High Court Slams HSVP’s "Arbitrary" Pricing, Sets New Relief Terms for Oustees

In a landmark judgment that offers relief to hundreds of displaced landowners, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana has struck down the Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran 's (HSVP) attempt to charge exorbitant current market rates for plots allotted under the "oustee quota." The court termed the HSVP’s conduct "arbitrary" and "tainted with mala fides," ordering the authority to revert to original advertised rates and provide more flexible repayment terms.

The Conflict: A Seven-Year Delay

The dispute stems from the acquisition of village lands by the state in the early 2000s to develop urban estates. Under state policies, those whose land was acquired (oustees) became eligible for residential plot allotments.

Despite applications submitted as early as 2018, many petitioners waited nearly seven years for their allotment letters, which were eventually issued in 2025. Upon receipt, petitioners were shocked to find that the HSVP was charging the 2025-26 reserve price (approx. ₹58,172 per sq. meter) instead of the 2018 rates (approx. ₹21,500 per sq. meter). Additionally, the HSVP demanded 75% of the total cost within a punitive 180-day window, coupled with an 11% interest rate.

Arguments: Market Fluctuations vs. Legal Precedent

The HSVP argued that because the allotment occurred in 2025, they were entitled to charge the current reserve price. They further maintained that the 11% interest rate on the balance was "reasonable" given market volatility.

Counsel for the petitioners, however, countered that the delay was entirely attributable to the HSVP’s own sluggish administrative process. Citing the Full Bench judgment in Rajiv Manchanda and others vs. HUDA and another (2018) , the petitioners argued that the state cannot penalize displaced citizens for its own administrative failures by extracting current market rates for delayed allotments.

Legal Analysis: The Weight of Precedent

The Division Bench , comprising Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Manchanda, relied heavily on the doctrine of stare decisis . The court emphasized that when the law is clearly settled by a Full Bench, state authorities are constitutionally mandated to follow it, rather than adopt "arm-twisting" tactics.

The court found that the HSVP had selectively interpreted the Rajiv Manchanda ruling. By failing to disclose the price in original advertisements, the authority attempted to take advantage of its own omission to inflate costs for oustees. The court also compared the 11% interest rate to other HSVP schemes where the authority charges as little as 5.5%, noting the lack of objective rationale for the disparity.

Key Observations

• On Arbitrary Pricing: "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."
• On Interest Rates: "There appears to be no discernible rationale attached while determining the reasonableness of the rate of interest incorporated in policy dated 08.05.2018... the respondents have misconstrued and misintepreted the mandate."
• On Judicial Duty: "Once judgments attain finality... the State must show its grace and in fact carry out its implicit duty to grant benefit to the other members of the cadre."

The Verdict: A Path to Fairness

In a decisive move to uphold justice, the High Court issued the following directives:

1. Redetermination of Price: The HSVP must calculate allotment prices based on the rates prevailing at the time of the applicant’s initial application/advertisement in 2018.

2. Harmonized Interest: The interest rate levied on the balance is capped at 5.5% (simple interest) instead of 11%.

3. Extended Repayment: Petitioners are granted a six-year installment plan to settle the remaining 75% balance, preventing the financial hardship caused by a 180-day lump-sum demand.

4. Punitive Costs: In a strong rebuke of the authority's conduct, the court imposed costs of ₹3 lakhs on the HSVP, to be deposited with the Poor Patients Welfare Fund at PGIMER, Chandigarh .

The judgment creates a template for future disputes involving state agencies, reinforcing that citizen rights are not subordinate to administrative convenience. The HSVP has been given two months to issue fresh, compliant allotment letters to the affected petitioners.