After 23 Years, P&H HC Restores Woman’s Jagadhri Plot Resumed For Missed Instalments If She Pays ₹1.23 Crore In 3 Months

In brief

The question

1. Whether resumption and forfeiture were justified where the resumption order did not record that this drastic remedy was being used as a last resort

The court held

The writ petition was partly allowed.

It also directed

The Court set aside the resumption order dated 19 November 2003 and the appellate and revisional orders dated 1 September 2020 and 11 May 2022, and restored the plot subject to the petitioner depositing Rs.1,23,90,075 within three months

If the amount is not deposited within that period, the writ petition is deemed dismissed

01Facts

The petitioner, a member of the BC category, was allotted a 220 sq. m. residential plot in Jagadhri by HUDA in 2000.

pp. 2–3

After the plot area was increased to 231 sq. m., she paid the additional amount demanded, but did not pay the balance price instalments within time.

pp. 2–3

The Estate Officer resumed the plot on 19 November 2003 and forfeited Rs.48,392

pp. 2–3

The petitioner’s appeal was dismissed in default in 2006; after an unsuccessful application to restore it, her revision was allowed in 2016 and the matter remanded.

pp. 3–6

The Administrator dismissed the appeal on merits in 2020, and the Revisional Authority rejected her revision in 2022

pp. 3–6

02Issues

i.1. Whether resumption and forfeiture were justified where the resumption order did not record that this drastic remedy was being used as a last resort

pp. 10–11

ii.2. Whether the plot could be restored on payment determined by applying the equitable formula in Shobhana Devi to the petitioner’s outstanding proportion and the value of a comparable plot

pp. 10–13

03Law Applied

Under the principle stated in M/s Teri Oat Estates (P) Ltd. v. U.T., Chandigarh, the drastic power of resumption and forfeiture should be used as a last resort; its proper exercise depends on the facts of each case and must be assessed with regard to proportionality and Article 14.

pp. 7–8, 10–11

In Shobhana Devi and another v. State of Haryana and others, the Court set out an equitable method for determining the amount payable to avert resumption: calculate the proportion of the allotment price outstanding at the date of resumption and apply that proportion to the reserve price in the latest auction of a similarly placed property, or, where appropriate, the Collector’s rate; deduct payments made after resumption.

pp. 8–10

Provisions in the judgment · 1

the Act (alias, unresolved) Section 8A

04Reasoning

The 2003 resumption order did not state that resumption and forfeiture were being imposed as a last resort, and the Court therefore found it inconsistent with the principle in Teri Oat Estates

pp. 10–11

In considering relief, the Court took account of the petitioner’s stated willingness to pay, the medical circumstances raised, her return of the refund cheque, and the comparable 2025 auction of a nearby plot

pp. 4–6, 8–9, 11–12

The petitioner agreed to pay 75% of the comparable plot’s actual auction price of Rs.1,65,20,100, amounting to Rs.1,23,90,075.

pp. 11–13

The Court considered that undertaking fair and consistent with the equitable approach in Shobhana Devi

pp. 11–13