The Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear that once an allottee voluntarily seeks and accepts a refund following cancellation of a plot allotment, he cannot subsequently turn around and seek restoration of the allotment or claim parity with others who challenged the cancellation from the outset.
Dismissing a petition filed by an allottee, the Division Bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Deepak Manchanda held that an allottee who consciously opted for refund and accepted cancellation of allotment was barred by the doctrine of estoppel from reopening the dispute and seeking restoration of the plot.
The petitioner had approached the High Court seeking directions for setting aside the cancellation of a plot in Sector 5, Pinjore, allotted to her through an e-auction, and refund of amount deposited by her pursuant to the cancellation.
The Bench was told that Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) issued an e-auction notice on January 25, 2023, for allotment of various properties, including the plot in question. The petitioner participated in the auction and emerged as the highest bidder. A Letter of Intent was issued in her favour on February 24, 2023, following which she deposited the entire bid amount of over Rs 1.32 crore. An allotment letter was thereafter issued on July 23, 2023.
The petitioner contended that despite depositing the entire sale consideration, physical possession of the plot was never delivered. She alleged that HSVP subsequently cancelled the allotment on February 20, 2024, and refunded the deposited amount without issuing any notice or assigning any reason. She also submitted representations and a legal notice challenging the action.
Seeking relief, the petitioner relied upon an earlier judgment of the High Court contending that the controversy was squarely covered by that decision. She argued that possession could not be delivered because HSVP later decided to develop only 1000-square-yard plots in Sector-5, Pinjore, and deleted smaller plots, including the one allotted to her, on the ground that the area fell in hilly terrain requiring alteration of plot sizes.
Opposing the petition, HSVP argued that the petitioner had accepted the terms and conditions governing the e-auction and was entitled only to refund with interest if possession could not be delivered under the policy. The authority further contended that the petitioner had herself sought refund of the deposited amount through a letter dated December 12, 2023, following which the amount was refunded on February 20, 2024.
After examining the matter, the Bench held that the petitioner could not derive any benefit from the earlier judgment because the facts were materially different. “A bare perusal of the pleadings would show that although the petitioner has sought parity with a similarly situated allotee by placing reliance upon the judgment rendered in Vishal Kandwal’s case (supra), the benefit granted therein cannot be extended to the petitioner in the present case, as the facts and circumstances of both the cases are clearly distinguishable," the court observed.
The Bench noted that in Kandwal’s case, the allottee had neither sought refund of the deposited amount nor accepted it voluntarily and had specifically challenged both the cancellation and the refund. In contrast, the present petitioner had herself sought refund and thereafter accepted the amount without protest.
Referring to the consequences of such conduct, the court observed: “Such conduct on the part of the petitioner in accepting the refund of the deposited amount consequent upon cancellation of the plot effectively extinguished her claim qua the said property.”
The Bench further held: “It is a settled proposition of law that once a contract stands rescinded and the monetary consideration pursuant thereto is accepted, reopening of the dispute thereafter becomes legally untenable unless it is specifically established that such acceptance was procured by coercion, fraud, misrepresentation, or undue influence."
Dismissing the petition, the court concluded: “The petitioner, having consciously opted for refund and accepted the cancellation of allotment, cannot now seek parity with the similarly situated allottee in Vishal Kandwal’s case”.
