Randhir Singh And Anr vs National Buildings Construction Corporation Delhi And Anr

$~45 to 47
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 19.05.2026
(45)
+ LPA 383/2026 & CM APPL. 33919/2026
RANDHIR SINGH AND ANR .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Prabhat
Kaushik, Mr. Ashish Kumar and Mr.
Rishit Kumar, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ray Vikram Nath, Mr.
Harshvardhan Jha, Ms. Riyal
Suryanshi, Advocates for NBCC
along with Mr. Sarvesh Kumar
Chaubey, Manager, NBCC.
Mr. Akash Chatterjee, SPC for R-2.
(46)
+ LPA 384/2026 & CM APPL. 33921/2026
S.C KAUSHIK AND ANR .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Prabhat
Kaushik, Mr. Ashish Kumar and Mr.
Rishit Kumar, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
DELHI AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ray Vikram Nath, Mr.
Harshvardhan Jha, Ms. Riyal
Suryanshi, Advocates for NBCC
along with Mr. Sarvesh Kumar
Chaubey, Manager, NBCC.
(47)
+ LPA 386/2026 & CM APPL. 33971/2026
ANIL KAPOOR AND ANR .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Mr. Prabhat
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:27.05.2026
13:25:29
LPA 383/2026 & Connected matters Page 1 of 10

Kaushik, Mr. Ashish Kumar and Mr.
Rishit Kumar, Advocates.
versus
NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
AND ANR .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ray Vikram Nath, Mr.
Harshvardhan Jha, Ms. Riyal
Suryanshi, Advocates for NBCC
along with Mr. Sarvesh Kumar
Chaubey, Manager, NBCC.
Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with
Ms. Himanshi Singh and Ms.
Monalisha Pradhan, Advocates for
R-2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
TEJAS KARIA, J. ( Oral )
CM APPL. 33920/2026 in LPA 383/2026;
CM APPL. 33922/2026 in LPA 384/2026; and
CM APPL. 33972/2026 in LPA 386/2026
1. These Applications have been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, 1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the respective Letters
Patent Appeals.
2. Having considered the averments made the Applications, the same are
allowed. The delay caused in filing the present Appeals is hereby condoned.
3. The Applications stand disposed of.
LPA 383/2026, LPA 384/2026 and LPA 386/2026
4. This batch of intra court Appeals has been filed assailing the common
order dated 13.01.2026 (“ Impugned Order ”) passed in W.P.(C) Nos.
10048/2024, 1151/2025 and 10575/2024 (“ Writ Petitions ”), whereby the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:27.05.2026
13:25:29
LPA 383/2026 & Connected matters Page 2 of 10

Writ Petitions filed by the Appellants were disposed of while reserving the
liberty to the Appellants to take any other alternate remedy, if available in
law.
5. The Appellants booked apartments in a project for construction of
Group Housing Residential Apartments namely ‘NBCC Green View
Apartments’, which was constructed at Sector 37-D, Gurgaon, Haryana
(“ Project ”). The Appellants paid the booking amount, and the apartments
were allotted to the Appellants by Respondent No. 1 in November 2012.
6. In October 2017, Respondent No. 1 issued an offer of possession
letter to the Appellants. The Appellants paid total consideration amount by
October 2017, and Respondent No. 1 had issued a no due certificate to the
Appellants in November 2017. In December 2017 / January 2018,
Respondent No. 1 issued a possession certificate to the Appellants.
7. On 06.10.2021, the structural experts from IIT Delhi filed a verification
report dated 06.10.2021 for the Project and declared the apartments of the
Appellants to be not fit for residential purpose. On 17.02.2022, the District
Magistrate-cum-Chairperson of District Disaster Management Authority,
Gurgaon (“ DDMA ”), on application by Respondent No. 1 passed an order
directing the apartment owners to vacate the apartments within 15 days and
also required Respondent No. 1 to refund the total considerations with
lawful interest within one month and arrange temporary accommodation
within 48 hours till the remittance of refund to the apartment owners.
8. Vide email dated 26.02.2022, Respondent No. 1 confirmed that it
would continue to pay rent until the final settlement. Thereafter, vide letter
dated 26.04.2022, Respondent No. 1 assured all residents of the Project,
including the Appellants, that a uniform settlement policy would be adopted
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:27.05.2026
13:25:29
LPA 383/2026 & Connected matters Page 3 of 10

without any differential treatment. However, on 29.07.2022, Respondent
st
No. 1 issued the 1 Buy Back Offer Letter, offering to refund only the
principal amount paid by the Appellants, without any interest or
compensation. According to the Appellants, this offer was contrary to the
directions of the DDMA, which had required refund of the amount along
with interest. Consequently, the Appellants, vide reply letter dated
23.08.2022, objected to the said offer on the ground that it was unilateral
and one-sided, and further sought reimbursement of the cost of interior
work, interest on the amounts paid to Respondent No. 1 in terms of the
DDMA order, as well as compensation for harassment, mental agony, and
litigation expenses.
9. Vide letter dated 08.09.2022, Respondent No. 1 stated that the buy-
back offer issued on 29.07.2022 was reasonable and would remain open for
acceptance for a period of four weeks only. It was further stated that,
notwithstanding the earlier undertaking to pay rent until the final settlement,
rent would be paid only for a period of three months, i.e., up to 30.11.2022,
on the ground that rental payments could not be continued in perpetuity.
nd
10. In February 2023, Respondent No. 1 sent a 2 Buy Back Offer to the
Appellants offering to pay:
a. Total payment for the apartments at the rate of ₹5100 per square
feet (all inclusive except PLC, if any) and the PLC paid, if any,
shall be refunded at actual;
b. The rate of payment qua cancellation, i.e., @ ₹5100 per square feet
shall include all costs (except PLC paid, if any) / charges /
amounts paid by the Appellants.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:27.05.2026
13:25:29
LPA 383/2026 & Connected matters Page 4 of 10

11. The said offer also stated that the total amount shall constitute a ‘One-
Time Full and Final Settlement’ between the Appellants and Respondent
No. 1. The said offer also stated that by agreeing to the terms, the Appellants
also agree to execute the Cancellation Letter and provide Respondent No. 1
with all further documentary assistance required in order to give effect to the
proposal and also withdraw all legal proceedings / claims / complaints etc.,
against Respondent No. 1.
12. The Appellants assert that, as they had received no effective relief and
were retired Government employees, they were left with no alternative but
to approach Respondent No. 1, particularly since payment of rent had ceased
with effect from 30.11.2022. Accordingly, the Appellants executed the
Acceptance-cum-Declaration Memorandum (“ Memorandum ”) prepared by
Respondent No. 1, which, according to the Appellants, was one-sided and
operated solely in favour of Respondent No. 1. It is the Appellants’ case that
they were in a position of helplessness and were compelled to sign the
Memorandum.
13. On 19.03.2024, Respondent No. 1 addressed a communication to
certain other allottees of the Project stating that it was willing to reconstruct
the Project and hand over possession of the reconstructed apartments to such
allottees. Thereupon, the Appellants approached Respondent No. 1 seeking
similar compensation; however, the said request was declined by
Respondent No. 1.
14. The Appellants addressed several communications to Respondent No.
1 seeking compensation on the ground that Respondent No. 1 had failed to
adhere to the Uniform Settlement Policy and had, instead, introduced a new
buy-back policy contemplating reconstruction of the Project and allotment
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:27.05.2026
13:25:29
LPA 383/2026 & Connected matters Page 5 of 10

of newly constructed apartments to certain allottees of the Project. Some of
the Appellants also attended a meeting convened by the Chairman of
Respondent No. 1 on 27.03.2024. During the said meeting, the Appellants
were requested to submit a request letter seeking re-allotment of apartments
in the new project.
15. Even though some of the Appellants submitted request letters for re-
allotment of apartments in the new project and thereafter sent reminder
communications, Respondent No. 1 did not respond to the requests made by
the Appellants.
16. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Appellants instituted the Writ
Petitions seeking a direction to the Respondents to re-allot apartments to the
Appellants in accordance with the Uniform Settlement Policy, without any
differential treatment, as adopted by the Respondents vide letter dated
26.04.2022; and, in the alternative, to compensate the Appellants on parity
with the other allottees of the Project in terms of the orders dated 08.05.2024
passed in W.P.(C) 824/2023 and 12.07.2024 passed in W.P.(C) 6583/2021.
17. The learned Single Judge, vide the Impugned Order, observed that the
dispute essentially arose out of a private contract and bore the character of a
civil dispute. It was further observed that the Appellants had accepted a full
and final settlement in terms of the Memorandum. The learned Single Judge
held that the question whether the said settlement was procured by fraud or
coercion constituted a disputed question of fact and, therefore, could not be
adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
18. The Impugned Order further records that, if any policy of Respondent
No. 1 had been violated and if the Appellants had been unlawfully denied its
benefits, such issues would require adjudication after affording the parties an
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:27.05.2026
13:25:29
LPA 383/2026 & Connected matters Page 6 of 10

opportunity to lead evidence and be heard. The learned Single Judge held
that such an exercise was not warranted in proceedings under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India, 1950 (“ Constitution ”) and, accordingly, disposed
of the Writ Petitions while reserving liberty to the Appellants to avail any
other alternative remedy available in law.
19. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the present Appeals
assail a policy decision of Respondent No. 1 and the subsequent
discriminatory manner of its implementation, and that this Court, in exercise
of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, possesses the
authority to review arbitrary policy shifts adopted by the Respondents.
20. Learned counsel for the Appellants further submitted that the learned
Single Judge erred in treating the matters as mere contractual disputes,
whereas the challenge was directed against the Uniform Settlement Policy
dated 26.04.2022 and the alleged breach of the doctrine of promissory
estoppel. It was contended that the Respondents, being “State” within the
meaning of law, could not act in a discriminatory manner by extending
different settlement terms to identically situated home buyers. It was further
submitted that the Respondents had created an unreasonable classification
lacking any intelligible differentia, contrary to settled principles of law laid
down by the Supreme Court.
21. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that Respondent No. 1
was bound by its written assurances dated 26.02.2022, to the effect that
rentals would be paid until final settlement, and dated 26.04.2022, to the
effect that a Uniform Settlement Policy would be followed. It was further
submitted that the Impugned Order proceeded on an erroneous premise that
the Appellants had challenged the Memorandum, whereas according to the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:27.05.2026
13:25:29
LPA 383/2026 & Connected matters Page 7 of 10

Appellants, their challenge was directed not against the Memorandum but
against the Uniform Settlement Policy dated 26.04.2022 and the arbitrary,
discriminatory and unconstitutional conduct of Respondent No. 1 in
departing therefrom.
22. Learned counsel for the Appellants submitted that the learned Single
Judge had decided an issue which was neither pleaded nor argued, and
which did not arise on the facts of the present cases, thereby occasioning a
jurisdictional error warranting interference in the present Appeals. Learned
counsel for the Appellants further submitted that all the Appellants are
retired or senior Government officials who had invested their life savings in
purchasing residential apartments in the Project, and that, on account of
alleged corruption, negligence and sub-standard construction by the officials
of Respondent No. 1, the Project was declared structurally unsafe by IIT
experts and the DDMA, resulting in forced evacuation, cessation of
occupation and demolition of the buildings.
23. In view of the above submissions, the learned Counsel for the
Appellants prayed that the Impugned Order be set aside and the prayer
sought in the Writ Petitions be granted.
24. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellants.
25. The issue that arises for consideration in the present Appeals is
whether, in the facts and circumstances of the cases, the learned Single
Judge ought to have exercised writ jurisdiction while adjudicating the Writ
Petitions.
26. It is not in dispute that the Appellants executed the Memorandum,
whereby they accepted the offer extended by Respondent No. 1, in terms of
which the allotment of the apartments in their favour stood cancelled and, in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:27.05.2026
13:25:29
LPA 383/2026 & Connected matters Page 8 of 10

lieu thereof, the Appellants received a One-Time Full and Final Settlement.
Pursuant to the execution of the Memorandum, Respondent No. 1 released
payment in accordance therewith.
27. After receipt of the payment under the Memorandum, the Appellants
did not raise any grievance alleging coercion on the part of Respondent No.
1, nor did they assert that the Memorandum had been executed under
compulsion. Having executed the Memorandum, it is now not open to the
Appellants to resile from its terms.
28. Respondent No. 1 has contended in its reply to the Writ Petitions that
the Appellants accepted the settlement offer of their own free will, without
any pressure or influence from Respondent No. 1, and thereafter executed
the Memorandum and received the full and final settlement amount in terms
thereof.
29. Accordingly, the principal issue that is required to be determined is
whether the Appellants were compelled or coerced into executing the
Memorandum. Upon a consideration of the documents presently on record,
no material is forthcoming to indicate the existence of any coercion or force
on the part of Respondent No. 1. It was only after the Appellants became
aware that Respondent No. 1 was offering apartments in the newly
constructed project in lieu of the cancelled apartments in the Project that the
Appellants have challenged the policy of Respondent No. 1 on the ground
that it was arbitrary, discriminatory, and created two classes among similarly
situated allottees of the Project.
30. Accordingly, the grievance of the Appellants is that Respondent No. 1
altered its policy after execution of the Memorandum and that such conduct
is discriminatory, arbitrary, and illegal. However, that grievance can be
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:27.05.2026
13:25:29
LPA 383/2026 & Connected matters Page 9 of 10

examined only if the execution of the Memorandum by the Appellants is
first found to be vitiated by fraud or coercion. The plea of fraud and
coercion has been advanced by the Appellants in the context of the
subsequent policy under which, in place of monetary compensation,
Respondent No. 1 is offering apartments in the newly constructed project.
31. The Appellants, having accepted compensation pursuant to the
Memorandum, cannot challenge the subsequent policy unless they first
establish that the Memorandum is invalid on account of fraud or coercion. It
is well settled that such allegations cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in writ
proceedings, as they involve disputed questions of fact. The learned Single
Judge has, therefore, rightly observed that the appropriate remedy available
to the Appellants lies before the competent Civil Court, where such issues
may be effectively adjudicated. In these circumstances, the refusal to
exercise writ jurisdiction cannot be faulted.
32. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion
that the Impugned Order suffers from no infirmity, particularly as it
preserves the Appellants’ liberty to avail such remedies as may be available
to them in accordance with law. We, therefore, find no merit in the present
Appeals. The Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order
as to costs.
TEJAS KARIA, J
DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
MAY 19, 2026
ap
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:27.05.2026
13:25:29
LPA 383/2026 & Connected matters Page 10 of 10