Coming down on the Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) for auctioning a plot already under encroachment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the authority to restore its allotment to the successful bidder, holding that the resultant cancellation of the allotment was “wholly unjustified and unsustainable in law”.
The ruling came on a petition seeking restoration of the status of the plot in Sector 1, Part II, Hisar, allotted to the petitioner through an allotment letter dated June 27, 2023. In the alternative, the petitioner had sought allotment of an alternative plot under HSVP’s policy dated February 18, 2013.
The petitioner contended that the controversy was squarely covered by an earlier judgment of the High Court. It was argued that the possession of the plot had been formally offered, but actual physical possession could not be delivered because the site was under encroachment by a third party. The petitioner maintained that the situation arose due to HSVP’s negligence and failure to conduct due diligence before putting the plot up for e-auction.
Opposing the plea, HSVP argued that the petitioner was bound by the terms and conditions of the e-auction policy. Referring to a clause, the authority submitted that in the event of inability to deliver possession, the petitioner was entitled only to a refund with 5.5 per cent annual interest till the date of delivery of possession.
It was further contended that having accepted the terms and conditions of allotment, the petitioner could not now resale from them.
The Bench of Justice Deepak Manchanda and Justice Suvir Sehgal observed that the petitioner had been declared the highest and successful bidder in the e-auction conducted by HSVP and had deposited the entire sale consideration. Pursuant to it, a Letter of Intent dated January 21, 2023, was issued in favour of the petitioner, followed by allotment letter dated June 27, 2023.
The Bench observed that possession of the plot had been formally offered, but actual physical possession could not be delivered because of the encroachment existing over the site.
“We find merit in the submissions advanced by counsel for the petitioner regarding allotment of an alternative plot in a situation where actual physical possession of the originally allotted plot could not be delivered on account of encroachment thereupon by a third party,” the Bench observed.
Referring to HSVP’s reply dated March 12, the Bench observed that the authority had itself acknowledged that the encroachment existed before the e-auction was conducted.
“A perusal of a paragraph of the reply reveals that the respondent-authority has not disputed the existence of encroachment over the site/plot in question prior to the conduct of the e-auction, rather, the same has been expressly acknowledged,” the Bench noted.
The court added that HSVP had admitted failure and negligence on the part of its officers and had even recommended disciplinary action against the officials concerned for auctioning a plot already under encroachment.
The Bench observed that HSVP’s own admission clearly demonstrated lack of prior verification before conducting the e-auction. The judges further observed that the recommendation for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against its officers amounted to an admission of lapse on the part of HSVP and could not be attributed to the petitioner.
“Consequently, the resultant cancellation of the allotted plot is held to be wholly unjustified and unsustainable in law,” the Bench ruled.
Rejecting HSVP’s stand, the court observed: “The stand taken by the respondent-authority that there exists no provision under the e-auction policy for allotment of an alternative plot and the contention that the petitioner had agreed to the terms and conditions thereof, is unsustainable in law, inasmuch as the identical issue already stands adjudicated by this Court.”
Allowing the petition, the High Court directed HSVP to restore the allotment of the plot in favour of the petitioner. The Bench noted that the plot had earlier been ordered to be kept reserved by the court on August 1, 2024, and HSVP had been restrained from alienating or transferring the site during the pendency of the proceedings.
