With the original plot already allotted to a third party: A practical reader guide

With the original plot already allotted to a third party: A practical reader guide

Nearly 21 years after a Rohtak resident booked a plot in TDI City, Mohali, the Punjab Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) directed TDI Infratech to pay ₹ 92 lakh to his legal heirs after holding that the cancellation of the allotment by the developer was not in accordance with law.

The authority, however, held that the cancellation was not in accordance with law. It also considered the developer’s disclosure that it had re-allotted the same plot to Vishal Goswami after the cancellation. TDI maintained that it offered possession in 2015 and that the allottee failed to clear outstanding dues despite reminders. It said it cancelled the allotment on March 16, 2023, after issuing reminders and publishing public notices. The subsequent allotment involved a price of about ₹ 81 lakh, against the original consideration of about ₹ 20 lakh, according to the complaint.

The authority had asked TDI whether it could offer an alternative plot in the same or a nearby project. With the original plot already allotted to a third party, the authority declined to restore the original allotment or direct TDI to hand over possession. The authority clarified that the settlement rests on the facts of this case and does not establish a precedent for other disputes.

The developer stated that no vacant 250-square-yard plot was available. The authority directed TDI to make the payment within 90 days of receiving the order. The legal heirs must submit acceptable proof of their status as successors-in-interest within 90 days before claiming the amount.

It also said the amount could be recovered as arrears of land revenue if the developer failed to pay, and directed the secretary to issue a debt recovery certificate after the stipulated period. It also declined the allottee’s request for penalties against the developer and said the order did not determine the independent legal rights of the subsequent allottee. The authority said a will alone would not suffice without legally establishing the claimant’s entitlement.