The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission-II has directed the Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority (PUDA) to refund ₹14.5 lakh with 9% annual interest to a Chandigarh resident who was allotted an unfeasible plot in the Gateway City project in Mohali. The commission also ordered PUDA to pay ₹50,000 as compensation for mental agony, harassment and litigation costs, holding the authority responsible for deficiency in service and unfair trade practice.
The case concerns Gurdeep Singh, who acquired the allotment rights for a 268-square-yard plot in Sectors 118–119, Mohali, from a previous allottee in 2015. The tentative cost of the plot was ₹53.7 lakh, and PUDA issued the allotment letter in October 2016.
After visiting the site, Singh found that the land was marshy and unsuitable for construction. He subsequently approached the authority, seeking a refund or an alternative plot. However, the issue remained unresolved despite PUDA acknowledging in May 2022 that the allotted plot was unfeasible because of its marshy condition.
Singh then filed a complaint before the consumer commission, seeking relief over the authority’s failure to provide a suitable plot and resolve the matter within a reasonable period.
PUDA opposed the complaint, arguing that Singh had independently acquired the allotment rights from the previous allottee without its direct involvement. The authority also stated that it had offered an alternative plot in November 2022, which Singh did not accept.
The commission rejected PUDA’s defence, observing that the authority was required to deliver possession by April 22, 2018, within 18 months of the allotment. It also noted that PUDA had failed to establish that the project had been completed or had received all necessary clearances.
The commission held that the authority could not avoid its responsibility to the allottee on the grounds that the transfer of allotment rights had taken place independently. Its failure to provide a feasible plot and resolve the complaint amounted to deficiency in service and an unfair trade practice.
The order further highlighted the responsibility of development authorities and project proponents to obtain the required licences, approvals and clearances before collecting money from prospective buyers and offering plots or units.
The ruling reinforces the obligation of public development agencies to provide plots that are suitable for their intended use and to address allotment-related grievances within a reasonable period. For homebuyers and plot purchasers, the case also highlights the importance of checking land conditions, possession timelines and project approvals before investing in property.
