In a civil writ petition filed before the Punjab and Haryana High Court to challenge a demand of approximately Rs. 1.66 crore by the Estate Officer, Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA) towards alleged non-construction charges for a plot in S.A.S Nagar, Mohali, a Division Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Pravindra Singh Chauhan directed the Chief Administrator, GMADA to file an affidavit within a week stating as to how many demand notices had been issued in the last five years with such condition as mentioned in the impugned order.
On a previous date of hearing, the petitioner submitted that by an order, the Estate Officer, had issued a notice to the petitioner for depositing the balance amount as per the decision in the revision petition for the said plot. The revision petition was decided by the Revisional Authority-cum-Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, Government of Punjab on 11-09-2024 and GMADA was directed to transfer the plot in the petitioner’s name upon deposit of penalty as per the policy circulated on 22-05-1997. It was contended that the full amount of the plot had already been paid in 1995, that the petitioner was a bona fide purchaser from the original allottee and that even then, till date the plot had not been delivered to the petitioner.
Upon perusal of the impugned order, the Court was shocked to note that the Estate Officer of GMADA, which is an instrumentality of the State, had asked the petitioner to furnish an affidavit stating that he would not file any court case or take any other action against the orders of the revision petition or for waiver of construction fees. It was stated that such conditions are not only contrary to law, but are prima facie atrocious in nature.
Hence, the Court directed the Chief Administrator, GMADA, to file his own affidavit to explain as to how such a condition was imposed by the Estate Officer and also as to whether any action was taken against the said Estate Officer.
In the present hearing, the respondents submitted that the condition which was imposed in the impugned order had been withdrawn. To this, the petitioner submitted that imposition of such a condition was not an isolated case and that such conditions were imposed in every demand letter.
Taking a serious view of the petitioner’s submission, the Court stated that if an instrumentality of the State, particularly the Housing Department, puts a condition in the demand notice that the person’s grievance would be considered only if he furnishes an affidavit stating that he would not file a court case or take any other action, the same is not only prima facie atrocious but also unconstitutional and violative of the Indian Contract Act.
Thus, the Court found it proper to enlarge the scope of the present petition by exercising its powers under Article 226 and directed the Chief Administrator, GMADA to positively file his own affidavit within a week stating as to in how many demand notices issued during the last five years such conditions had been imposed.
The matter was adjourned to 22-09-2026.
