Siddarth Singh And Others v. Chander Shekhar Khare And Others

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of decision: 05.02.2026 SIDDARTH SINGH AND ORS.

..Petitioners

Versus

CHANDER SHEKHAR KHARE AND ORS.

..Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA

Present:

Dr. Pankaj Nanhera, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Yogesh Vashist, Advocate Mr. Abhijayant, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Nitin Gupta, Advocate Mr. Harmanjot Singh Gill, Advocate for respondents No.1 to 3.

SUDEEPTI SHARMA, J. (Oral) 1.

The contempt petition has been filed for deliberate and intentional disobedience of order dated 01.04.2025 passed in CWP-161812017. 2.

The relevant para 19 of order dated 01.04.2025 is reproduced as under:- "19. The allotment letters are stated to be already issued to the allottees concerned. Therefore, the deed of conveyance, if not executed, be ensured to be forthwith lawfully executed between all concerned. Moreover, all the requisite entries, if required, be made in the relevant registers/records maintained by the HSVP."

3.

Learned counsel for respondents contends that in compliance of order dated 01.04.2025, affidavit of Mr. Manav Malik, Estate Officer, HSVP,

-2Panchkula, dated 22.09.2025 along with Annexure R-1 and R-2 has been filed. Copy of the same is taken on record.

4.

The relevant para 6 and 7 of affidavit dated 22.09.2025 is reproduced as under:- "6. That in affidavit dated 21.09.2024 of the Chief Administrator, HSVP, Panchkula filed in CWP No. 16181 of 2017 it has been specially mentioned that the construction of clinic sited shall be made a per the provisions of HBC-2017. As per latest amendment dated 25.04.2022 in the HBC-2017, single level basement with 150% FAR and ground coverage 50% and unrestricted height is permissible in the clinic sites. In normal circumstances the maximum 150% FAR can easily be consumed in ground plus 3 storey building, which is same as in the case of residential building. Copy is hereby attached as Annexure-R1/Colly

7. That there is no direction of this Hon'ble court regarding approval of Zoning Plan as alleged by the petitioner in this petition and order dated 01.04.2025 has not been violated by the respondents. Therefore, this petition is liable to be dismissed in the interest of justice. However it is submitted that the Zoning Plan of clinic sites in question has been approved by competent authority as a special case and issued vide letter memo no. 303357 dated 15.09.2025. Further Conveyance Deeds of all the petitioners (i.e. in respect of clinic site no 6,7 and 8 Sector-17 Panchkula) have already been executed and there is no violation of court orders as alleged in this petition. Copy of letter dated 15.09.2025 alongwith copy of zoning plan are hereby attached as AnnexureR2/Colly."

-35.

A perusal of affidavit dated 22.09.2025 shows that order dated 01.04.2025 passed in CWP-16181-2017 has been complied with. 6.

In view of the same, the contempt is purged and rule is discharged.

7.

All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also disposed of.

February 05th, 2026 (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) Ayub/Saahil JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No Whether reportable :

Yes/No