Faridabad: A long-running legal dispute related to land has finally reached its conclusion after 62 years. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, while giving the final verdict on this six decade old property dispute in Faridabad, has completely upheld the rights of the original allottee against the private developer. This case has also become an example for those people who have been making rounds of the courts for years for their rights.
In fact, that 5,103 sq ft land in Faridabad district, which was purchased 62 years ago for less than Rs 14,000, has now been ordered to be handed over at only 25% additional nominal amount despite the current market price being around Rs 7 crore. The sole heir of this property is C.K. Anand is more than 80 years old. Justice Deepak Gupta’s bench said in its recent order, ‘A party which has been avoiding compliance with its obligations for decades cannot adopt the increase in market prices as a shield.’
The case dates back to 1963, when M/s RC Sood & Co. Ltd. started Eros Gardens Colony near Surajkund, Faridabad and took advance amount from the buyer Nanki Devi (Anand’s mother). The company entered into an agreement to sell Plot No. 26-A (350 square yards) and Plot No. B-57 (217 square yards) at the rate of Rs 24 and Rs 25 per square yard respectively. Nanki Devi had deposited almost half the amount.
After this began a series of legal hurdles, administrative delays and legal battles that lasted for generations. The developer cited these as the reason for not handing over possession after the implementation of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Act of 1963 and the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act of 1975.
In the mid-1980s, fearing that the plots would be sold to third parties, allottees moved the court only to stop the sale. Even then the High Court held that the allotments were valid and the company could not cancel them unilaterally. Despite this, possession was not obtained.
A new round of litigation began in 2002. Lower courts ruled in favor of the allottees, but the developer approached the High Court raising arguments such as the time limit, the alleged cancellation in 1964 and the unfairness of applying the six-decade-old deal in today’s market. Justice Gupta rejected all these arguments in his 22-page judgment issued on Saturday.
