HC sets aside resumption of plot

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has quashed an executive order resuming a plot despite a duly executed and registered deed of conveyance in the owner’s favour, while holding the action to be without jurisdiction and in blatant violation of the constitutional right to property. Terming it a “completely arbitrary” act, the Bench imposed exemplary costs of Rs 5 lakh on the authority concerned for the illegal resumption.

The Division Bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri held that the power to annul a registered deed of conveyance could only be exercised by a civil court of competent jurisdiction upon institution of a civil suit. Any attempt to rescind the deed outside the framework of civil adjudication would amount to “unjust expropriation” of a citizen’s rights and infringement of Article 300-A of the Constitution.

“There would be an untenable snatching of the right vested in an absolute owner… and that too in violation of the Right to Property as enshrined in Article 300-A of the Constitution, which otherwise can be restricted only after lawfully employing the power of eminent domain,” the Bench observed.

The Bench was hearing a petition filed against Haryana and other respondents by M/s Penguin Enterprises Pvt Ltd through counsel BB Bagga. The petitioner, among other things, was seeking the quashing of the eviction order dated August 6, 2019, related to an industrial shed in Electronic City, Sector-18, Gurugram.

The respondents argued that the petitioner was required to implement the project within a year of receiving the industrial shed’s possession in 1997, but failed to do so. As a result, several show-cause and public notices were issued over the years. Since the shed remained unutilised for over 19 years with no communication from the petitioner, it was resumed in 2016 and the petitioner was asked to vacate it in 2019.

The Bench said the plot, despite being registered in the petitioner’s name, was resumed on the alleged ground of breach of a clause incorporated in the earlier agreement to sell. The clause was ineffective and unenforceable against the vested rights of the vendee-allottee.

Haryana Tribune