HC Allows Writ Petition Filed by Home-Buyer as Govt. Undertaking Failed to Deliver or Refund Flat Despite Full Payment

Case Details: Sanjay Raghunath Piplani v. National Buildings Construction Corporation - [2024] 164 taxmann.com 389 (HC-Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Subramonium Prasad, J.
• Raghav Vij, G.S. Rana & Saurabh Kaushal, Advs. for the Petitioner. & Others.
• Arvind Minocha, Sr. Adv. Ray Vikram Nath, Akshat Chaudhary, Harshvardhan Jha, Ravi Kiran Sriramoju, Ms Neeti Dutt Sharma, Chiranjiv Kumar, Mukesh Sachdeva & Ms Neelima, Advs. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, in 2012, the petitioner booked an apartment in a project launched by the respondent (i.e. a government undertaking) and paid the total consideration for the flat, i.e. Rs.76.85 lakh, in a timely manner.

Despite paying the entire sales cost, the flat was never handed over to the petitioner. Further, neither an alternate flat was given to the petitioner nor was a refund, with appropriate interest, offered by the respondent.

Further, the material on record indicated structural defects in construction after certain persons started occupying flats. The petitioner thus filed the instant writ petition.

It was a case of the respondent that the writ petition ought not to have been entertained since the petitioner had approached various forums for the same relief, and he could not be permitted to do forum shopping.

It was noted that the petitioner had been deprived of his money for the last ten years, and thus, he and several other persons had been left in the lurch and forced to knock on the doors of various forums.

High Court Held

The High Court observed that even though it was clear that the petitioner approached various forums for redressal while seeking legal recourse, such an act stems from desperation rather than a strategic pursuit of a favourable dictate. The petitioner’s behaviour arises out of a sense of frustration, helplessness, and lack of legal knowledge.

Therefore, the instant writ petition was to be allowed, directing the respondent to return the entire amount of money paid by the petitioner within a period of six weeks with interest at the rate of 12%.

The High Court held that since, the petitioner had been forced to shift accommodation and fend for himself in the last seven years and had been put to extreme mental agony, the respondent was directed to pay a sum of Rs.5 lakh to the petitioner.