Punjab & Haryana HC: HUDA directed to hand over possession—Allottee not liable for non-construction fee

Case Name: Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr. v. Brij Mohan Lal
Date of Judgment: January 9, 2020
Citation: RSA No. 5022 of 2013 (O&M)
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Arun Monga

Held: The High Court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal filed by HUDA, affirming concurrent findings of the trial court and first appellate court. It was held that once the plaintiff had deposited the full auction price and a conveyance deed was executed, HUDA was duty-bound to demarcate and hand over possession of the plot. Without possession, the allottee could not be penalized for failing to raise construction or asked to pay non-construction fee.

Summary: The plaintiff and his brother purchased plots in 1979 through auction; plot R-113 fell to the plaintiff’s share under a family settlement. Although the full amount was deposited and conveyance deed executed in 1984, possession was never formally delivered. The plaintiff sought mandatory injunction directing HUDA to demarcate and hand over the plot. HUDA resisted, citing outstanding extension fee for non-construction under its policy. The trial court decreed the suit, holding that without possession, construction obligations could not arise, and hence no non-construction fee could be demanded. The first appellate court upheld the decree, noting HUDA’s own lapse in not offering possession. The High Court found no perversity or substantial question of law, and applied the Supreme Court precedent in PUDA v. Gurmail Singh (2008), which held that an allottee cannot be burdened with penalty or interest where possession was never delivered.

Decision: Appeal dismissed. HUDA directed to demarcate and hand over possession of the plot to the plaintiff. Plaintiff not liable for non-construction fee or penalty.