The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana Shahari Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) to allot an alternative plot to an allottee after finding that the plot sold to him through an e-auction was situated on unacquired land.
Terming HSVP’s conduct “unjust, arbitrary and a clear instance of mala fide”, a Bench of Justice Suvir Sehgal and Justice Deepak Manchanda directed the HSVP to allot the alternative plot within three months. The Bench said the allotment could be made in the vicinity or same sector, by carving out a fresh plot, allotting a plot in a newly developed site, or through any other suitable alternative measure.
The directions came on a petition filed by the allottee who was declared a successful bidder for a plot in Sector 77, Urban Estate, Faridabad, in an e-auction. After depositing the entire sale consideration, he was issued an allotment letter.
The court noted the plot’s possession was formally offered, but actual physical possession could not be delivered as the allotted plot was situated on unacquired land. It further recorded that HSVP had itself acknowledged this position in its communication dated November 24, 2023.
The Bench observed the allottee paid the entire sale consideration, but HSVP proceeded to recommend cancellation of the allotment and offer refund of the deposited amount together with interest in terms of the applicable policy.
Referring to the record, the court noted there was nothing to indicate that the deposited amount had ever been refunded. Rather, HSVP’s own stand before the court implied that the amount continued to remain with the authority.
“We are in agreement with the submissions made by the senior counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is not at fault and is suffering solely on account of the inaction and lapses attributable to respondent-HSVP,” the Bench observed.
The judges added that the pleadings and material on record clearly demonstrated lack of due diligence on the part of HSVP before advertising the plot.
“In the absence of any bona fide reasons for the subsequent cancellation, the impugned action reflects abuse of discretion, arbitrariness and unreasonableness in the Wednesbury sense, where no public authority can be permitted to act unfairly or capriciously to the detriment of law-abiding citizens,” the Bench asserted.
The court further observed that HSVP had itself admitted its mistake and lapse by acknowledging that the plot offered to the petitioner was situated on unacquired land. The situation, it added, arose solely on account of lack of prior verification by the authority.
Rejecting HSVP’s contention that there was no provision under the e-auction policy for allotment of an alternative plot, the Bench held the stand to be unsustainable in law. It also noted that similar issues had arisen earlier and that co-ordinate Benches had granted relief to allottees in comparable circumstances.
Allowing the petition, the court directed HSVP to allot an alternative plot to the petitioner within three months.
