Pratap Singh Yadav v. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Anr.
Background
The appellant was allotted a residential plot by HUDA in Faridabad in 1998, but later voluntarily surrendered it and accepted a refund. A consumer complaint he filed seeking restoration of the plot was allowed by the District Forum, but the State Commission and National Commission both held he was not a "consumer" since he had voluntarily surrendered the plot, and dismissed his claim as time-barred. Strangely, while the case was still pending in appeal, HUDA officials executed a conveyance deed for the plot in the appellant's favour, sanctioned his building plans, and he built a house on it, all without any valid order restoring his allotment.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court ordered HUDA to hold a fact-finding inquiry, which confirmed that several HUDA officials had acted improperly/in connivance to allow the conveyance, construction sanction, and occupation certificate to go through while the matter was still sub judice. The Court directed disciplinary action against those officials. On the core question of what should happen to the house already built, the Court, following its own recent precedent in a near-identical case (Pradeep Sharma vs HUDA), held that demolishing the house and reclaiming the plot would be too harsh given the appellant had already built on it, even though he was a beneficiary of an irregular allotment. It allowed the appeal in part: the appellant could keep the plot only if he paid the prevailing market price (Rs. 18,000 per square meter) within six months; failing that, the appeal would stand dismissed and HUDA could dispossess him and resume the plot.
Lesson Learnt
Even where an allotment or related approvals are tainted by official wrongdoing, courts may be reluctant to order demolition of a completed home, but any such relief typically comes at a cost, such as paying the current market price for the property, not a free pass.