The Punjab and Haryana High Court has expressed shocked by a condition imposed by GMADA Estate Officer requiring a plot purchaser to furnish an affidavit stating that he would not file any court case or take any other action against the orders passed in the revision petition or seek waiver of construction fees.Describing such conditions as “prima facie atrocious in nature”, the division bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Pravindra Singh Chauhan directed GMADA Chief Administrator to personally file an affidavit explaining how such a condition came to be imposed and whether any action was taken against the Estate Officer for imposing it.Court shocked over condition imposed by state instrumentalityThe bench passed the directions on a petition filed against the state of Punjab and other respondents by the property owner through counsel Rubal Garg. The petitioner had challenged an October 11, 2024, order of the Estate Officer, GMADA, SAS Nagar, Mohali, concerning a plot in Sector 69 Mohali.“While reading the impugned order dated October 11, 2024, we are shocked to note the condition imposed by the Estate Officer of GMADA, which is an instrumentality of the state,” the bench observed.The condition stipulated that the petitioner had to submit an affidavit before the transfer process could be initiated. “An affidavit should be submitted stating that you will not file any court case or take any other action against the orders of the revision petition or for the waiver of construction fees. Only after this, the process for transferring the ownership of the said plot to your name will be initiated,” the order read.Referring to the condition, the bench asserted: “Such kind of conditions, being not only contrary to law, the Indian Contract Act and the public policy, are prima facie atrocious in nature. We, therefore, direct the Chief Administrator, GMADA, to file his own affidavit before this court and explain as to how such a condition is being imposed in such letters being issued by the Estate Officer and also as to whether any action was taken against the said Estate Officer for imposing any such condition or not.”Petitioner challenged demand for Rs 1.66 croreAt the onset, the petitioner’s counsel submitted that the Estate Officer issued a notice to the petitioner for depositing the balance amount as per the decision in a revision petition related to the plot. The counsel submitted that GMADA was directed to transfer the plot in the petitioner’s name upon penalty deposit in accordance with the policy circulated on May 22, 1997, by way of the revision petition decided by Punjab Revisional Authority-cum-Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, on September 11, 2024.He further submitted that the policy decision was pertaining to the penalty for delayed payment at that point of time. It was not related to non-construction charges. He further submitted that the plot’s full amount had already been paid and “fully satisfied” in 1995. The petitioner was a bona fide purchaser “for consideration” from the original allottee. “Even till date, the possession of the plot has not been delivered to the petitioner,” it was added.The counsel further submitted it was “unimaginable” as to how non-construction charges of Rs 1.66 crore were being sought from the petitioner, despite the fact that the Revisional Authority had already observed that the petitioner had a right to get the plot transferred in view of the policy and the delay would not come into the way.He further submitted that the Estate Officer had no authority of law to issue a notice for charging the non-construction charges, especially in view of the fact that the matter already stood decided by the Revisional Authority-cum-Secretary, Housing and Urban Development. The case will now be taken up on September 14.