Mar 01, 2025 08:26 AM IST
Preferential location expenses have been additionally imposed on transferees who purchased property from authentic allottees below Punjab govt’s 2013 land pooling coverage
The Punjab and Haryana excessive courtroom has dominated that the Better Mohali Space Growth Authority (GMADA) can not impose preferential location expenses on transferees who bought land from authentic allottees below the 2013 land pooling coverage.
Permitting the writ petitions, the courtroom quashed the PLC expenses imposed by GMADA, whereas directing it to refund any such expenses deposited by the petitioners inside two months, together with easy curiosity at 6% each year from the date of deposit. (Getty Pictures/iStockphoto)
Permitting a bunch of 118 petitions filed by transferees, the HC bench of justices Sureshwar Thakur and Vikas Suri said {that a} perusal of the land pooling coverage issued by the Punjab authorities, vide notification dated June 19, 2013, and the brochure of the allotment scheme floated for Sector 88-89, Mohali, by the federal government and different respondents, made it clear that there was no such situation of charging “any extra amount” on account of most popular location expenses.
Underneath its 2013 land pooling coverage, the Punjab authorities had supplied residential and business land as compensation for property acquired for improvement initiatives. The coverage levied a preferential location cost (PLC) on allottees who selected land completely different from what was initially supposed for them. GMADA additional imposed this cost on transferees who bought land from the unique allottees, which shaped the idea for the petitions searching for its elimination.
In its order, the bench famous that the respondents and allottees have been sure by the phrases and situations of the land pooling coverage and the allotment scheme brochure, which shaped the inspiration for the letters of intent issued to the unique allottees, making these contractual obligations inviolable.
“Both the original allottees and their transferees do stand on a co-equal footing and there cannot be any distinction between the original allottees and their transferees nor there appears to be any well-founded intelligible differentia having a nexus with the objective sought to be achieved,” the bench added.
Permitting the writ petitions, the courtroom quashed the PLC expenses imposed by GMADA, whereas directing it to refund any such expenses deposited by the petitioners inside two months, together with easy curiosity at 6% each year from the date of deposit.
The courtroom additionally ordered the authority to ship encumbrance-free possession of the plots to the petitioners inside two weeks and execute the conveyance deeds inside a fortnight.
Beneficial Matters