Mohar Singh Saini v. Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (Hsvp) And Others

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: July 1st, 2026 Mohar Singh Saini .....Petitioner

Versus

Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran and others .....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA

Present:

Ms. Anju Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.

VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1.

This is a civil writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent to consider the case of the petitioner and to allot a residential plot under the oustees policy.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was owner of one house and shop in Sector 31-32, Jharsa Chowk, Gurugram. It is submitted that the same was acquired by the State Government and regarding the same, an Award No.26 dated 28.03.2008 was passed. It is submitted that the case of the petitioner was covered under the Oustess Policy, 2006 framed by the respondents and in pursuance of the said policy, an application dated 22.07.2011 was initially filed regarding the allotment of a plot in Sector 31-32A, Gurugram. It is further submitted that subsequently another application dated 24.12.2018 was filed and an amount

-2of 50,000/- was also deposited online, however, no decision on the same ₹ has been taken. It is submitted that the petitioner had even given a legal notice dated 16.03.2026 and has submitted that the petitioner at this stage would be satisfied in case the competent authority of the respondents/State grants an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the case of the petitioner is finally adjudicated.

3.

Learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, on advance notice appearing for the respondents-State has submitted that it is the Zonal Committee which has to decide the eligibility of the petitioner and on a pointed query raised by this Court has fairly submitted that the Zonal Committee would have no objection with respect to granting a personal hearing to the petitioner and to take a decision with respect to the eligibility of the petitioner, in accordance with law.

4.

Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is disposed of with the following directions/observations:

(i) The Zonal Committee would issue a notice to the present petitioner for granting him an opportunity of hearing on a specified date and time for consideration of the application dated 24.12.2018 (Annexure P-5).

(ii) It would be open to the petitioner to represent the case himself or through an authorized representative and it would also be open to the petitioner to submit a representation along with supporting documents to show that his case is covered by any of

-3the relevant policies.

(iii) In case the petitioner appears on the date so given or on any other date mutually decided and submits the written representation along with documents, then, the said Zonal Committee would consider the same and after considering the same would pass a speaking order within a period of two months from the date when hearing in the case concludes. The notice for hearing would be given to the petitioner within a period of one month from today by the said Committee. (iv) In case the Committee is of the opinion that the plea raised by the petitioner is meritorious, then, the necessary relief should also be granted to the petitioner as expeditiously as possible. (v) This Court has not opined on the merits of the application dated 24.12.2018 (Annexure P-5) and the said Committee would consider the same in accordance with law and decide independently.

(VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE July 1st, 2026 (SUBHAS MEHLA) Puneet JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes Whether reportable :

No