Administrative Loss of Records No Ground to Cancel Citizen's Rights: Punjab and Haryana High Court

"Vested Rights Cannot Be Defeated by Official Negligence; Promissory Estoppel and Legitimate Expectation Apply," - Punjab and Haryana High Court, in a powerful reaffirmation of constitutional rights, where it held that administrative loss of records cannot be a justification to cancel lawful plot allotments. Justice Sureshwar Thakur and Justice Vikas Suri made it clear that "the right accrued to the allottee through valid registration and payment of earnest money could not be annulled by citing negligence of the public authority."
The Court further declared, "The public body, instead of redressing its internal lapses, chose to punish the citizen — this is antithetical to the rule of law."
The controversy traces back to a plot allotment scheme initiated by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana, in 1982. The petitioner, Gurcharan Singh, applied for a 125 square yard plot and duly deposited earnest money. His name emerged successful in the draw held on 10.09.1999. However, the Trust failed to inform him and later cancelled the allotment en masse through a blanket order dated 04.09.2000, citing "loss of records."
After fighting an uphill battle for years, including efforts before the Trust itself, which recommended restoration of his allotment in 2012, Gurcharan Singh found the recommendation inexplicably rejected by the Department of Local Bodies. Aggrieved, he approached the High Court.
In an unequivocal rebuke to the authorities, the Court remarked, "The deposit of earnest money and assignment of a registration number to the petitioner stand as unimpeachable indicators of his lawful entitlement." The Bench highlighted that "the excuse of record loss cannot be allowed to overshadow the citizen’s right."
The High Court stressed that the Trust's corporate status gave it independence in its decision-making: "The Improvement Trust is a distinct legal entity. Its resolution to restore the allotment was not subject to veto by the Local Bodies Department."
Addressing the issue of evidentiary sufficiency, the Court held, "Since no material was produced to discredit the authenticity of the petitioner’s receipts and registration documents, they acquire an aura of conclusivity and must be treated as gospel truth."
Further, the Court laid emphasis on the doctrine of promissory estoppel, stating, "The authorities were bound to honor the legitimate expectation generated through their unequivocal actions. Their subsequent abdication amounts to a constitutional betrayal."
The High Court allowed the petition and quashed the rejection orders dated 06.12.2012 and 20.01.2016, which had declined the restoration of allotment. The Court directed that Gurcharan Singh be handed over possession of the allotted plot within three months, along with exemplary compensation of ₹2 lakh.
Significantly, the Court directed that "responsibility for the acquiesced commission of torts was required to be encumbered upon the official concerned," sending a stern message that officials responsible for such negligence must be held personally accountable.
In a final emphatic remark, the Bench said, "Public authorities cannot be permitted to flout the doctrines of fairness, justice and reasonableness by invoking their own negligence."
This judgment marks a critical reaffirmation that constitutional principles of fairness, equity, and good governance are not hollow slogans but enforceable rights. Citizens who fulfill their obligations must not suffer because of administrative lapses. The Punjab and Haryana High Court has set a clear precedent that vested rights cannot be defeated by excuses of lost paperwork or bureaucratic sloppiness.

Date of Decision: 21 April 2025