High Court Resolves 62-Year Land Dispute: Original Allottee Wins Property at 1963 Prices

Bringing closure to one of the longest-running property disputes in the country, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled in favor of the original allottee in a 62-year-old land case. The court has directed a private developer to hand over possession of land in Faridabad at 1963 prices. The ruling effectively grants the allottee’s legal heir a property currently valued at nearly ₹7 crore, at a fraction of its present market price.

The beneficiary of the verdict is C.K. Anand, now over 80 years old, the sole surviving heir of the original buyer. The court made it clear that a party that has delayed the performance of its contractual obligations for decades cannot cite escalation in land prices as a defence to deny rightful ownership.

The roots of the dispute date back to 1963, when M/s R.C. Sood & Company Ltd announced the development of a residential colony named Aros Gardens near Surajkund, on the outskirts of present-day Faridabad. Anand’s mother, Nanki Devi, entered into an agreement with the developer for the purchase of two residential plots: Plot No. 26-A measuring 350 square yards and Plot No. B-57 measuring 217 square yards. The agreed rate at the time was ₹24 and ₹25 per square yard, respectively. Records show that Nanki Devi paid nearly half of the total sale consideration upfront. Despite this, possession of the plots was never handed over.

Soon after the booking, the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Act, 1963 came into force, followed by the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. The developer repeatedly cited regulatory hurdles and assured the allottee that the plots would be transferred once statutory approvals were obtained. However, these assurances remained unfulfilled for decades. The developer neither refunded the amount nor completed the transfer, leaving the allottee’s family trapped in a prolonged legal and administrative limbo.

By the mid-1980s, the family grew apprehensive that the plots might be sold to third parties. They approached the High Court, not seeking possession at that stage, but seeking protection against any alienation of the property. Even then, the court observed that the allotment in favor of the original buyer was valid and could not be unilaterally cancelled by the developer. Despite this judicial clarity, possession remained elusive.

The decisive phase of the litigation commenced in 2002, when Anand pursued enforcement of the original agreement. Lower courts consistently ruled in favor of the allottee, prompting the developer to challenge these decisions before the High Court. The builder argued that the claim was barred by limitation, that the allotment had allegedly been cancelled in 1964, and that enforcing a six-decade-old agreement in today’s real estate market would be inequitable. These arguments failed to convince the court.

In a detailed 22-page judgment, Justice Deepak Gupta dismissed all objections raised by the developer. The court held that the prolonged delay was entirely attributable to the builder and that it could not benefit from its own inaction. “A party that has slept over its contractual obligations for decades cannot take advantage of the exponential rise in property values to defeat the rights of the allottee,” the court observed. The court directed that the land be allotted at the original agreed rate, with only a 25% additional payment to account for intervening factors.

Legal experts view the judgment as a strong precedent against arbitrary conduct by developers. The ruling reinforces the principle that contractual obligations cannot be diluted merely because market conditions have changed over time.