60-Day Lump Sum Clause Upheld, But Oustee Status Protected: P&H High Court Denies Restoration of Cancelled Plots Yet Allows Fresh Application
Case Name: Ombir and Others v. State of Haryana and Others (with connected matters)
Date of Judgment: 25 February 2026
Citation: CWP-22302-2024 and connected cases
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that oustees who failed to comply with the payment schedule prescribed in allotment letters and approached the Court after an unexplained delay of nearly six years were not entitled to restoration of cancelled allotments on the ground of parity with similarly situated petitioners. However, it was clarified that cancellation of allotment does not extinguish their status as oustees, and they remain entitled to apply afresh in response to future advertisements under the oustee quota in terms of the Full Bench judgment in Rajiv Manchanda.
Summary: By a common order, the Court disposed of a large batch of writ petitions involving oustees whose lands had been acquired in 2005 for establishment of Rajiv Gandhi Education City, Sonipat. A policy framed in 2010 provided for allotment of residential plots to eligible oustees. The petitioners had applied in 2010 and deposited earnest money of ₹50,000. However, allotment letters were issued only in March–July 2019, demanding ₹19,200 per square metre and requiring deposit of 25% within 30 days and the remaining 75% within 60 days, failing which allotments were liable to be cancelled.
The petitioners neither deposited the required amounts nor immediately challenged the terms of the allotment letters. Instead, after nearly six years, they approached the respondents in 2024 and subsequently filed the present petitions challenging cancellation orders dated 12.07.2024. They sought re-determination of price at earlier rates and extension of time for payment in six annual instalments, relying upon judgments including Rajiv Manchanda, Ram Lal Mahendru and Naresh.
The Court framed three core issues: whether non-compliance with allotment conditions justified cancellation; whether delay and laches disentitled the petitioners to parity; and whether, despite cancellation, the petitioners retained the right to apply afresh as oustees.
On the first issue, the Court observed that although the legality of charging current price and restricting instalments had already been addressed in Ram Lal Mahendru in favour of oustees, the crucial distinction in the present case was the petitioners’ inaction. The allotment letters were issued in 2019, yet the petitioners neither complied with the payment schedule nor promptly approached the Court. During arguments, counsel for the petitioners fairly conceded that the payment terms had not been complied with. The Court held that the petitioners had violated the allotment conditions and had no justification for such default.
On the second issue of delay, the Court found that the petitioners had remained silent for about six years before challenging the cancellation. No cogent explanation for this delay was placed on record. The Court held that the doctrine of acquiescence squarely applied, and the unexplained delay proved fatal to their claim for restoration. Had the petitioners approached the Court immediately, they could have sought parity with those granted instalment benefits in Naresh; however, such equitable relief could not be extended at a highly belated stage.
On the third issue, the Court examined the Full Bench judgment in Rajiv Manchanda and the earlier decision in Sandeep, which clarified that oustees constitute a distinct and continuing category. Failure to apply at one stage, or loss of allotment, does not extinguish oustee status. The Court held that cancellation of allotment does not deprive the petitioners of their right to apply afresh whenever plots are advertised under the oustee quota, subject to availability and policy conditions.
Thus, while restoration of the cancelled allotments was declined due to delay and non-compliance, the Court protected the petitioners’ substantive right as oustees to participate in future allotment processes.
Decision: The writ petitions were dismissed insofar as they sought restoration of cancelled allotments and parity benefits. However, it was clarified that the petitioners, being oustees, retain their status and are entitled to apply afresh in response to future advertisements under the oustee category in accordance with law.