Less than a fortnight after expressing shock over a condition imposed by GMADA requiring a plot purchaser to undertake not to file any court case or take any other action, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the authority’s Chief Administrator to specify how many demand notices were issued during the last five years with such a condition.The direction came after the Division Bench of Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri and Justice Pravindra Singh Chauhan expanded the petition’s scope upon being told that the condition requiring a person to undertake not to file any case was being imposed in every demand letter issued by GMADA.“If an instrumentality of the State, particularly the Housing Department, puts a condition in a demand notice that the grievance of the person concerned would be considered only if he furnishes an affidavit stating that he will not file any case before any Court or take any other action, the same is prima facie atrocious in nature, besides being unconstitutional and violative of the provisions of the Indian Contract Act,” the Court observed.The 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.The condition contained in the order stipulated that the petitioner had to submit an affidavit stating that he would 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.As the matter came up for resumed hearing, senior advocate Maninder Singh Garcha appearing before the Bench on behalf of respondent-GMADA submitted that the condition imposed in the impugned order had been withdrawn.Garg, on the other hand, pointed out that the paragraph imposing such a condition was not an isolated case. It did not pertain only to the present petitioner, but such a condition was being imposed in every demand letter.“We, therefore, have no other option but to take a very serious view of the submission made by the counsel for the petitioner, if it turns out to be correct…. We, therefore, deem it fit and proper to enlarge the scope of the present petition by exercising our powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The Chief Administrator, GMADA, is hereby directed to positively file his own affidavit within a week from today, stating as to in how many demand notices issued during the last five years such a condition has been imposed upon the people of India,” the Bench observed.