Sector 89 Plot PLC Refund Falls Outside Punjab RERA सेक्टर 89 प्लॉट PLC रिफ़ंड पंजाब RERA के दायरे से बाहर ਸੈਕਟਰ 89 ਪਲਾਟ ਦਾ PLC ਰਿਫੰਡ ਪੰਜਾਬ RERA ਦੇ ਦਾਇਰੇ ਤੋਂ ਬਾਹਰ

Owners of land pooling plots in Sectors Eighty Eight and Eighty Nine have argued for years over preferential location charges. GMADA added these charges to allotment letters for plots in favoured spots. In February twenty twenty five the High Court quashed that condition for the plot holders who had gone to court. A Punjab RERA order of the twenty seventh of October twenty twenty six now shows what happened when a plot holder who was not in that case asked the regulator for his money back.

The authority dismissed the complaint. It held that the refund of these charges falls outside its powers under the real estate Act. It did not decide whether the charge was valid for this plot. The order was passed by Rakesh Kumar Goyal, Chairman of the Real Estate Regulatory Authority, Punjab, on a complaint filed in May twenty nineteen against GMADA. This piece sets out the history of the plot and the two findings the order made. It also covers the route the order points to.

How the plot came to the buyer

The plot is in Block A of Sector Eighty Nine, part of GMADA's land pooling scheme in Sectors Eighty Eight and Eighty Nine. The land was acquired under an award dated the fifteenth of November twenty eleven. The original landowner chose a developed plot under land pooling in place of cash compensation.

GMADA issued a letter of intent to the landowner on the seventh of June twenty thirteen. The buyer bought the plot from him, and GMADA recorded the transfer on the eleventh of November twenty sixteen after transfer charges were paid. GMADA then issued an allotment letter and an offer of possession in the buyer's name on the twenty fourth of January twenty nineteen. The allotment letter carried a demand for preferential location charges, which GMADA levies under its own policy.

What the complaint asked for, and how it changed

The complaint first asked for three things. It sought completion of development works and possession. It also sought interest for delay counted from the letter of intent, and an order stopping GMADA from charging the location charges. GMADA objected that the buyer was only a transferee and that the dispute belonged under the acquisition law and the state planning Act.

In January twenty twenty both sides told the authority that the same questions were pending before the High Court. The complaint was adjourned without a date to await that outcome.

The High Court decided the matter on the twentieth of February twenty twenty five, in Daulat Ram Bhatti against the State of Punjab and connected petitions. The RERA order quotes the judgment. The court held the location charge condition to be unjust and capricious and quashed it. It directed GMADA to refund the charges deposited by "the petitioners concerned", with simple interest, within two months. It also directed possession free of encumbrances and conveyance deeds for their plots.

The buyer asked for the complaint to be revived, and it was restored in February twenty twenty six. By then he had paid the location charges along with penal interest. The payments were made in December twenty twenty two and April twenty twenty three. He had also taken possession and started building. At the hearing he dropped every other prayer. The only relief he pressed was a refund of the location charges with interest at the rate the High Court had used.

First finding: a transferee is still an allottee

GMADA argued that the buyer could not claim anything because he had bought the plot from the original landowner. The authority rejected that objection on the question of status.

Section two of the Act defines an allottee to include a person who later acquires the allotment by way of sale or transfer. The order says the Act "draws no distinction between an original allottee and a subsequent transferee." It adds that this status does not depend on an agreement for sale in the prescribed form. No such agreement had been signed for this plot. GMADA had itself recorded the transfer and issued the allotment letter to the buyer.

The order is careful to say that this finding is confined to status. It does not by itself decide what a transferee can recover.

Second finding: the refund is outside the Act

On the refund, the authority held that it had no power. The location charge is levied by GMADA under its land pooling policy and the terms of its allotment. GMADA is a statutory authority set up under section twenty nine of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act of nineteen ninety five. The terms of its schemes are governed by that Act and the policies made under it. They are also open to review by the High Court.

The order says the real estate Act and the Punjab rules contain no provision to regulate policy matters between GMADA and the landowners whose land it acquired. Disputes over such a charge, in its words, "are not part of any agreement entered between a promoter and an allottee". The powers of the authority, it says, are confined to breaches of the Act and to the interest and compensation the Act provides. It concludes: "This Authority therefore has no statutory basis to direct refund of PLC."

Why the High Court ruling did not carry the claim

The buyer relied on the High Court judgment. The authority accepted that the judgment was relevant and important. It noted, however, that the refund directions run in favour of the petitioners before the court. The record did not show that this buyer had been one of them, or that his deposits fell within those directions.

The order then marks out the route left open. It says the authority is not competent to decide whether GMADA ought to extend the benefit of the judgment to a transferee holding the same condition, or to what extent. In its words, that question "is for GMADA to examine on a representation". After that, the order says, the question is one "for the High Court or another competent forum."

The order also notes that no protest about the charges had been produced from the time of payment. It records that no administrative request for a refund was shown either.

What the order leaves open

The complaint was dismissed as not maintainable for want of jurisdiction. The order states that the dismissal is on technical grounds and is without prejudice to the merits. In plain terms, the authority said nothing either way about whether this buyer is owed a refund.

This is a single order, passed by the Chairman on the record in one case. It does not lay down settled law, and the Act allows an appeal to the Real Estate Appellate Tribunal. The order does not deal with plot holders who were petitioners before the High Court. Their refund flows from the judgment itself.

Why it matters across Sectors Eighty Eight and Eighty Nine

Many plots in these sectors changed hands at the letter of intent stage, from landowners to buyers. On this order's reasoning, such a buyer counts as an allottee under the real estate Act. The location charge, though, is treated as a GMADA policy matter, which the authority would not decide.

The order points first to a representation to GMADA. After that comes the High Court or another competent forum. Each plot still turns on its own papers, from the letter of intent to the payment record.

Related reading

- Buying land after a GMADA acquisition notice: who gets the land pooling LOI
- No dues certificate for a GMADA plot transfer: what gets cleared
- Eco City Two plot delay interest runs from the allotment letter
- Punjab reverses GMADA's dues relief on a Sector Sixty Two site: how the revision route works

Sources: The sources we use are listed on our Editorial Sources page.

This piece describes a published order of the authority. Nothing here is legal or property advice, and the position of any plot holder turns on that holder's own papers and on decisions of GMADA and the courts.