3 decades on, HC quashes resumption order against Panchkula plot allottee

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed the resumption order issued in 1993 by the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP), formerly HUDA, against an allottee of a Panchkula plot, holding that the decision was in contravention of judicial orders.

Rejecting the arguments advanced by HSVP, the Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri held that the case was squarely covered by a 2012 Division Bench ruling, which had set aside similar orders against other allottees.

The court observed that the resumption order was still issued on May 25, 1993, despite interim orders passed by the Civil Court on September 10, 1992, and May 12, 1993, restraining HSVP from resuming the plot. Declaring it a clear violation of judicial directions, the High Court asserted that the allottee was entitled to the same relief as granted in the Division Bench judgment in other matters.

The case pertained to a plot in Sector 5, Panchkula, originally allotted in an open auction for Rs 29, 11,000, on a freehold basis. The plot was subsequently re-allotted to Mohan Lal Goel, who was required to pay the outstanding 75 per cent balance. Citing the failure of HSVP to provide basic infrastructure, Goel filed a civil suit seeking directions against the recovery of dues and the resumption of the plot. The Civil Court initially restrained HSVP from taking any coercive action. But the resumption order was still issued in 1993.

The High Court noted that the review applications filed by HSVP in four similar cases was dismissed, and the Special Leave Petition (SLP) against the Division Bench ruling was rejected by the Supreme Court. The court asserted a conclusive and binding decision had already been rendered. As such, the petitioner could not be deprived of the same benefit merely because no explicit challenge was made to the resumption order.

The court also held that HSVP’s demand for an extension fee from the allottee for non-construction of a building was illegal and unjustified. It noted that possession of the plot was only offered on March 30, 1992, but not physically delivered. Given that the two-year construction period started from the date of offer of possession, the court ruled that extension fee could not be imposed when the allottee was effectively prevented from construction due to reasons beyond his control.

“The relevant period of time when the subject plot remained under the possession of the HUDA is required to be deducted from the ordained period of two years. Resultantly, thereby, no extension fee was leviable on the present allottee,” the Bench ruled.

The High Court also clarified that interest on the balance installments would be levied at 10 per cent, as per the conditional order of the Supreme Court in an ongoing appeal on the issue.