Oustees May Seek Relief Only Under 2016 Policy; Court Directs Fresh Online Applications Within Four Weeks

A bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard appeals by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and others challenging a common judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court that had affirmed decrees in favour of numerous oustees who sought allotment of plots under an older 1992 HUDA policy. The appeals raised the limited question whether claimants who sued for mandatory injunctions under Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act were entitled, as of right, to allotments at rates fixed in the 1992 policy or had to seek relief under the revised 2016 policy.

The Court held that the respondents were not entitled, as a matter of law, to insist on allotment at 1992 rates merely by relying on prior decisions; instead they could seek allotment only under the 2016 policy then in force and subject to its terms. The Court recorded that HUDA had informed it that it would “abide by the policy framed on 11.08.2016 and every eligible oustee will be accommodated according to the said Policy,” and accordingly confined ultimate relief to compliance with the 2016 scheme. The Court directed eligible oustees to file fresh online applications with prescribed earnest money within four weeks, permitted non-literate applicants to apply by other means, and required the authority to complete processing within eight weeks; it also imposed a five-year non-transfer condition on allotted plots and cautioned the authority to guard against misuse.

The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “Where there is a scheme but it does not regulate the allotment price, it may be possible for the court to direct the State Government/Development Authority to allot plots to land losers at a reasonable cost, and in special and extraordinary circumstances, it may also indicate the manner of determining the allotment price. But where the scheme applicable specifies the price to be charged for allotment, its terms cannot be ignored. If any land loser has any grievance in regard to such scheme, he may either challenge it or give a representation for a better or more beneficial scheme. But he cannot ask the court to ignore the terms of an existing or prevailing scheme and demand allotment at cost price. ... Therefore, a land loser cannot claim allotment of a plot at acquisition cost of land plus development cost or at any other lesser price.”

Background

The litigation arose from land acquisitions in Haryana where HUDA/State framed a 1992 policy offering plots to oustees; the policy set eligibility criteria and required submission of prescribed application forms with payment of earnest money (10% in earlier brochures). Many oustees later sued—often after long intervals—seeking mandatory injunctions for allotment under the 1992 scheme. Trial courts delivered mixed results; several suits were decreed while others were dismissed on grounds including non-compliance with brochure conditions and limitation. The High Court, applying precedents including the Full Bench decision in Jarnail Singh and this Court’s authority in Brij Mohan, largely affirmed decrees in favour of oustees.

On special leave petitions, a coordinate bench noted HUDA’s statement that it would “abide by the policy framed on 11.08.2016” and stayed execution. The Supreme Court examined the scope of Section 39 Specific Relief Act claims, limitation and the effect of scheme changes. It found that the Brij Mohan ratio did not entitle claimants, as of right, to 1992 prices in all circumstances; rather, where a valid scheme fixed allotment prices or provided procedural preconditions, those terms governed. Concluding that many claimants had not complied with earlier procedural preconditions and that the appropriate remedy was to be provided under the 2016 policy, the Court permitted fresh online applications with earnest money within four weeks, required processing within eight weeks, allowed alternative filing for illiterate applicants, prohibited transfer of allotted plots for five years, and cautioned authorities against fraudulent collusion.

Case Details: Case No.: 2025 INSC 843; Civil Appeal No. 7707 of 2025 (and connected appeals listed at pp.1–3 of the judgment) Case Title: Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v. Nirmala Devi (and connected matters arising out of SLP(C) Nos. 15148/2017, 25549/2017, 20604/2017, 20614/2017, 20608/2017, 20640/2017, 18218/2025, 15152/2017, 15306/2017, 15273/2017, 15147/2017, 949/2018, 4787/2018, 30437/2018, 30436/2018, 30438/2018, 30439/2018, 12014/2021, 12015/2021, 12016/2021) Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, Additional Solicitor General of India; (also referenced: Shri Shyam Divan, senior counsel, in earlier proceedings) For the Respondent(s): Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, Senior Counsel; Mr. Rajiv Raheja, Advocate; Mr. Sidharth Mittal, Advocate (appearing for various respondents)