there are any justifiable reasons, as to why the petitioner did not
pay the installments on time. Before the revisional authority, the
petitioner was served, but he did not even choose to oppose the said
revision petition filed by the HSVP. From the above-said facts and
circumstances, it is apparent that the petitioner is a willful defaulter and
has defaulted at every stage.
10. Learned State counsel has submitted that the prices of the
residential Plot No.1115, which is six marla and is situated at Sector 19,
Sirsa as well as other plots have increased manifold and thus, any
indulgence at this stage, would cause substantial loss to the respondent-
State.
11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of “ Smitra Jain Vs .
Haryana Urban Development Authority and another , reported as 2020
(13) SCC 465 has observed that where the allottee had persistently failed
NARESH KUMAR
2026.09.01 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27289-2026 and -9-
CWP-27306-2026
to pay the installments of price despite the notices issued to him, then, the
petitioner is not entitled to relief under Article 226 or 227 of the
Constitution of India. The relevant portion of the said judgment is
reproduced as under: -
“16. We also agree with the High Court that the Estate
Officer did not commit any illegality by resuming the Booth Site
because the petitioner had persistently failed to pay the
instalments of price despite the notices issued to her under
Sections 17(1) (2) and (3). A ranked defaulter like the petitioner is
not entitled to relief under Articles 226 or 227 of the Constitution.
This is also the ratio of the judgments of this Court in Municipal <
Corporation Chandigarh v. Shantikunj Investment (P) Ltd.
(2006) 4 SCC 109, UT Chandigarh Administration v. Amarjeet
Singh (supra) and Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board
v. Raj Pal (supra).
17. In Sukhpal Singh Kang's case, the Punjab and
Haryana High Court considered a somewhat similar issue and
observed:
"the petitioners cannot avoid their liability to pay the
installments of premium and ground rent. That apart, after
having taken in part in the auction with full knowledge of the
terms and conditions notified by the respondents and having
accepted the leases of the sites on the basis of terms and
conditions incorporated in the letters of allotment without any
protest, the petitioners will be deemed to have agreed to pay
the amount of premium along with interest and ground rent in
terms of Rules 12 and 13 of the 1973 rules. In our considered
opinion, the petitioners cannot seek intervention of the court
for getting themselves relieved of their obligation to pay the
amount clue to the respondents in accordance with the terms
of contract"
NARESH KUMAR
2026.09.01 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CWP-27289-2026 and -10-
CWP-27306-2026
With the above observations, the special leave petition is
dismissed.”
12. Keeping in view the above facts and circumstances, the
impugned orders passed in both the writ petitions are in accordance with
law and do not call for interference and the present writ petitions, being
meritless, deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
(DIVYA SHARMA)
JUDGE
August 26, 2026
naresh.k
Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes
Whether reportable? Yes
NARESH KUMAR
2026.09.01 10:16
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document