A plot shortfall under allotment is not compulsory acquisition; 2013 Act compensation does not apply.

Hardev Singh Oberoi was allotted Plot No. 56, measuring 5,000 sq. ft., in Rawalpora Housing Colony, which was subsequently gifted to the petitioner.

Following realignment of the plots, the petitioner’s plot was reduced in area, and the allottees were informed that those who had paid for 5,000 sq. ft. would be refunded the cost attributable to the deficit area.

The petitioner later alleged a further shortfall of 243 sq. ft., which departmental reports attributed to encroachment by the allottee of Plot No. 57.

The Housing Board consequently directed removal of the encroachment and restoration of the petitioner’s land.

The petitioner filed OWP No. 917/2018 seeking restoration of the 243 sq. ft. allegedly encroached upon and refund of the amount corresponding to the 306 sq. ft. deficit.

On 26 November 2019, the High Court directed restoration of the shortfall and payment of the amount corresponding to 306 sq. ft.

In subsequent contempt proceedings, it was recorded that possession of the balance land had been delivered and that ₹582 had been paid to the petitioner on 9 May 2023.

Whether the petitioner’s claim for payment under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 was maintainable on the footing that the respondents had compulsorily acquired 306 sq. ft. of his land?

Whether the petitioner, having accepted the reduced plot area and ₹582 towards the deficit area, could subsequently seek reassessment of the amount on the basis of prevailing market value?

Whether the petitioner was entitled to interest on the delayed payment of ₹582?

The Court applied the distinction between compulsory acquisition governed by the 2013 Act and an allotment arrangement involving delivery of a plot smaller than the originally allotted area.

The 2013 Act was held inapplicable where there was no compulsory acquisition of the petitioner’s land, but only a contractual/allotment-related deficit for which refund had been agreed upon.

The Court also applied the principle that a party who accepts a reduced allotment and compensation in accordance with the communicated terms cannot subsequently challenge those terms after accepting the benefit without protest.

Although no substantive statutory compensation was payable, the Court invoked equitable principles to award interest where the respondents had retained the refundable amount for a prolonged period.

The Court found that the petitioner’s original claim in OWP No. 917/2018 was limited to restoration of the alleged encroached area and refund of the amount corresponding to the 306 sq. ft. deficit; he had not then asserted that his land had been acquired under the 2013 Act.

The present claim for market-value compensation therefore constituted an impermissible attempt to introduce a new legal basis after the earlier proceedings had concluded.

Further, the petitioner had accepted both the reduced plot and the payment of ₹582, thereby binding himself to the arrangement communicated by the respondents.

Since the transaction was one of allotment and not compulsory acquisition, the statutory compensation mechanism under the 2013 Act could not be invoked.

However, because the respondents retained the amount until 9 May 2023, the Court considered interest necessary as an equitable remedy.

The petitioner was bound by his acceptance of the reduced allotment and the amount paid in lieu of the 306 sq. ft. shortfall.

Nevertheless, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the respondents to pay interest at 9% per annum on ₹582 from the date of filing of OWP No. 917/2018 until 9 May 2023, when the principal amount was paid.