The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ordered the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) to pay ₹5 lakh compensation to a doctor who suffered years of mental harassment due to the unjust cancellation of a hospital plot allotment in Gurugram.
A division bench of Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri ruled in favor of the petitioner, holding the HUDA authorities accountable for repeated administrative failures and harassment. The court observed that the actions of the officials amounted to malfeasance, misfeasance, and non-feasance.
"Now for the prima facie commissions of torts of malfeasance, non-feasance and misfeasance, thus on the part of the HUDA and its officials, besides for the repeated trauma and harassment becoming wreaked upon the petitioner...the instant writ petition is also allowed, with exemplary compensation comprised in a sum of ₹5 lacs becoming encumbered upon the respondent concerned," the Court stated.
The doctor had applied for a hospital plot in 1999 and received a Letter of Intent (LOI) in 2000 at a quoted price of ₹10 crore. However, due to HUDA's failure to timely provide the approved zoning plan, the petitioner was unable to initiate construction. Despite fulfilling all requirements and arranging funds, the authorities cancelled the LOI several times without valid reasons.
After prolonged litigation, the matter was sent back for reconsideration. In 2017, the Estate Officer acknowledged that the cancellation had been unjust and recommended restoring the allotment. However, instead of reinstating it at the original price, the officer proposed charging the current market rate of ₹109 crore, drastically higher than the initial cost.
The petitioner challenged this increase, pointing out that all obligations were fulfilled and the cancellation was both unfair and driven by malice. However, the allotment was again cancelled for non-payment while the case was still pending, prompting the petitioner to amend the writ petition.
Upon examining the facts, the Court concluded that the petitioner was wrongly blamed for delays in obtaining building plan approvals. The bench clearly held that these delays were entirely caused by the HUDA.
"The zoning plan was not issued until 18.3.2002 by the department and not communicated to the petitioner before 25.9.2002. Thus, the delay of near about 2 years and 6 months from the date of issuance of LOI can be attributed to HUDA alone," noted the bench.
The Court also criticized HUDA’s arbitrary process of giving the petitioner only 14 days to get the building plan approved once the zoning plan was finally communicated.
"The letter issued in 2002 did communicate to the petitioner about the approved zoning, but gave only 14 days window to get the building plan approved which was too short a time seemingly arbitrary sans any logical rationing," the Court said.
Furthermore, the bench highlighted how a professionally qualified and financially sound applicant was subject to bureaucratic delays.
"Surprising enough that the petitioner who was found professionally competent and financially sound to undertake a project of this magnitude by a joint committee headed by the Chief Administrator HUDA, was financially re-evaluated and assessed by the lower staff locally and left to red tapism to snowball the rest," the Court remarked.
Considering all these facts, the High Court allowed the plea and ordered compensation of ₹5 lakh for the mental trauma caused.
Mr.Sanjiv Sharma, Advocate and Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Ankur Mittal, Addl. A.G. Haryana with Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Addl. A.G. Haryana, Mr. P.P. Chahar, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Saurabh Mago, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Gaurav Bansal, DAG, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Rampal, Advocate for respondents No.2 to 5 (HSVP).
Title: Dr. ANIL BANSAL v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
