213 CWP-13048-2019 ; CWP-15187-2019

CWP-23906-2019 ; CWP-23963-2019
CWP-24335-2019; CWP-24373-2019
CWP-24381-2019; CWP-24463-2019
CWP-25959-2019; CWP-25968-2019
CWP-26001-2019; CWP-26045-2019
CWP-26716-2019; CWP-28836-2019
CWP-30509-2019; CWP-30549-2019
CWP-30578-2019; CWP-31257-2019
CWP-31302-2019; CWP-31309-2019
CWP-31448-2019; CWP-31732-2019
CWP-31801-2019; CWP-31885-2019
CWP-31998-2019; CWP-32488-2019
CWP-32504-2019; CWP-34480-2019
CWP-34571-2019; CWP-36413-2019
CWP-36382-2019; CWP-9440-2021
CWP-6129-2022; CWP-37891-2018

Present: Mr. Naresh Kumar Jain, Sr. Advocate, with

Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate,
Mr. Shilak Ram Hooda, Advocate,
Mr. R.S. Malik, Advocate,
Mr. S.K. Panwar, Advocate,
Mr. Anil Dua, Advocate,
Mr. Pahl Sharma, Advocate, for
Mr. Salil Bali, Advocate,
Mr. Vikram Punia, Advocate and
Mr. Gaurav Aggarwal, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate;

Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate,
Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Advocate
Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for
respondents-HSVP/HUDA in their respective cases.

****

Pursuant to the order dated 15.02.2022, an affidavit dated

28.04.2022 has been filed in court today, executed by the Administrator,

HSVP, Rohtak (in CWP No.13048 of 2019), which is ordered to be taken on

record.

Learned counsel for the parties have also address arguments at

some length, with learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner in

CWP No.13048 of 2019 relying upon paragraph-60 of the judgment of a

1 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2023 10:50:27 :::
CWP-13048-2019 and other connected cases -2-

Full Bench of this court in CWP No.22252 of 2016 (Rajiv Manchanda and

others vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority and another), to submit

that if the delay in allotment of a plot is not the fault of the allottee, the rate

at which the plot is to be allotted should be of the year when the

advertisement was initially issued.

However, Mr. Sabherwal, counsel for the respondent (HSVP),

submits that the matter having remained in litigation with a stay operating in

some of the cases due to which the allotment could not be made earlier, it

would in fact be paragraph 57 of the said judgment which would be

applicable. Mr. Sabherwal also submits that similar affidavits are in the

process of being filed in each petition because the facts of each case would

be different.

Consequently, adjourned to 12.09.2022 for arguments.

In the meanwhile, if any of the petitioners in these petitions

wish to controvert the contents of the speaking order dated 22.04.2022

passed in their respective cases in pursuance to the order dated 15.02.2022

passed by this court, they would be at liberty to file a counter affidavit well

before the next date of hearing.

(A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the other

connected cases).

(AMOL RATTAN SINGH)

JUDGE

(LALIT BATRA)
JUDGE
28.04.2022
jitender

2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 10-02-2023 10:50:27 :::