The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran cannot demand the prevailing or current reserve price from land oustees when there has been a substantial delay in issuing allotment letters that is attributable solely to the authority. The Court observed that a public body cannot take advantage of its own delay and thereafter burden citizens with escalated prices that accrued over the years due to its inaction. It was held that oustees are entitled to allotment at the rate that prevailed at the time when they applied or when the public notice inviting applications was issued, and not at a higher rate fixed much later.
The Court examined the facts where land had been acquired by the authority and the petitioner, being an oustee, had applied under the relevant oustee quota pursuant to a public notice and deposited the required earnest money. Despite completion of all formalities, the authority failed to issue the allotment letter for several years. When the allotment was finally issued, the authority demanded payment at a substantially higher reserve price applicable at that later stage, along with additional financial conditions. The Court found that the delay of several years was entirely on account of the authority and could not be used as a justification to impose higher financial liability on the applicant.
It was noted that the original public notice did not disclose any price and that this omission could not be used by the authority to later justify charging an inflated price. The Court held that such conduct was arbitrary, unfair, and contrary to the principles of transparency and fairness expected from a state instrumentality. The Court reiterated that public authorities are bound by settled legal principles and cannot impose conditions that penalise citizens for delays caused by the authorities themselves.
The High Court also examined the interest component demanded by the authority and held that the rate of interest levied was excessive and unreasonable. The Court concluded that only reasonable interest could be charged in such circumstances and reduced the applicable rate to a lower figure, holding that higher interest was unjustified when the delay itself was not attributable to the allottee. The Court further found fault with the requirement of making a large lump-sum payment within a short period, particularly when similarly placed oustees had been granted more flexible payment schedules.
On these grounds, the Court quashed the impugned conditions in the allotment letter and directed the authority to recalculate the payable amount by applying the rate that was prevalent at the time of the application or public notice. The Court also directed that the remaining amount be permitted to be paid in equal annual instalments, ensuring parity with other allottees and preventing discriminatory treatment. The authority was restrained from taking coercive steps against the petitioner while giving effect to these directions.
Expressing strong displeasure over the authority’s conduct, the High Court observed that the issue was no longer res integra and that the authority had repeatedly ignored settled law and its own policy framework, thereby forcing citizens to approach the courts unnecessarily. The Court held that such conduct warranted imposition of exemplary costs and accordingly imposed a cost of ₹3 lakh on the authority. It was emphasised that state authorities are expected to act fairly, adhere to binding legal principles, and not compel individuals to engage in avoidable litigation on issues that have already been conclusively settled.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.