Ludhiana: High court upholds refund to plot buyer
Authority failed to hand over possession despite substantial payment, says bench says; cites lack of development at site
The Punjab and Haryana high court has dismissed a writ petition filed by the Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority (GLADA) challenging orders directing it to refund money to a plot buyer, after holding that the authority failed to hand over possession within the stipulated time despite receiving substantial payment.
A division bench comprising justice Gurvinder Singh Gill and justice Deepinder Singh Nalwa upheld the orders of the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (SCDRC), Punjab, and the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), New Delhi, which had found GLADA guilty of deficiency in service.
The dispute arose from GLADA’s 2012 residential plot scheme at the Sugar Mill site, Jagraon, where Kanta, the original allottee of a 500-square-yard plot, later transferred it to the complainant with GLADA’s approval.
The complainant, after paying nearly ₹29.76 lakh along with a transfer fee of ₹1.08 lakh, was issued a re-allotment letter in December 2015.
Under the terms of allotment, possession was to be handed over within 90 days. However, despite repeated requests, the buyer did not receive possession even after two years. Alleging deficiency in service, he approached the consumer forums seeking refund with interest and compensation.
The SCDRC in 2018 directed GLADA to refund the deposited amount with 12% interest, refund the transfer fee with interest, and pay ₹1 lakh as compensation for harassment. The NCDRC in 2024 upheld the refund and interest—though at a reduced rate of 9%—but set aside the ₹1 lakh compensation, instead awarding ₹10,000 as costs.
Challenging these orders, GLADA argued before the high court that, under Clause 4 of the allotment letter, if the allottee did not take possession within the stipulated period, it would be deemed to have been handed over. The authority also contended that the buyer had purchased the plot for speculative purposes.
The bench, however, noted that GLADA had not produced evidence to show that possession was ever actually offered within the stipulated time, nor had essential development works—such as road connectivity, sewerage, or completion certificates—been completed.
“The concept of deemed possession applies only where the developer has completed development and is ready to hand over, but the allottee refuses to take it. In this case, there is no material to establish such readiness,” the court observed.
Holding that there was no illegality or perversity in the NCDRC’s order, the high court refused to interfere in exercise of its writ jurisdiction. The court concluded that GLADA’s writ petition was devoid of merit and dismissed it at the preliminary stage.
