Punjab & Haryana HC Quashes Unjust Cancellation Of Land Allotment By Haryana Govt, Grants ₹5 Lakh Compensation For Mental Trauma

The Punjab & Haryana High Court granted Rs. 5 Lakh compensation to a doctor for facing repeated trauma and harassment by the officials of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) who unjust cancelled the plot allotted for building a hospital.

Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri said, "Now for the prima facie commissions of torts of malfeasance, non-feasance and misfeasance, thus on the part of the HUDA and its officials, besides for the repeated trauma and harassment becoming wreaked upon the petitioner, thereupon, as such, the instant writ petition, is also allowed, with exemplary compensation comprised in a sum of Rs.5 lacs becoming encumbered upon the respondent concerned."

The petitioner applied for a hospital plot in Gurugram in 1999 and received a Letter of Intent (LOI) in 2000 with a quoted price of Rs. 10 crore. Due to delays by the authorities in providing the zoning plan, the petitioner could not proceed with construction on time. Despite complying with requirements and securing financing, the LOI was wrongly cancelled multiple times.

After years of legal proceedings, the case was remanded, and in 2017, the Estate Officer acknowledged that the petitioner was unfairly treated and recommended restoring the allotment. However, instead of the original LOI price, the officer proposed charging the current market rate of Rs. 109 crore.

The petitioner challenged the increased allotment price of a hospital plot initially offered in 2000. It was submitted that although officials acknowledged the petitioner had met all obligations and that the original cancellation was unjust and motivated by malice, they still raised the price drastically based on current rates. Despite the contradiction, the Estate Officer canceled the allotment for non-payment while the case was pending, which lead the petitioner to file an amended writ petition.

After hearing the submissions, the Court found that the petitioner was penalized for delays in getting building plan approvals, but the Court found that these delays were caused by the respondent authority (HUDA), not the petitioner.

"The zoning plan was not issued until 18.3.2002 by the department and not communicated to the petitioner before 25.9.2002. Thus, the delay of near about 2 years and 6 months from the date of issuance of LOI can be attributed to HUDA alone," said the bench.

It was found that the, "letter issued in 2002 did communicate to the petitioner about the approved zoning, but gave only 14 days window to get the building plan approved which was too short a time seemingly arbitrary sans any logical rationing."

The Court said that, "surprising enough that the petitioner who was found professionally competent and financially sound to undertake a project of this magnitude by a joint committee headed by the Chief Administrator HUDA, was financially re-evaluated and assessed by the lower staff locally and left to red tapism to snowball the rest."

In the light of the above, the plea was allowed.

Mr.Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G. Haryana with Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G. Haryana, Mr. P.P. Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.

Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Rampal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5 (HSVP).

Title: Dr. ANIL BANSAL v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

Click here to read/download the order