# Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors v. Nirmala Devi

- **Citation:** 2025 INSC 843
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2025-07-14
- **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 7707 of 2025
- **Bench:** J.B. Pardiwala, R. Mahadevan
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/estate-officer-haryana-urban-development-authority-and-ors-v-nirmala-devi-38579
- **Pages:** 82

## Headnote

The matter pertains to allotment of residential plots/commercial
sites to the Oustees-respondents pursuant acquisition of their land
for the purpose of development of the residential sector. The issue
arose whether the respondents entitled to claim plots as oustees
at the rate prescribed by the 1992 policy or at the rate prescribed
by the revised policy of 2016.
Headnotes†
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Haryana Development (Disposal of
Land and Buildings) Regulations 1978 - rule 5 - Specific Relief
Act, 1963 - s.39 - Allotment of residential plots/commercial
sites to the oustees at the rate prescribed by the 1992 policy
or the revised policy of 2016 - Acquisition of land in the year
1992 by the Government for the public purpose-development
of residential sector - Policy of 1992 in force, governing the
resettlement and rehabilitation of the oustees and same got
revised in 2016 (Policy of 2016) - Failure of allotment of plots to
the oustees-respondents - Suits by the oustees u/s.39 seeking
mandatory injunction against the appellant - Appellant's case
that the oustees failed to deposit 10 per cent of the earnest
money along with an appropriate application addressed to
the authority concerned in accordance with the Policy of
1992, and in the absence thereof, the benefits of the Policy of
1992 could not have been extended - In some of the cases,
the trial court dismissed the suits whereas few came to be
allowed - First appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial
court - High Court dismissed the Second Appeal - Special
Leave Petition thereagainst, wherein while issuing notice,
* Author
778
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
submission by the appellant that it would abide by the 2016
Policy and every single oustee would be accommodated as
per the said policy - Correctness:
Held: Respondents not entitled to claim as a matter of legal right
relying on the decision of Brij Mohan that they should be allotted
plots as oustees only at the price as determined in the 1992 policy -
Respondents entitled at the most to seek the benefit of the 2016
policy for the purpose of allotment of plots as oustees - Right
from the inception case of the appellant that none of the oustees,
at least the respondents, had applied in the requisite format for
allotment of plots with the deposit of the earnest money - If this
part of the obligation would have been performed or discharged
by the oustees in accordance with the scheme then perhaps
HUDA could have been called upon to perform its part of the
obligation - It is only if the plaintiff would have performed its part
of the obligation according to the scheme, then s.39 could have
been invoked to compel the HUDA as defendant to perform its
part of the obligation - When the scheme in question specifically
provides that an oustee shall file an application in a specified
format with deposit of the requisite amount towards earnest money
then it is a part of the obligation on the part of the oustee to do so
before he calls upon the State to allot the plot in accordance with
the terms of the scheme - No explanation worth the name why it
took 14-20 years for the plaintiffs to institute their respective suits
for mandatory injunction u/s.39 of the Act 1963, when the land
of respective oustees came to be acquired in 1992 - However,
there is an inclination to grant the benefit of the scheme of 2016.
[Paras 63, 86, 95]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s.39 - Suit filed u/s.39 for seeking
mandatory injunction for enforcement of the obligations -
Maintainability - Conditions for granting mandatory injunction:
Held: Mandatory injunction by its nature embodied u/s.39 is
discretionary - Granting of mandatory injunction is a matter of
judicial discretion of the court and it can be granted only in a
case which falls strictly within the four corners of the provision,
s.39 of the Act 1963 - It should be amenable for exercising
discretion by the Court - There must be a clear obligation on
the part of the defendant - Breach of

## Text

_Characters 0–39,926 of 163,816. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39926 for what follows._

[2025] 7 S.C.R. 777 : 2025 INSC 843
Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development
Authority and Ors.
v.
Nirmala Devi
(Civil Appeal No. 7707 of 2025)
14 July 2025
[J.B. Pardiwala* and R. Mahadevan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
The matter pertains to allotment of residential plots/commercial
sites to the Oustees-respondents pursuant acquisition of their land
for the purpose of development of the residential sector. The issue
arose whether the respondents entitled to claim plots as oustees
at the rate prescribed by the 1992 policy or at the rate prescribed
by the revised policy of 2016.
Headnotes†
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 - Haryana Development (Disposal of
Land and Buildings) Regulations 1978 - rule 5 - Specific Relief
Act, 1963 - s.39 - Allotment of residential plots/commercial
sites to the oustees at the rate prescribed by the 1992 policy
or the revised policy of 2016 - Acquisition of land in the year
1992 by the Government for the public purpose-development
of residential sector - Policy of 1992 in force, governing the
resettlement and rehabilitation of the oustees and same got
revised in 2016 (Policy of 2016) - Failure of allotment of plots to
the oustees-respondents - Suits by the oustees u/s.39 seeking
mandatory injunction against the appellant - Appellant's case
that the oustees failed to deposit 10 per cent of the earnest
money along with an appropriate application addressed to
the authority concerned in accordance with the Policy of
1992, and in the absence thereof, the benefits of the Policy of
1992 could not have been extended - In some of the cases,
the trial court dismissed the suits whereas few came to be
allowed - First appellate court affirmed the findings of the trial
court - High Court dismissed the Second Appeal - Special
Leave Petition thereagainst, wherein while issuing notice,
* Author
778
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
submission by the appellant that it would abide by the 2016
Policy and every single oustee would be accommodated as
per the said policy - Correctness:
Held: Respondents not entitled to claim as a matter of legal right
relying on the decision of Brij Mohan that they should be allotted
plots as oustees only at the price as determined in the 1992 policy -
Respondents entitled at the most to seek the benefit of the 2016
policy for the purpose of allotment of plots as oustees - Right
from the inception case of the appellant that none of the oustees,
at least the respondents, had applied in the requisite format for
allotment of plots with the deposit of the earnest money - If this
part of the obligation would have been performed or discharged
by the oustees in accordance with the scheme then perhaps
HUDA could have been called upon to perform its part of the
obligation - It is only if the plaintiff would have performed its part
of the obligation according to the scheme, then s.39 could have
been invoked to compel the HUDA as defendant to perform its
part of the obligation - When the scheme in question specifically
provides that an oustee shall file an application in a specified
format with deposit of the requisite amount towards earnest money
then it is a part of the obligation on the part of the oustee to do so
before he calls upon the State to allot the plot in accordance with
the terms of the scheme - No explanation worth the name why it
took 14-20 years for the plaintiffs to institute their respective suits
for mandatory injunction u/s.39 of the Act 1963, when the land
of respective oustees came to be acquired in 1992 - However,
there is an inclination to grant the benefit of the scheme of 2016.
[Paras 63, 86, 95]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - s.39 - Suit filed u/s.39 for seeking
mandatory injunction for enforcement of the obligations -
Maintainability - Conditions for granting mandatory injunction:
Held: Mandatory injunction by its nature embodied u/s.39 is
discretionary - Granting of mandatory injunction is a matter of
judicial discretion of the court and it can be granted only in a
case which falls strictly within the four corners of the provision,
s.39 of the Act 1963 - It should be amenable for exercising
discretion by the Court - There must be a clear obligation on
the part of the defendant - Breach of that obligation must have
occurred or be reasonably apprehended - It must be necessary
to compel the performance of specific acts to prevent or rectify
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
779
Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v.
Nirmala Devi
the breach - Court must be able to enforce the performance of
those acts - Balance of convenience must be in favour of the
party seeking the injunction - Injury or damage caused by the
breach must be irreparable or not adequately compensable in
monetary term. [Paras 75, 76]
Specific Relief Act, 1963 - ss.2(a), 39 - Term 'obligation' as
used in the Specific Relief Act - Interpretation:
Held: Specific relief may, in brief be explained as relief in specie - It
is the remedy which aims at the exact fulfilment of the obligation -
Term 'obligation' as used in the Specific Relief Act in its wider juristic
sense covers duties arising either ex-construction or ex-delicto -
Every duty enforceable at law is obligation - Definition clause of
the Act of 1963 does not allow narrow interpretation of the word
'obligation' to restrict it to a contractual duty alone - Definition of
the word 'obligation' as used in the Act of 1963 is wide enough
and the definition cannot be equated with the definition of the
word 'obligation' used in the English Law - Obligation' may be
said to be a bond or tie, which constrains a person to do or suffer
something, it implies a right in another person to which it is corelated, and it restricts the freedom of the obligee with reference to
definite acts and forbearance; but in order that it may be enforced
by a Court, it must be a legal obligation - Definition of 'obligation'
in s.2 is so wide that any breach of legal obligation may give a
cause to the affected party - Definition of the word 'obligation' in
s.2 should be interpreted in a way which may serve the cause of
the society. [Paras 77]
Judgment/order - Principles of Ratio Decidendi - Test for
determination of Ratio Decidendi - Invocation of Wambaugh's
Test/Inversion Test, Halsbury's test and Goodhart's Test:
Held: Not every observation in a judgment of this Court is binding
as precedent - Only the ratio decidendi or the propositions of law
that were necessary to decide on the issues between the parties
are binding - Wambaugh's Test/Inversion Test can be invoked to
determine whether a particular proposition of law is to be treated
as the ratio decidendi of a case - Test mandates that to determine
whether a particular proposition of law is part of the ratio decidendi
of the case, the proposition is to be inversed - Furthermore, the
mind of the Court should be clearly reflecting on the material in
issue with regard to the facts of the case - Reason and spirit of
780
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
case make law and not the letter of a particular precedent - As
per the Halsbury's test, it is by the choice of material facts that
the Court create law - As per Goodhart's Test, the ratio of a case
must be found in the reasons for the decision and that there is no
necessary connection between the ratio and the reasons - Ratio
decidendi is whatever facts the judge has determined to be the
material facts of the case, plus the judge's decision as based on
those facts - It is by his choice of the material facts that the judge
creates law - Any court which considers itself bound by precedent
would come to the same conclusion as was reached in a prior case
unless there is in the case some further fact which it is prepared to
treat as material, or unless fact considered material in the previous
case is absent. [Paras 47, 50, 54, 56, 57, 61, 62]
Land acquisition - Rehabilitation and compensation -
Entitlement:
Held: When land is acquired for any public purpose the person
whose land is taken away is entitled to appropriate compensation
in accordance with the settled principles of law - It is only in the
rarest of the rare case that the Government may consider floating
any scheme for rehabilitation of the displaced persons over and
above paying them compensation in terms of money - It is not
necessary that in all cases over and above compensation in terms
of money, rehabilitation of the property owners is a must - Any
beneficial measures taken by the Government should be guided
only by humanitarian considerations of fairness and equity towards
the landowners - Ordinarily, rehabilitation should only be meant for
those persons who have been rendered destitute because of loss
of residence or livelihood as a consequence of land acquisition,
for people whose lives and livelihood are intrinsically connected
to the land. [Para 95]
Case Law Cited
Brij Mohan and Others v. Haryana Urban Development Authority
[2011] 1 SCR 12 : (2011) 2 SCC 29 - held inapplicable.
Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka, 2003 INSC
391 : [2003] Supp. 2 SCR 474; Secunderabad Club v. CIT, 2023
INSC 736 : [2023] 12 SCR 979; State of Gujarat v. Utility Users'
Welfare Assn. [2018] 9 SCR 106 : (2018) 6 SCC 21; Nevada
Properties (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra [2019] 15 SCR 223 :
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
781
Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v.
Nirmala Devi
(2019) 20 SCC 119; State of U.P. v. Smt. Pista Devi & Ors. [1986]
3 SCR 743 : AIR 1986 SC 2025; Madhya Pradesh v. Narmada
Bachao Andolan & Anr. [2011] 6 SCR 443 : (2011) 7 SCC 639;
Narmada Bachao Andolan v. Union of India [2000] Supp. 4
SCR 94 : (2000) 10 SCC 664; State of Kerala v. Peoples Union
for Civil Liberties [2009] 11 SCR 142 : (2009) 8 SCC 46; Jage
Ram & Others v. Union of India & Others [1995] Supp. 5 SCR 49 :
(1995) Supp. 4 SCC 615; Amarjit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab
& Ors. [2010] 12 SCR 163 : (2010) 10 SCC 43; S. Gurdial Singh &
Others v. Ludhiana Improvement Trust [1997] 3 SCR 516 : (1995)
5 SCC 138 - referred to.
Jarnail Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab (2010) 10 P&H CK
0212 - referred to.
Quinn v. Leathem [1901] AC 495 : [1901] UKHL 2 - referred to.
List of Acts
Land Acquisition Act, 1894; Haryana Development (Disposal of
Land and Buildings) Regulations 1978; Specific Relief Act, 1963.
List of Keywords
Land Acquisition; Oustee; Allotment of plots; Policy of 1992;
Earnest money; Mandatory injunction; Oligation on the part of
the defendant; Determination of Ratio Decidendi; Conditions for
granting a Mandatory Injunction; Judicial discretion; Principles
of Ratio Decidendi; Test for determination of Ratio Decidendi;
Wambaugh's Test/Inversion Test; Halsbury's test; Goodhart's Test;
Rehabilitation; Compensation; Policy of 2016.
Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 7707 of 2025
From the Judgment and Order dated 12.08.2016 of the High Court
of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in RSA No. 2915 of 2012
With
Civil Appeal No(s). 7708, 7709, 7710, 7711, 7712, 7713, 7714,
7715, 7716, 7717, 7718, 7719, 7720, 7721, 7722, 7723, 7724,
7725, 7726, 7727, 7728, 7729, 7730, 7731, 7732, 7733, 7734
and 7735 of 2025
782
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G., B.k. Satija, A.A.G., Vishwa Pal Singh,
B. K. Satija, Sanjay Kumar Visen, Samar Vijay Singh, Ms. Sabarni
Som, Fateh Singh.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Narender Hooda, Sr Adv., Amit K. Nain, V. K. Verma, Siddharth
Mittal, Abhijeet Varshney, Darshan Sejwal, Sumit Kumar Sharma,
Mrs. Shilpa G Mittal, Rajiv Raheja, Ravi Ranjan, Anurag Jain, J K
Bhola, Sanjiv Raheja, Dr. Surender Singh Hooda, Abhijit Sengupta,
Sanjay Singh, Umang Shankar, Siddharth Jain, Vidyut Kayarkar,
Shalender Singh Negi, Shree Pal Singh, Ajay Kumar Singh, Ankit
Goel, Subhasish Bhowmick, D. Bharat Kumar, Ms. Pallvi Hooda,
Shiv Bhatnagar, Yuvraj N. Ms. Tannu, Aditya Soni, Rajat Sharma,
Shree Pal Singh, S.K. Pabbi, Ms. Disha Singh, Shivendu Gaur,
Ms. Nidhi Sharma.
Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court
Judgment
J.B. Pardiwala, J.
For the convenience of exposition, this judgment is divided in the
following parts: -
INDEX*
A.
HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION ............................................
5
i.
Few Salient Features of the Policy of 1992 .......................
15
ii. Institution of the Suits under Section 39 of the Specific
Relief Act, 1963 for seeking Mandatory Injunction for
Enforcement of The Policy. ...........................................
25
iii. Impugned Judgment of the High Court .......................
32
iv. Filing of the Special Leave Petitions before this Court 36
* Ed. Note: Pagination as per the original Judgment.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
783
Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v.
Nirmala Devi
B.
SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES .........................................
37
i.
Submissions on behalf of the Appellants ...................
37
ii. Submissions on behalf of the Respondents ...............
46
C.
ANALYSIS ...............................................................................
49
i.
Dictum as laid by this Court in Brij Mohan (Supra)
and the Ratio Decidendi .................................................
53
a. Wambaugh's Test / Inversion Test .............................
57
b. Halsbury's Test ...........................................................
58
c. Goodhart's Test ..........................................................
60
ii. Maintainability of the Suit filed under Section 39 of
the Specific Relief Act, 1963 for seeking Mandatory
Injunction for Enforcement of the Obligations in terms
of the Scheme of 1992 ...................................................
63
a. Conditions for granting a Mandatory Injunction ..........
66
D.
CONCLUSION .........................................................................
84
1.
Delay condoned in Diary No. 9756 of 2017. Leave granted in all the
Special Leave Petitions.
2.
Since the issues involved in all the captioned appeals are same and
the challenge is also to the self-same judgment and order passed
by the High Court, those were taken up for hearing analogously and
are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
3.
This batch of appeals arises from a common judgment and order
passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dated 12.08.2016
by which the Second Appeals filed by the appellant herein came to
be dismissed, affirming the judgment and order passed by the First
Appellate Court affirming the decrees passed by the trial court in
favour of the respondents herein.
784
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
A.
HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION
4.
Our order dated 05.03.2025 by itself would give more than a fair
idea as regards the history of this litigation and the issues involved
in the matter. Our order dated 5.03.2025 reads thus:
"
O R D E R
1. We heard Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, the learned Additional
Solicitor General appearing for the Haryana Urban
Development Authority i.e. the petitioners - herein and the
learned counsel appearing for the respective respondents
in each of the petitions before us.
2. Having heard the matter for quite some time, we have
been able to understand the controversy involved in this
litigation. What we have been able to understand prima
facie is that in the State of Haryana, there is a very unusual
policy with respect to land acquisition. If the Government
wants to acquire land for public purpose, it proceeds in
accordance with the provisions of Land Acquisition Act.
However, it has its own policy of even providing alternate
plots of land to the oustees. It all started in the year
1989 with the issue of Notification under Section 4 of the
Land Acquisition Act. In 1990, the Section 6 Notification
came to be issued. In the year 1992, the awards were
passed.
3. We were taken through the relevant features of the
policy relating to allotment of residential plots/commercial
sites to the oustees. The same is at Annexure 'P1' in the
first matter before us.
4. Thereafter, we were taken through the various pleadings
in the plaint which is at Annexure 'P6'.
5. Prima facie, it appears that the suits filed by the
individuals/oustees are one invoking Section 39 of the
Specific Relief Act, 1963.
6. We also take notice of the fact that in some of the
cases, the Trial Court dismissed the Suits whereas few
came to be allowed.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
785
Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v.
Nirmala Devi
7. However, the fact is that all these petitions arise from a
common Judgment and order passed by the High Court
dismissing in all 27 Second Appeals.
8. Today, Ms. Bhati, the learned Additional Solicitor General
invited our attention to the order passed by this Court
dated 8-5-2017, the same reads thus:-
"Delay condoned Shri Shyam Divan, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits
that the petitioner will abide by the policy framed
on 11.08.2016 and every eligible oustee will be
accommodated according to the said Policy. Issue
notice restricted to the question of correctness of
the general direction made by the High Court in
granting allotments to all claimants who may not be
similarly situated. In the meantime, there shall be
stay of execution."
9. The plain reading of the aforesaid order would indicate
that at the relevant point of time, a statement was made
on behalf of the Authority that they were ready and willing
to consider the claims of the oustees in accordance with
the policy of 2016.
10. Therefore, this Court thought fit to issue notice limited
to the general direction which has been issued by the
High Court in its impugned judgment and order, referred
to above. To the aforesaid, there is a strong objection at
the end of the learned counsel appearing for the individual
oustees. Their claim is that they are entitled to the benefit
of the Policy of 1992 and not 2016.
11. To a very specific question put to them as to why they
are objecting to the Policy of 2016, the reply was that
the rates have been increased over a period of years.
They want allotment at the rate which were prevalent in
accordance with 1992 policy and not in accordance with
2016 policy. This aspect will have to be looked into.
12. Ms. Bhati put forward three contentions. First, all those
oustees who had actually not applied in accordance with
786
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
the policy prevalent at the relevant point of time, could
not have instituted the suits invoking Section 39 of the
Specific Relief Act. According to Ms. Bhati, such suits by
itself were not maintainable.
13. Her second contention is that each co-sharer is not
entitled to individual plots and the third contention is with
regard to limitation.
14. Before we proceed to hear these matters finally, we
want the following information to be placed on record for
better and effective determination of the issues falling for
our consideration:-
(i) in how many cases before us, the concerned
outstee(s) had not applied at all;
(ii) How many had actually applied;
(iii) the fine distinguishing features between the policy
of 1992 and 2016 respectively;
(iv) how many suits were allowed, whereas how many
were dismissed by the Trial Court.
15. We would also request Ms. Bhati, the learned ASG to
make us understand the purport of the judgment delivered
by this Court in "Brij Mohan and Others vs. Haryana Urban
Development Authority & Anr. (2011) 2 SCC 29 (Civil
Appeal No.1 of 2011), decided on 3-1-2011.
16. In the last paragraph of the impugned order passed
by the High Court, we find reference of Udai Singh's case.
It appears that the entire impugned judgment is based on
the ratio of Udai Singh's case.
17. We are informed that Udai Singh's Judgment was
carried to this Court by way of Special Leave to Appeal
(Civil) Nos.8766-8767/2023 which came to be dismissed
by this Court vide order dated 24-11- 2025.
18. We would also like to know from Ms. Bhati whether
the High Court was justified in relying on the dictum as
laid in the Udai Singh's case.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
787
Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v.
Nirmala Devi
19. Let the aforesaid information come on record by way
of an affidavit. 20. Post these matters on 25-3-2025 as
Item No.1 to be treated as Part-heard."
5.
In pursuance of our order dated 5.03.2025 referred to above, the
appellant through its Estate Officer has filed an additional affidavit
answering the four specific questions put by us.
6.
To the first two questions put by us, the reply of the appellant is as
under:
"(i & ii) In reply to the information as sought for in para
14(i)(ii) of the order dated 05.03.2025, it is submitted that
from the subsequent paras it is evident that any of the
respondent did not submit application as per the specific
format provided in brochure issued seeking allotment of
plot under Oustees quota and further failed to pay 10% of
the earnest money as mentioned over there. Therefore, it
cannot be said any of the concerned oustees had applied
seeking allotment of plot under Oustees quota as per
the brochure issued by the petitioner authority inviting
applications for an allotment of plot. It is submitted that
as per condition of the brochure issued by the petitioner
authority the application shall be deemed to be valid only
in those cases where the application so submitted are
accompanied by earnest money. In present case any of
the respondent has not submitted the earnest money with
the application if any so submitted.
iv.) In respect to para 14(iv) of the order it is submitted that
in total 30 civil suit instituted (26 in respect to impugned
order dated 12.08.2016), (3 in respect to impugned
order dated 30.07.2019) & (1 in respect to impugned
order dated 07.01.2016) by the respondents and out of
30 civil suits, 12 civil suits were dismissed and 18 civil
suits decreed by the Ld. Civil Judge. A chart in respect
to each suit dismissed/decreed has been annexed with
this additional affidavit.
xxx
xxx
xxx
788
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
28. I say and submit that under all the policies framed
by petitioner HDUA from time to time and amended the
requirement of the public notice/advertisement to be
issued inviting applications from the interested persons
including the oustees and the applications are to be
submitted in the prescribed format along with earnest
money and terms and conditions of the brochure so
issued the application shall be deemed to be valid
application if the same has been submitted with earnest
money.
xxx
xxx
xxx
29. I say and submit that when the applications have not
been submitted in the prescribed format that to without
the earnest money therefore the respondents are not
entitled for any relief and it will amount to wind full gain
if the respondent to have been fully compensated in
accordance with statutory scheme for the land acquired
for public purpose by the state if despite have not paid a
single penny if they are giving their plot as per the 1992
rates."
7.
As regards the distinguishing features between the Policy of 1992 and
the revised Policy of 2016 respectively, the appellant has explained
the same in the following manner:
"DISTINGUISHING FEATURES BETWEEN THE POLICY
OF 1992 AND POLICY OF 2016
Terms and conditions of
Policy dated
18.03.1992
Terms and conditions
of Policy dated
11.08.2018
Modifications done in
policy dated 01.08.2016
as modified on
08.05.2018
VI) Claims of the
oustees for allotment of
plots under this policy shall
be invited by the Estate
Officer, Haryana Urban
Development Authority
concerned before the
sector is floated for sale.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
789
Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v.
Nirmala Devi
2. An oustee shall be
entitled to seek allotment
of plot in the same sector
for which land has been
acquired for residential/
commercial purpose.
However, where the land
has only been acquired
for any non-residential
purpose such as industrial
i n s t i t u t i o n a l g r o u p
housing sites, completely
commercial sector etc.
then such an oustee
shall be entitled to seek
allotment of plot in the
adjoining sector. Adjoining
sector for this purpose
shall mean the sector with
boundaries abutting to the
said sector. Where there
are more than one sector
adjoining to the sector
for which land has been
acquired in that case an
oustee shall be entitled
to make an application
in any one sector of his
choice. However, where
any such application is
made in more than one
sector then only his one
application in any such
sector at the discretion
of the HUDA Authority
shall be considered and
earnest money in respect
of other applications
shall automatically stand
forfeited and no claim for
such forfeiture shall lie
in future.
2. An oustee shall be
entitled to seek allotment
of plot in the same sector
for which land has been
acquired for residential/
commercial purpose and
in case the plots are not
available in the same
sector for which land
has been acquired for
residential/commercial
purpose, then such an
oustee may also be
considered for allotment
in an adjoining sector
except where the land
was acquired prior
to 10.09.1987. Where
the land has only been
acquired for any nonresidential purpose such
as industrial, institutional,
Group Housing sites and
completely commercial
sector etc. then such an
oustee shall be entitled
to seek allotment of plot
in an adjoining sector.
Adjoining sector for this
purpose shall mean any
sector where boundary
abuts that of the said
sector. However, if no
plot is available for one
or more oustees in any
of the adjoining sectors,
then a sector adjoining
to any of the original and
adjoining sectors, may be
considered for purpose
of allotment of plots. An
oustee shall be free to
apply for allotment of an
ouste quota plot in one,
more or all the adjoining
sectors. It is clarified
that once any of these
applications is successful
all remaining applications
shall be automatically
assumed to have been
cancelled.
790
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
3. The application of
an oustee shall be
considered against
the plots determined
under oustees quota
as per the instruction
i s s u e d v i d e m e m o
no. UB-A-62016/2213
dated 04.121.2015. The
number of plots shall
be determined on basis
of total available plots
advertised.
3 . T h e a p p l i c a t i o n
of an oustee shall be
considered against
the plots determine
under oustee quota
as per the instruction
issued vide Memo No.
U B - A - 6 - 2 0 1 6 / 2 2 1 3
dated 04.12.2015. The
percentage of plots shall
be determined on the
basis of plots in a sector
and it shall be ensured
that number of plots
allotted under all the
reserved categories shall
not exceed maximum
limit of 50% of the plots
in a sector. The charge
in number of plots in
a sector subsequently
should be taken into
account for determining
the reservation of oustees
quota plots.
4. An oustee shall have
the right to make such
application only till the
plots are available for
oustees in the sector as
per condition no. 2 and
3 above.
i) Plots to the
oustees would be offered
if the land proposed to
be acquired is under the
ownership of oustees prior
to the publication of the
notification under section
4 of the Land Acquisition
Act and if 75% of more of
the total land owned by the
land owners in that sector
is acquired.
6. An oustee should have
been the owner of the land
as on the date when the
notification under Sec. 4
of the Land Acquisition
Act, 1894 is issued. Any
subsequent purchaser of
land after said notification
has been issued will
not be entitled to make
such application. Any
application made by such
purchaser shall entail
automatic rejection of
application and forfeiture
o f e a r n e s t m o n e y.
However, the forfeiture
of earnest money will be
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
791
Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v.
Nirmala Devi
done only after giving
opportunity of hearing to
the defaulting applicant.
7. An oustee shall be
eligible to make such
application only if 75% or
more of his total land in
the concerned revenue
estate is acquired. For this
purpose, the total land to
be considered for such
determination will mean
the land comprised in the
same revenue
Estate(s) where the
concerned sector is
situated.
iii) The above policy shall
also apply in case there
are a number of co-sharers
of the land which has been
acquired. If the acquired
land measures more
than one acre. Then for
the purpose of granting
benefits under this policy,
the determining factor
should be the area
owned by each co sharer
respectively as per his her
share in the joint holding.
In case the acquired land
of the co sharer is less than
one acre, only one plot of
250 sqd would be allotted
in the joint name of the co
sharers.
(Amended vide Memo
No.A-11P-93/7996-8013
dated 12.03.1993 as
under:
2. Benefit under oustees
policy shall be restricted
to one plot according to
the size of the holding
irrespective of the number
of co-sharers.
8. The eligibility of each
co-sharer for allotment of
plot under oustees quota
shall be determined on
the basis of his individual
holding i.e. each cosharer will be entitled to
seek allotment of plot on
basis of his own individual
holding.
792
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
vii) The commercial
sites/building are sold by
auction. The sites/buildings
be also allotted to oustees
on reserve price as and
when the auction of the
same is held. While putting
such sites/buildings to
public auction, the oustees
who want to purchase
the sites /buildings could
represent before hand for
them. However, if the area
acquired of the commercial
site is equivalent or less
to the area of booth shop
cum flat being auctioned
by HUDA they may be
given a booth /SCO
sites keeping in view the
size of acquisition under
this policy. (Amended
v i d e M e m o N o . A -
11P-98/24402-22 Dated:
28.08.1998.)
10. No commercial site
will be allotted to the
oustees
13. A co-sharer in the
land will not be eligible to
claim allotment of plot if he
had given a no objection
certificate in favour of his
co-sharer and on account
of submission of such
no objection certificate
a plot was allotted to
such co-sharer in any
previous floatation of plots
for oustees.
v) As per the policy the
oustees shall be entitled
to a developed plot/plots,
the size of which would
depend upon the area of
his acquired land subject
to a maximum of 500
syd. The oustee shall
be entitled to this benefit
under this policy only once
in the same town where the
land of a person situated /
located. However, in cases
14. An o ustee who has
already been allotted a
plot under the oustees
policy on any previous
occasion as a co-sharer
shall not be entitled to
stake claim for allotment
of plot under oustees
quota.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
793
Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v.
Nirmala Devi
where the land of a person
situated in the same town
is acquired in pockets at
different times. The owner
shall be entitled to claim
the benefit on account of
the entire area acquired
at different times for
purposes of claiming the
benefit under this policy.
15. An oustee who has
made an application for
allotment of plot under
oustees policy on any
previous occasion and
said application either
is pending for decision
or was rejected on any
ground and said rejection
order was impugned
before any Court of law
or authority or forum of
any nature and matter
has been remanded
back to the authority for
fresh decision shall be
informed of the decision
in Bhagwan Singh's case
and Sandeep's case and
may also be advised to
apply for allotment of plot
in fresh advertisement
which will be issued
after determination of
reservation and their
earnest money may
b e r e f u n d e d a l o n g
with interest @ 55%
per annum from date
of deposit till date of
payment. However, where
litigation is pending then
the court of law authority
or forum where it is
pending may be informed
of the aforesaid decision
and efforts may be
made to get the litigation
disposed of in terms
specified herein.
In Clause 15 of the
guidelines, following
clause may be added
1 5 ( a ) . W h e r e a n
application is made
by an oustee in an
advertisement issued
afresh, the price of plot
that may be charged from
him if he is successful in
draw of lots out of plots
reserved for oustees
shall be the rate as
advertised in a new
advertisement in cases
where the allotment of
plot could not be effected
despite determination
of his eligibility, the
prevalent price at the
time of application by the
oustee in pursuance to
an advertisement may be
charged alongwith simple
interest @ 11% per annum
till date. It is clarified that
eligibility for the purpose
as aforesaid shall be
treated as determine only
when Sachin completed
and satisfied all the
formalities/conditions as
per the applicable policy.
794
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
16. The applications of
the oustees as received
shall be put in draw of
lots and eligibility of only
those oustees who are
successful in draw of
lots shall be determined.
Mere submission of such
application or success
in draw of lots shall not
create any vested right for
such allotment as eligibility
will be determined only
after oustee is declared
successful in draw of lots.
17. The list of applicants
shall be compiled within
a period of 15 days of
closing of the scheme
and draw shall be held
within a period of 30 days
of closing of scheme for
advertised plots. The
eligibility of the oustees
who are successful in draw
of lots shall be determined
within a further of if any
outstay who is declared
as successful in draw of
Lords is found in eligible
as per policy then his
draw shall be cancelled
the plot which will become
available on account of
such cancellation of draw
me again be put to draw
of lots out of remaining out
these who were earlier and
unsuccessful in the same
bro the earnest money of
successful applicants may
be refunded their after no
inter shell be payable on
the said amount if it is a
refunded within a. of from
closing of 1226 - HSVP
policies and structures the
scheme otherwise interest
@ 55% per annum may
be paid on earnest money
after expiry of 6 months till
date of payment.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
795
Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v.
Nirmala Devi
8.
So far as the fourth question is concerned as to how many suits
were allowed and how many came to be dismissed, the information
provided by the appellant is as under:
"iv.) In respect to para 14(iv) of the order it is submitted that
in total 30 civil suit instituted (26 in respect to impugned
order dated 12.08.2016), (3 in respect to impugned order
dated 30.07.2019) & (1 in respect to impugned order dated
07.01.2016) by the respondents and out of 30 civil suits, 12
civil suits were dismissed and 18 civil suits decreed by the
Ld. Civil Judge. A chart in respect to each suit dismissed/
decreed has been annexed with this additional affidavit."
(emphasis supplied)
i.
Few Salient Features of the Policy of 1992
9.
Although we have given a fair idea as regards the distinguishing
features of the Policy of 1992 and the Policy of 2016 as modified in
2018 referred to above, we are of the view that for better and effective
adjudication of the issue in question we must highlight few salient
features of the Policy of 1992. The salient features of the Policy of
1992 and in what manner the oustees were expected to apply for
the plot in accordance with the policy, has been highlighted by the
appellant in its written submissions as under:
"ISSUANCE OF BROCHURE/ADVERTISEMENT FOR
INVITING APPLICATIONS FOR ALLOTMENT OF PLOT
UNDER OUSTEES QUOTA
(i) BROCHURE/ADVERTISEMENT DATED 01.10.1992
The Petitioner Authority issued a brochure on 01.10.1992
for a free hold residential plot in Sector 19 Part - II and
Sector 20 in Kaithal. The salient features are:
(i) The application is to be addressed to the Estate Officer,
HUDA as:
"To
The Estate Officer,
Haryana Urban Development Authority,
Kurukshetra
796
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
Dear Sir,
I/we request that I/WE may be allotted a residential site as
stated on reverse side in Sector 19(Part ii) & Sector 20. I/
We agree to conform to abide by the terms and conditions
as contained in the Haryana Urban Development Authority
Act, 1977 and in the rules and Regulations applications
thereunder. I/we own no residential plot/house in my / our
name(s) or in the name(s) of my/our dependent family/
member(s)/spouse in Kaithal Urban Estate if applying
under General Category or any Urban Estate of Haryana if
applying under any Gender Category or any Urban Estate
of Haryana if applying under any Reserve Category.
Yours faithfully,
Signature of Applicant(s)"
(ii) Terms and conditions for the allotment of Residential
Plot:
"1(i) Only such applications shall be deemed to be valid as
are accompanied by specified earnest money equivalent to
10% of the tentative sale price in the form of cash receipt/
demand draft in favour of the Estate Officer, Kurukshetra
drawn at the place at which the application is deposited.
However, Earnest Money shall not be accepted in cash
by the Estate Officer, Kurukshetra, Bank branches will
accept cash also.
(iii) The application form to be submitted was serial no.
ed and the price of
PRICE RS. 5/- AT THE COUNTER
Rs. 15/- by Registered Post.
Indian Postal Orders are not accepted.
No responsibility of postal delay.
(iv) The last date for receipt of application is 01.10.1992.
(ii) BROCHURE/ADVERTISEMENT DATED 22.12.1999
The salient features are:
(i) there is prescribed application with serial no.
seeking allotment of residential plot.
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
797
Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors. v.
Nirmala Devi
(ii) The application is to be addressed in the prescribed
format to the Estate Officer, HUDA.
(iii) Terms and Conditions:
"1(i) Only such applications shall be deemed to
be valid as are accompanied by specified earnest
money equivalent to 10% of the tentative sale price
in the form of a cash receipt/demand draft in favour
of the concerned Estate Officer, HUDA drawn at the
place at which the application is deposited. However,
earnest money shall not be accepted in cash by the
concerned Estate Officer, HUDA Bank branches will
accept cash also.
3. The price is tentative to the extent that any enhancement
in the cost of land awarded by the Competent authority
under the Land Acquisition Act shall also be payable
proportionately, as determined by the Authority, within 30
days or in such specified period of its demand.
OTHER NOTES:
1. No interest shall be payable on the money for the
applicant for the period for which the same remains lying
with the authority.
3. An application without the prescribed earnest money
shall not be entertained and is liable to be rejected outright.
4. The applicants under the reserved categories shall not
be eligible without the requisite certificates/documents.
xxx
xxx
xxx
6. Affidavit, wherever required, shall be furnished on judicial
stamp paper worth Rs. 3/- duly attested by a Magistrate
1st Class/Executive Magistrate.
7. Allotment of plots and all matters connected therewith
shall be governed by the provisions contained in the
HUDA Act and Rules /Regulations framed thereunder as
amended from time to time.
798
[2025] 7 S.C.R.
Supreme Court Reports
8. Dispute if any regarding allotment related matters should
be settled within the jurisdiction of the concerned Estate
Officer, HUDA."
The price of the brochure mentioned as Rs. 20.00
(iii) PUBLIC NOTICE / ADVERTISEMENT DATED
13.03.2025
(i) Oustees to apply alongwith application money Rs.
50,000/- for the concerned sector.
(ii) the claims of the oustees will be decided in terms of
the policy dated 11.08.2016 and 08.05.2018.
(iii) The terms and conditions available on HSVP website.
1. Any land owner whose land is acquired prior to
10.09.1987 by Urban Estate Department are not
eligible against the advertisement at hand for which
separate advertisement has been issued.
3.