Court Ensures Justice: ₹5 Lakh Compensation Granted for Denied Plot Rights

                The Punjab and Haryana High Court pulled up Haryana government's urban development body–Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran–for denying possession of land to certain 
successful allottees who paid the sale consideration but were refunded the money, terming it a "clever subterfuge to evade discharging its contractual obligations".
HSVP earlier known as HUDA–had rejected the representation of the petitioner for allotment and possession of the booth sites sold in an e-auction. The plea claims that HSVP had 
decided to refund the money in respect of booth sites on the land while referring to a survey report as per which the "booth sites sold under e-auction were under encroachment and 
under stay" in a 2020 petition.
The court however noted that similarly placed persons had been given possession, and directed the HSVP to immediately issue allotment letters to the petitioners in two weeks and 
also imposed cost of Rs 1 Lakh to be paid to each of the five petitioners.
A division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikram Aggarwal in its order said that prior to putting the respective sites for public auction, the respondents should have 
applied their mind to see that the sites in question can be delivered free from encumberances to the concerned allottees.
"However, it appears that the said exercise was not undertaken by the respondents concerned. Since therebys, there was complete lack of diligence, as also prima facie commission 
of torts of non-feasance, misfeasance and malfeasance, on the part of the respondent concerned. Obviously the ill-sequel of the said prima facie commission of torts, thus cannot be 
encumbered upon the allottees concerned, who had entered into a settled inviolable concluded contract with the respondents, and, had also therebys liquidated the entire sale 
consideration to the respondent concerned, who, however has ill-chosen to yet take a decision, as manifested in Annexure P-11, to refund the amounts already received, and, to also 
change the sites, so that therebys the respondent concerned, rather conveniently reneges from the apposite contractual obligations".
Noting that the sale consideration paid by the allottees had been "unilaterally refunded" to them, the court said:
"the entire sale consideration, as became liquidated by the promisee to respondent concerned, became unilaterally refunded into the accounts of the promissee-the present 
petitioners. It appears that the said was a clever subterfuge employed by the respondent concerned, to evade the discharging of contractual obligation cast upon it".
The court further observed this action was in complete circumvention of the constitutional assurance guaranteed to the petitioners, that if any contracts, like the present one, becomes 
settled amongst the promisees and the respondent concerned–a state instrumentality and agency–it shall remain unreneged.
The high court in its order further noted, "entire sale consideration was uncontrovertedly liquidated by the allottees/successful bidders to the respondent concerned, wherebys a 
concluded and settled contract came into existence. The said concluded and settled contract was inviolable, especially when the respondent concerned, is the instrumentality or an 
agency of the State, more specifically, when it is mothered by a State legislation nomenclatured as the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran. Resultantly therebys, the constitutional 
principles enshrined in Article 299 of the Constitution of India, provisions whereof become extracted hereinafter, are with aplomb applicable to the respondent concerned".
Background
As per the facts enumerated in one of the petition's, HSVP in March 2022 had issued a public notice for conducting e-auction of 'double storeyed booths in Sector 62, Gurugram-II. 
Pursuant to the said notice, the petitioner deposited Rs. 2,04,600/- as earnest money, and, submitted her bid. Subsequently, through the e-auction the petitioner purchased Booth No. 
4 for a sale consideration of Rs. 94,20,600.
In pursuance thereto, the petitioner also deposited 10% of the bid amount. It is further averred that upon the acceptance of the petitioner's bid, the a Letter of Intent dated May 17, 
2022 was issued by HSVP. Subsequently, in compliance of the terms of the LoI, the petitioner also deposited the balance sale consideration, after which a letter of allotment dated 
October 10, 2022 allotting land to the petitioner on a freehold basis, as per the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Act, 1977.
The petitioner filed an application for possession which was rejected on the ground that the development works were not complete. Subsequently, on May 10, 2023 the petitioner 
moved another application; this was rejected on the ground that demarcation plan was not received and so possession cannot be delivered.
Subsequently, the petitioner was informed that the Chief Administrator, HSVP had decided to refund the deposited money in respect of the booth site concerned. The petitioner 
thereafter moved a representation on July 12, 2024 with a request to deliver possession of the subject site to her. In response, the plea claims, the authority sent a letter on July 24, 
2024 rejecting the allotment of plot made in favour of the petitioner.


Source : LiveLaw