#Allotment dispute

[seemabhatnagar]

Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Permanent Lok Adalat’s Directive: Petitioner to Accept Alternative Plot

The High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by the petitioner, Pankaj Nandwani, upholding the award of the Permanent Lok Adalat as the petitioner had already been offered a suitable remedy.

Pankaj Nandwani v. Permanent Lok Adalat & Others

CWP 1637/2019

Before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

Heard by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod S Bhardwaj J

Background:

The case revolves around a dispute between Pankaj Nandwani and a developer regarding the allotment of a residential plot in a project in the TDI City Sonipat, Haryana. Nandwani booked a plot in 2012, but due to delays and discrepancies, he sought either possession of the plot or a refund of his deposit. The matter was taken to the Permanent Lok Adalat, which directed the developer to offer an alternative plot. Dissatisfied, Nandwani filed a writ petition challenging this decision.

Legal Issue:

Whether the petitioner, Pankaj Nandwani, is entitled to either possession of the original plot, an alternative plot, or a refund of his deposit with interest, given the delays and issues in the project developed by the respondents.

Arguments of the parties:

Petitioner's Argument:

Despite the delay in receiving the allotment letter and the developer's failure to offer possession within a reasonable time, he continued to make payments in good faith.

However, when the developer failed to deliver possession, he sought either the plot or a refund with interest.

The petitioner argued that a refund with interest was justified due to the delay and breach of the agreement by the developer. The Permanent Lok Adalat's order did not fully address the financial loss and inconvenience suffered by the petitioner, leading to further dissatisfaction.

Respondents' Argument: The petitioner did not fulfill the payment terms, making his claim for the original plot untenable.

The delay was caused by external factors beyond their control, and an alternative plot was offered, which the petitioner refused.

Courts Observation:

The Permanent Lok Adalat had already provided a balanced resolution by offering the petitioner an alternative plot in the same location at the originally agreed price.

The respondents had been given ample opportunities to appear and defend his case, but he failed to do so, resulting in the ex parte proceedings.

Courts Order:

The court found that the Permanent Lok Adalat had acted within its jurisdiction under Section 22C of the Legal Services Authorities Act, 1987, and provided a fair solution by directing the developer to offer an alternative plot.

As such there was no substantial ground to interfere with the Lok Adalat's decision.