Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Appeal for Refund of Plot Price, Holds Allottee Voluntarily Surrendered Plot and Forfeiture Was Justified

Case Name: Shruti Goenka v. Haryana Urban Development Authority
Date of Judgment: January 6, 2015
Citation: RSA No. 535 of 2011 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Fateh Deep Singh

Held: The Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed an appeal filed by the allottee seeking refund of the entire amount paid for a residential plot in Sector 2, Faridabad, holding that the surrender was voluntary and that the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) was entitled to deduct 10% of the tentative price as per Clause 26 of the allotment letter. Justice Fateh Deep Singh ruled that no illegality or perversity existed in the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts, which had correctly held that the allottee could not claim full refund when the cancellation was self-initiated and unaccompanied by any litigatory or developmental impediment.

Summary: The appellant, Shruti Goenka, was allotted a 502.32 sq. yard residential plot in Sector 2, Faridabad, on November 5, 1998, upon payment of 25% of the tentative price amounting to ₹3,03,904. She later sought cancellation of the allotment and refund of the full amount on March 22, 2002, alleging non-possession of the plot. HUDA refunded ₹1,29,420 after deducting 10% of the total consideration and processing fees through cheque dated May 16, 2002. She filed a civil suit in 2005 claiming refund of the remaining amount with 18% interest. Both the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Faridabad, and the District Judge dismissed her claim, holding that she had voluntarily surrendered the plot and accepted the refund without protest.

Justice Fateh Deep Singh, affirming those findings, observed that Clause 26 of the allotment terms expressly provided for refund without interest only in cases of litigation or delayed possession due to development issues. Since no such circumstance existed and the possession had been duly offered, the appellant could not claim exemption from forfeiture. The Court noted that her failure to pay installments due from November 5, 1999, and her non-appearance despite being granted a personal hearing further weakened her case. The Court also found that the suit was filed after 2½ years of receiving the refund, showing delay and acquiescence.

Decision: Dismissing the appeal, the High Court held that the appellant’s surrender of the plot was a voluntary act and that the forfeiture of 10% of the tentative price was consistent with HUDA policy and Clause 26 of the allotment letter. The concurrent findings of the lower courts were affirmed as legal and well-reasoned, and the appeal was dismissed as devoid of merit.