Just over a month after a notification forbade penalisation of bona fide purchasers, who got plots re-allotted in their names with the Haryana Urban Development Authority’s permission, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has made it clear the notification will not be used to shield persons responsible for allotment of plots by fraudulent means.
Challenging the notification on multiple plot allotments dated August 11, petitioner SK Sharma had contended the policy was brought out to save original allottees, along with HUDA officials and officers, responsible for the fraudulent allotment of plots.
He had added at least 2,279 plots were allotted by furnishing false affidavits that they were not holding other plot in their names. Counsel HC Arora said subsequent purchasers in such cases could not be dubbed bona fide purchasers.
Taking up the matter, the Bench of Justice Satish Kumar Mittal and Justice Mahavir Singh Chauhan asserted perusal of the notification revealed only bona fide purchasers getting plots re-allotted in their favour after permission from HUDA were excluded from penal action.
The notification was silent on exclusion from penal action of original allottees and anyone else involved in fraudulent allotment of plots.
Disposing of the petition, the Bench asserted: “It is needless to state that the HUDA permits transfer of a plot in favour of a subsequent purchaser only after it is satisfied that re-allotment in favour of the purchase is genuine and bona fide.
“In any case, the subsequent purchaser cannot be imputed the knowledge that the original allottee had got the plot allotted by filing a false affidavit. A perusal of the notification under challenge would also reveal subsequent transfer in favour of the family of the original allottee has been specifically excluded from the purview of the notification.
“Reason for such exclusion is evident because the family of the original allottee cannot plead absence of knowledge as regards the circumstances attending on allotment of plot in favour of the original allottee.
“Though, as aforesaid, the impugned notification does not intend to protect the allottees, who have secured allotment of plots by fraudulent means as also their conspirators, if any, we hereby clarify that the notification is intended to be used only to protect bona fide/ subsequent purchasers who have got the plots re-allotted after due permission by the HUDA and it is not used to protect any person responsible for allotment of a plot by fraudulent means or anyone else who is found responsible for aiding in the act of such allotment.”
Challenging the notification on multiple plot allotments dated August 11, petitioner SK Sharma had contended the policy was brought out to save original allottees, along with HUDA officials and officers, responsible for the fraudulent allotment of plots.
He had added at least 2,279 plots were allotted by furnishing false affidavits that they were not holding other plot in their names. Counsel HC Arora said subsequent purchasers in such cases could not be dubbed bona fide purchasers.
Taking up the matter, the Bench of Justice Satish Kumar Mittal and Justice Mahavir Singh Chauhan asserted perusal of the notification revealed only bona fide purchasers getting plots re-allotted in their favour after permission from HUDA were excluded from penal action.
The notification was silent on exclusion from penal action of original allottees and anyone else involved in fraudulent allotment of plots.
Disposing of the petition, the Bench asserted: “It is needless to state that the HUDA permits transfer of a plot in favour of a subsequent purchaser only after it is satisfied that re-allotment in favour of the purchase is genuine and bona fide.
“In any case, the subsequent purchaser cannot be imputed the knowledge that the original allottee had got the plot allotted by filing a false affidavit. A perusal of the notification under challenge would also reveal subsequent transfer in favour of the family of the original allottee has been specifically excluded from the purview of the notification.
“Reason for such exclusion is evident because the family of the original allottee cannot plead absence of knowledge as regards the circumstances attending on allotment of plot in favour of the original allottee.
“Though, as aforesaid, the impugned notification does not intend to protect the allottees, who have secured allotment of plots by fraudulent means as also their conspirators, if any, we hereby clarify that the notification is intended to be used only to protect bona fide/ subsequent purchasers who have got the plots re-allotted after due permission by the HUDA and it is not used to protect any person responsible for allotment of a plot by fraudulent means or anyone else who is found responsible for aiding in the act of such allotment.”
![[Hardeep]](https://www.unp.me/data/avatars/s/25/25527.jpg?1570213921){kind=avatar}