Plot allotments—In a series of applications concerning the long-standing dispute over plot allotments in Okhla Enclave, Faridabad, the Supreme Court addressed impleadment and allotment claims under the NPNL (No Profit No Loss) category—Applicants including Raja Ram Prajapati and others sought inclusion in the list of eligible claimants, citing full land cost payments and partial or non-payment of development charges—The Court held they may be considered in the second phase post requisite payments and land availability—In a separate plea, N.R—Chauhan, a senior citizen, sought recognition of his rights over Plot No. J-367, having fulfilled all obligations and holding supporting documents since 1995—The Court directed the Special Committee to reconsider his claim—Similarly, Ms—Kiran Bala Nair&r...

Uttar Pradesh Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act, 1950, Section 198(4)—Patta for Khasra—In this case, the appellant challenged the High Court's order dated 17th January 2013, which set aside the concurrent findings of the Additional District Magistrate/Additional Collector and Additional Commissioner regarding the status of a disputed land (Khasra No.103, formerly Khasra No.84) in Ghaziabad—The respondent claimed ownership of the land based on a 1981-82 patta, but the authorities found the patta to be fictitious, with no supporting allotment records—The land was originally recorded as a Johad (Pond) in 1970, serving as a water reservoir for the villagers—The High Court reversed these findings, declaring the land to be "Oosar" (wasteland), a decision unsupported by the evidence on record&md...

Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952—Section 2(k)—Cancellation of plot allotment—The case concerns the validity of a lease cancellation under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, where appellants leased a plot to allottees who defaulted on payments, leading to statutory cancellation of the lease—The allottees and an alleged tenant challenged the cancellation in the High Court, which restored the plot—The Supreme Court upheld the statutory authorities’ procedural fairness, emphasizing the consequences of default on contractual obligations—It found that the tenant lacked proper documentation to challenge the lease cancellation and had no standing to litigate—The Court criticized the High Court for disregarding the statutory decisions and procedural ...

Allotment of Plot—Demand of additional price—Appeal involves a dispute over the demand for additional payment for the allotment of a plot—The appellant, a housing authority, had initially allocated the plot to the respondent at a certain price but later demanded an additional amount—The respondent challenged this demand in a civil suit, which was decreed in their favor—Despite a clear precedent from the Supreme Court on a similar issue, the appellant continued to appeal the case through various levels of the judiciary, causing unnecessary delays and expenses—The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay significant costs to the respondent and deposit a sum with the Supreme Court Mediation Centre. ...

Appeal challenging a Punjab and Haryana High Court Division Bench's judgment directing the appellants to allot a plot to the respondent at the 1985 rate. The appellants had acquired land for urban development, and the respondent claimed a share. The High Court, in an earlier order, clarified that no relief was claimed for the respondent. Later, the respondent applied for plot allotment, agreeing to prevailing rates. The High Court's direction to apply the 1985 rate was deemed unsustainable. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, directing the allotment at the 2001 rate if the respondent paid within three months, without costs. ...

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)—Section 9—Allotment of plot—Enhancement of the price of a plot allotted to the plaintiff by the Haryana Urban Development Authority—The plaintiff challenged a demand letter for an additional amount, arguing that it was illegal and void, lacking a valid order from the competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act—The trial court, finding no such order, ruled in favor of the plaintiff—However, the appellate court and the High Court reversed this decision, relying on a general reference to a Punjab & Haryana High Court judgment without considering the specific evidence presented—The Supreme Court held that the defendants failed to substantiate the claim for enhancement and, therefore, set aside the decisions of the lower courts, affirming the trial court'...

Consumer Protection Act, 1986—Section 2(1)(g)—Deficiency in service—Concerning deficiency in housing service, where an allotment was made in 1986 but possession was not delivered until 2003, the District Forum directed an allotment of an alternate plot at the same rate and imposed interest at 10% p.a. The National Commission increased the interest rate to 15% p.a., but the Supreme Court set aside this decision, citing precedent—The Court noted the appellant's payment of interest at 12% only in 2004 and emphasized the lack of compensation for mental agony and harassment—While acknowledging that possession at the old rate grants the party the benefit of land price escalation, the Court held the interest to be compensation for mental distress—The appellant was ordered to pay interest at 15% from March ...

The review applications, seeking a reexamination of the judgment related to the allotment of a plot, contend that the government was consistently aware of the requirements of Clause 11 of the Resolution dated 12.5.1983—An affidavit sworn by Jagdish Kashinath Gharat, Under Secretary, Revenue and Forests Department, Govt—of Maharashtra, is submitted to support this claim—However, the court maintains that despite this argument, there are other aspects considered in the main judgment, such as the availability of the plot in isolation for allotment—Notably, the allotted plots were carved out of plot No—211, challenging the assertion that a plot was available for independent allotment—Consequently, the court finds no justification for a review and dismisses the applications accordingly. ...