Listen To This Post
Chandigarh: Holding that a public authority cannot monetise its own inaction, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP) acted arbitrarily, unfairly and in clear violation of settled law by charging land oustees escalated “current reserve prices” after sitting over allotments for years.
Allowing a batch of 58 petitions, a Division Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda quashed the impugned pricing clauses in the allotment letters and imposed exemplary costs of ₹3 lakh on HSVP for forcing citizens into avoidable litigation despite a conclusively settled legal position. “We are constrained to hold that the act and conduct of the respondent, HSVP, is wholly unjustified. Such repeated mistakes cannot be accepted,” the Bench observed.
Delay Cannot Be Monetised, Oustees Entitled to Original Price.
The court held that land oustees are entitled to the price prevalent on the date of application or advertisement, where the delay in allotment is entirely attributable to the development authority. Administrative delay, the Bench ruled, cannot be monetised, nor can citizens be penalised for the authority’s failure to act in time.
The petitioners were landowners whose properties were acquired for the development of various urban sectors, rendering them “oustees” under the rehabilitation framework. Following public notices issued in 2018, they applied for plot allotment and deposited earnest money. However, HSVP failed to issue allotment letters for nearly six to seven years. When allotments were finally made in 2025, the authority demanded payment at the 2025–26 current reserve price, several times higher than the original rate, along with rigid payment schedules and interest.
Rejecting HSVP’s defence that no price was mentioned in the 2018 advertisement, the Bench held that deliberate non-disclosure of price cannot be used as a device to impose inflated rates later, calling such conduct antithetical to fairness, transparency and the rule of law.
Binding Precedent Ignored, Costs Imposed for Repeated Illegality
The Bench noted that the issue stood conclusively settled by the Full Bench judgment in Rajiv Manchanda vs HUDA and that HSVP’s actions were in direct breach of its own 2018 policy, explicitly framed to give effect to that ruling.
“It is wholly incomprehensible on what basis the authority demanded the current price through the impugned allotment letters. Such conduct is manifestly arbitrary and tainted with mala fides,” the court observed.
The insistence on payment of 75% of the price within 180 days, despite years of official delays, was also found unjust and unreasonable. While recognising that reasonable interest could be levied for the intervening period, the court clarified that interest cannot be punitive or used to justify inflated pricing.
Quashing the impugned clauses, the court directed HSVP to re-determine the allotment price strictly in accordance with settled law and its 2018 policy. It reminded state instrumentalities of their duty to follow binding precedent.
“The State must act with fairness and grace. It cannot compel citizens to approach courts on issues already settled repeatedly. It would be desirable for the State to retrace its steps rather than persist in legally unsustainable orders,” the Bench concluded.
