PRATAP SINGH YADAV versus HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR.

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 827 · Decided: 28-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: T.S. THAKUR · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 8 S.C.R. 827 
PRATAP SINGH YADAV 
v. 
HARYANA URBAN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 10418-10419 of2016) 
OCTOBER 28, 2016 
[T.S. THAKUR, CJI AND UDAY UMESH LALIT, J.] 
Consumer Protection Act, 1986 - Allotment of plot in favour 
of appellant - Deposit of 25% of the tentative price of the plot -
Subsequently application by appellant for surrender of the plot and 
the allotment in his favour -Application allowed - Refund of amount 
by respondent - Acceptance of the said amount by appellant without 
protest - Thereafter, complaint by appellant seeking direction 
against the respondent for restoration of the plot or for allot111ent 
of an alternative plot alongwit~ compensation of Rs.2,00,0001- -
Complaint allowed by the District Foru111 - Howeve1; the State 
Com111ission dis111issed the complaint - National Commission upheld 
the said order - On appeal, held: Subsequent developments took 
place whereby conveyance deed was executed, plot was transferred 
to the appellant, building plan was approved by the Estate Officer, 
occupation certificate was placed on record and no due certificate 
was issued by the Estate Officer - These are vitiated by reason of 
complicity of the officials working in HUDA and named in the report 
- HUDA directed to take disciplinary action against those found 
responsible and to punish the111 in accordance with law - Even though 
the appellant has been a beneficiary of a so called fraudulent 
allotment yet in view of the facts and circumstances of the case 
demolition of the house and restoration of the plot to HUDA at this 
stage would be harsh for hi111/them - Thus, the allotment is allowed 
to continue subject to the appellant depositing the prevalent price 
of the plot at the rate of Rs. 18,000/- per square meter within the 
stipulated period - In case the needful is not done, the order passed 
by National Com111issio11 and the Stale Commission would be 
affirmed. 
Partly allowing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 As regards the complicity of officials of HUDA 
827 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
828 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
A in the entire process, the preliminary report submitted to this 
Court by the Chief Administrator, HUDA leaves no room for taking 
a lenient view either by HUDA or by this Court. HUDA is bound 
to take proper disciplinary action against those found responsible 
and to suitably punish them in accordance with law. To that extent 
B 
c 
the direction is issued. [Para 6][832-F-G] 
1.2 As directed, HUDA filed an affidavit by the Estate Officer 
stating that the rate for allotment for land in Sector II, Faridabad 
for the period 2015-16 is Rs.18,000/- per sq. meter. A reading of 
the order in Pradeep Sharma vs. Chief Administrator, Haryana 
Urban Dev. Authority & Anr. in CA Nos.52-53 of 2016 in almost 
identical circumstances directing the continuance of allotment 
made in favour of allottee subject to his paying the prevalent 
HUDA rate for the plot of land upon which he had constructed a 
house in Faridabad in almost similar circumstances and in 
connivance with HUDA officials does support that submission of 
D the petitioners. It is true that the appellant has been a beneficiary 
of what is and can be said to be a fraudulent allotment yet keeping 
in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case demolition 
of the house and restoration of the plot to HUDA may at this 
stage work rather harshly for him/them. The proper course, 
therefore, is to allow the allotment to continue subject to the 
E appellant depositing the prevalent price of the plot at the rate of 
Rs.18,000/- per square meter. [Para 7][832-H; 833-A-C, G-H] 
1.3 The order passed by the National Commission and the 
State Commission is set aside with the direction that subject to 
the appellant depositing the price of the plot at the rate of 
F 
Rs.18,000/- per square meters within a period of six months from 
today the appellant would be permitted to retain the plot. In case 
the needful is not done within the time allowed, the order passed 
by National Commission and the State Commission would be 
affirmed. In any such event HUDA would be free to dispossess 
G the appellant from the property and resume the possession of 
the plot along with the superstructure, in case the superstructure 
is not removed by the appellants within the time granted by BUDA 
for that purpose. [Para 8][834-A-C) 
H 
Pradeep Sharma v. Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban 
Dev. Authority & Anr. Ci

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.