Gurugram: After more than five years of legal tussle, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has restored a Sirsa resident’s one-kanal plot, which the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) had taken over alleged unpaid dues.
In doing so, Justices Vikas Bahl and Divya Sharma relied on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Teri Oat Estates vs Chandigarh case, which says resumption and forfeiture must be a last resort. None of the authorities had considered this question, they noted.
Resumption of a plot is a process under which a government agency like HSVP can take back plots if an allottee violates the terms and conditions of the allotment, transfer, or leasing agreement, including non-payment of dues.
The court, however, laid down a condition before Sirsa resident Shobhana Devi and the co-petitioner: they must now pay Rs 67.82 lakh within two months. They also have to approach the HSVP within two weeks for the payments.
The land in question (Plot 533 in Sector 19, Phase-I, Sirsa) was originally allotted by the HSVP to Geeta Rani on 29 September 2008 at a tentative price of Rs 29.94 lakh. She sold her land rights to Amit and Mahender, who approached Devi and the co-petitioner.
The re-allotment letter came on 26 July 2010. The petitioners paid the second instalment in May 2011, eight months late and with interest. Then they stopped paying instalments.
The Haryana urban planning agency then sent notices under Section 17 of the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran Act, 1977. In the court, the petitioners contended that they never got them.
While restoring the plot to Devi and the co-petitioner, the HC, in an order dated September, uploaded on the HC website this week, laid down a framework for authorities in dealing with such cases.
First, calculate how much of the original allotment price the owner paid by the time the plot was resumed. Second, determine the unpaid amount. Third, use the reserve price from the last auction of a similar property or, if no such auction took place, the Collector rate. Fourth, calculate the unpaid share of this price. Finally, deduct any payments made after the plot was resumed or while the case was pending.
The court said this is not a straitjacket formula. If interest and penalty come to more, the allottee could be asked to pay the higher amount.
In this case, the petitioners had paid 50 percent before resumption. Half of the Rs 2.81 crore reserve price is Rs 1.40 crore. After deducting the Rs 73.15 lakh already deposited, the balance came to Rs 67.82 lakh.
Also Read: Property resumption cannot happen once conveyance deed executed, only civil court can cancel deal—HC
The case
In 2021, Shobhana Devi had received a HSVP letter informing that her plot was ‘resumed’ by the Property Portal Management (PPM) system.
On 16 September that year, the Administrator, HSVP, Hisar, hearing an appeal, noted that the plot was shown as resumed only on the PPM system. He sent the matter back to the Estate Officer for a hearing. Three months later, the Estate Officer passed a resumption order, which the HC called it “cryptic and non-speaking”.
The order mentioned that the plot was directly resumed by the PPM system. It also recorded that no personal hearing was given earlier. It held that the allottee failed to pay despite repeated reminders.
The petitioner moved an appeal before the Administrator, but it was dismissed on 1 July 2022. The revision petition before the Additional Chief Secretary, Town and Country Planning, was also dismissed on 29 March 2024, when the ACS also asked for possession to be taken.
The petitioners then moved the High Court. On 1 July 2024, a division bench was informed that the dues, with penalty and interest, stood at Rs 73.15 lakh. They offered to pay it and placed a demand draft on record. The court was told later that the HSVP never encashed it.
They argued that the 2021 order was drafted by the HSVP Law Officer and passed on his suggestion. The bench called this unfortunate, if true. It said the point was not pleaded in the petition, and that raising it would delay the case, which the petitioners did not want.
On its part, the HSVP argued that the petitioners were market purchasers who knew the instalment schedule. Its counsel said the delay was 11 years, and that plot prices rose sharply.
He gave the example of a plot auctioned this year for Rs 3.23 crore against a reserve price of Rs 2.82 crore. Letting the petitioners off with dues and interest would cause loss to exchequer, the counsel argued.
But, the HC restored the plot to Devi and her co-petitioner, setting aside the orders of 16 December 2021, 1 July 2022, and 29 March 2024.
(Edited by Tony Rai)