Punjab Haryana HC Resolves 62-Year-Old Property Dispute in Favor of Original Allottee

A legal dispute dating back to India’s early post-independence years has finally reached closure. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has put an end to one of the region’s longest-running property cases, ruling in favour of the original allottee’s family and directing that a 5,103 sq ft plot in Faridabad, purchased 62 years ago for under ₹14,000, be handed over at only 25% additional cost. The land’s present market value is estimated to be close to ₹7 crore. The sole surviving heir, C. K. Anand, is now over 80 years old.

In its ruling, the court made a strong observation: “A party that has deferred performance for decades cannot invoke market escalation as a shield,” Justice Deepak Gupta wrote in the order.

A Case That Began in 1963

The origins of the dispute trace back to 1963, when M/s RC Sood & Company Ltd launched the Eros Gardens residential colony near Suraj Kund in Faridabad. The developer accepted advance payments from Nanki Devi, mother of C. K. Anand, agreeing to sell her two plots:

Plot 26-A, 350 sq yards Plot B-57, 217 sq yards

The price was ₹24 to ₹25 per sq yard, and Nanki Devi paid almost half the amount upfront. However, the allottee never received possession. Over the years, a combination of new laws, clearances, and bureaucratic hurdles stalled the project. The Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Act, 1963, and later the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, altered regulatory requirements. The developer repeatedly told buyers that possession would be handed over once approvals came through — but it never materialised.

Decades of Delays, Court Cases, and Uncertainty

By the mid-1980s, worried that the plots might be sold elsewhere, the allottees approached the court—seeking not possession, but an order stopping the developer from transferring the land. Even then, the High Court held that the allotments were valid and could not be cancelled unilaterally. But the dispute continued unresolved.

Litigation resurfaced in 2002, when lower courts ruled in favour of the family. The developer appealed, citing limitation issues, claiming the allotment had been cancelled in 1964, and arguing that enforcing a decades-old agreement would be unfair given today’s soaring real estate prices. Justice Gupta, in a 22-page judgment, dismissed all these arguments and upheld the allottee’s rights.