Prem Kumar Subnani And Anr. vs National Buildings Construction Corporation And Anr.

$~39
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Date of Decision: 29.05.2026


+ LPA 434/2026 & CM APPL. 38095/2026

PREM KUMAR SUBNANI AND ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Prabhat Kaushik, Advocate along
with Appellants-in-Person.
versus
NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION
AND ANR. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. Ray Vikram Nath, Mr.
Harshvardhan Jha & Mr. Riyal
Suryavanshi, Advocate for NBCC.
Mr. Arunima Dwivedi- CGSC along
with Ms. Himanshi Singh & Ms.
Monalisha Pradhan, Advocates for
Union of India.
Mr. Chetanya Puri- SPC along with
Ms. Vidhi Gupta, Ms. Nisha Puri &
Mr. Abhay Verma, Advocates for
Respondent Nos.2/Union of India.

CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

TEJAS KARIA, J. ( Oral )
CM APPL. 38096/2026 (Condonation of Delay)
1. This Application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act,
1963 seeking condonation of delay in filing the present Letters Patent
Appeal.


LPA 434/2026 Page 1 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.06.2026
12:36

2. Having considered the averments made in the Application, the same is
allowed. The delay caused in filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.
3. The Application stands disposed of.
LPA 434/2026
4. The present intra-Court Appeal has been filed assailing the common
order dated 13.01.2026 (“ Impugned Order ”) passed in Writ Petition being
W.P. (C) 7191/2024 (“ Writ Petition ”), whereby the Writ Petition filed by
the Appellant was disposed of while reserving the liberty to the Appellant to
take any other alternate remedy, if available in law.
5. The Appellant booked an apartment 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 Appellant paid the booking amount, and the apartment was
allotted to the Appellant by Respondent No. 1 vide an allotment letter dated
02.11.2012.
6. On 05.10.2017, Respondent No. 1 issued an offer of possession to the
Appellant. The Appellant paid total consideration amount by October 2017,
and Respondent No. 1 issued a no dues certificate to the Appellant on
09.11.2017. On 04.12.2017, Respondent No. 1 issued a possession
certificate to the Appellant.
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 apartment of the
Appellant 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

LPA 434/2026 Page 2 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.06.2026
12:36

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 Appellant, that a uniform settlement policy would be adopted
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 Appellant, without any interest or
compensation. According to the Appellant, this offer was contrary to the
directions of the DDMA, which had required refund of the amount along
with interest. Consequently, the Appellant, vide reply letter dated
29.08.2022, 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
Appellant offering to pay:

LPA 434/2026 Page 3 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.06.2026
12:36

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 and stamp duty including registration
charges;
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 Appellant.
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 Appellant asserts that, as he had received no effective relief and
is a retired Government employee, he was 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 Appellant executed the
Acceptance-cum-Declaration Memorandum (“ Memorandum ”) prepared by
Respondent No. 1, which, according to the Appellant, was one-sided and
operated solely in favour of Respondent No. 1. It is the Appellant’s case that
he was in a position of helplessness and was compelled to sign the
Memorandum.
13. The Appellant further asserts that after the Appellant signed the
Memorandum, Respondent No. 1 issued many offers of settlement in direct
violation of Uniform Settlement Policy without Differential Treatment,

LPA 434/2026 Page 4 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.06.2026
12:36

increasing the payment of rate of interest on the principal amount,
reimbursement of the cost of interior works and unpaid rentals. According to
the Appellant, the Appellant also deserved the cost of interior works, but
was denied the same without any justification, while other allottees were
granted the same. On 28.03.2024, the Appellant approached the
Respondents seeking compensation in terms of the latest buy-back offer in
compliance of Uniform Settlement Policy adopted by the Respondents.
However, the Respondents did not respond to the request made by the
Appellant. Thus, Respondent No. 1 acted in a discriminatory manner and
failed to maintain parity.
14. In the aforesaid circumstances, the Appellant instituted the Writ
Petition seeking a direction to the Respondents to abide by the Undertaking
dated 26.02.2022 to pay rent till settlement and issue directions to the
Respondents to adopt Uniform Settlement Policy as per letter dated
26.04.2022 in settling the payment.
15. 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 Appellant 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.
16. The Impugned Order further records that, if any policy of Respondent
No. 1 had been violated and if the Appellant had been unlawfully denied its
benefits, such issues would require adjudication after affording the parties an
opportunity to lead evidence and be heard. The learned Single Judge held

LPA 434/2026 Page 5 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.06.2026
12:36

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 Petition while reserving liberty to the Appellant to avail any
other alternative remedy available in law.
17. The learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the present
Appeal assails 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.
18. Learned counsel for the Appellant 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.
19. The learned Counsel for the Appellant 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 Appellant had challenged the Memorandum, whereas according to the
Appellant, the challenge was directed not against the Memorandum but

LPA 434/2026 Page 6 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.06.2026
12:36

against the Uniform Settlement Policy dated 26.04.2022 and the arbitrary,
discriminatory and unconstitutional conduct of Respondent No. 1 in
departing therefrom.
20. The learned Counsel for the Appellant 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 Appeal. Learned
counsel for the Appellant further submitted that the Appellant is a retired
Government official who had invested his life savings in purchasing
residential apartment 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.
21. In view of the above submissions, the learned Counsel for the
Appellant prayed that the Impugned Order be set aside and the prayer sought
in the Writ Petition be granted.
22. We have heard the learned Counsel for the Appellant.
23. The issue that arises for consideration in the present Appeal is
whether, in the facts and circumstances of the cases, the learned Single
Judge ought to have exercised writ jurisdiction while adjudicating the Writ
Petition.
24. It is not in dispute that the Appellant executed the Memorandum,
whereby the Appellant accepted the offer extended by Respondent No. 1, in
terms of which the allotment of the apartment in his favour stood cancelled
and, in lieu thereof, the Appellant received a One-Time Full and Final

LPA 434/2026 Page 7 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.06.2026
12:36

Settlement. Pursuant to the execution of the Memorandum, Respondent
No. 1 released payment in accordance therewith.
25. After receipt of the payment under the Memorandum, the Appellant
did not raise any grievance alleging coercion on the part of Respondent
No. 1, nor did the Appellant assert that the Memorandum had been executed
under compulsion. Having executed the Memorandum, it is now not open to
the Appellant to resile from its terms.
26. Respondent No. 1 has contended in its reply to the Writ Petition that
the Appellant accepted the settlement offer of his 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.
27. Accordingly, the principal issue that is required to be determined is
whether the Appellant was 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 Appellant became
aware that Respondent No. 1 was offering interest on the principal amount,
reimbursement of the cost of interior works and unpaid rentals that the
Appellant 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.
28. Accordingly, the grievance of the Appellant 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
examined only if the execution of the Memorandum by the Appellant is first

LPA 434/2026 Page 8 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.06.2026
12:36

found to be vitiated by fraud or coercion. The plea of fraud and coercion has
been advanced by the Appellant in the context of the subsequent policy
under which, Respondent No. 1 is offering interest on the principal amount,
reimbursement of the cost of interior works and unpaid rentals.
29. The Appellant, having accepted compensation pursuant to the
Memorandum, cannot challenge the subsequent policy unless it is first
established 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 Appellant 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.
30. 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 Appellant’s liberty to avail such remedies as may be available
to them in accordance with law. We, therefore, find no merit in the present
Appeal. The Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. There shall be no order as to
costs.

TEJAS KARIA, J


DEVENDRA KUMAR UPADHYAYA, CJ
MAY 29, 2026
ap/hk

LPA 434/2026 Page 9 of 9
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:GANGA
SINGH RAWAT
Signing Date:02.06.2026
12:36