Punjab and Haryana HC Orders HSVP to Revert to 2018 Plot Price and Slashes Interest Rate for Affected Persons [Read Judgment]

Punjab: The Punjab and Haryana High Court delivered a significant victory to a large group of land oustees, directing the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran (HSVP), formerly HUDA, to charge them the plot price prevalent in 2018, thereby rejecting the authority’s attempt to impose the escalated 2025 reserve price. Furthermore, the Court reduced the interest rate levied by HSVP on delayed payments from 11% to 5.5% per annum and mandated a six-year instalment facility for payment.

A Division Bench comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda pronounced the common order on December 22, 2025, while disposing of 58 connected writ petitions, including the lead case filed by Ram Lal Mahendru. The petitioners were oustees whose land had been acquired by HSVP, rendering them eligible for preferential allotment under the oustee quota.

The central issue arose from HSVP’s conduct. Despite the petitioners having applied online in 2018, allotment letters—such as the one issued to Ram Lal Mahendru on May 9, 2025—were issued after an inordinate delay of nearly seven years. Crucially, these letters sought to charge the reserve price for 2025–26, fixed at ₹58,172 per square metre, instead of the 2018 rate of ₹21,500 per square metre, which was prevalent at the time of the application and advertisement.

The High Court vehemently criticised HSVP’s reasoning, which relied on the contention that the 2018 advertisement did not specifically mention the plot price, thereby justifying the imposition of the current rate. The Court held this action to be “wholly unjustified and, prima facie, appearing to be in disregard of the mandate of the said judgment [Rajiv Manchanda’s case].” The Bench observed:

“The deliberate omission to disclose the price in the advertisement, followed by an attempt to take advantage of such omission to justify charging the current price, cannot be countenanced. The conduct of the respondents, therefore, is neither legally sustainable nor acceptable in law.”

The Court placed reliance on the Full Bench precedent in Rajiv Manchanda and Others v. HUDA and Another (2018). Referring to paragraph 60 of the said judgment, the Bench reiterated that where the respondents are entirely at fault for the delay, the oustee is entitled to the benefit of the price prevalent at the time of application. The Court quoted:

“The ultimate allotment of the plot may even result at the end of a protracted litigation. In such circumstances, it follows that the oustee would be entitled to the benefit of the price that was prevalent when he made the application, and pursuant to that application, the respondents deliberately did not allot the plot although they could have.”

Addressing the second major grievance concerning the imposition of 11% interest on the remaining amount, the Court examined HSVP’s policy framework. It noted that HSVP was itself applying varying interest rates—5.5%, 9%, 11%, and 12%—across different schemes without any disclosed rational basis. The Court held the 11% rate to be arbitrary, observing that the Full Bench in Rajiv Manchanda’s case had mandated only a “reasonable rate of interest.”

Disagreeing with an earlier Coordinate Bench decision that upheld the 11% interest rate, the Division Bench held:

“In the absence of any specific bank rate of interest, we are of the view that the reasonable interest liable to be charged from the petitioners should be the rate of interest currently being applied by the respondent-HSVP at 5.5% in other schemes and policies framed by it.”

The Court further observed that the mandate of the Full Bench “has been misconstrued and misinterpreted by the respondents by twisting the same to serve the State’s own benefit, while completely ignoring the larger interest of the oustees.”

Finally, the Court examined the condition in the allotment letters requiring the oustees to deposit the remaining 75% of the total cost as a lump sum within 180 days. Noting that similarly situated oustees had been granted the benefit of six annual instalments, the Court found the restriction discriminatory. Accordingly, HSVP was directed to allow the petitioners to make payments in six annual instalments at the reduced interest rate of 5.5%.

The Court concluded that HSVP’s conduct “amounts to a conscious attempt to circumvent a binding precedent rather than to faithfully apply it.” It ultimately directed HSVP to re-determine the price of the plots based on the 2018 rate and issue fresh allotment letters accordingly, extending the benefit of the six-year instalment scheme.

[Read Judgment]