{"id":251216,"date":"2009-10-28T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2009-10-27T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009"},"modified":"2015-01-26T12:53:22","modified_gmt":"2015-01-26T07:23:22","slug":"c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009","title":{"rendered":"C.S.I.O. Co-Op Group Housing … vs The Haryana Urban Development … on 28 October, 2009"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
C.S.I.O. Co-Op Group Housing … vs The Haryana Urban Development … on 28 October, 2009<\/div>\n
R.S.A.No. 1680 of 2009 (O&M)                                  1\n\n\n\n      In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh\n\n\n                        R.S.A.No. 1680 of 2009 (O&M)\n                        Date of decision: 28.10.2009\n\n\nC.S.I.O. Co-op Group Housing Society (Regd.)\n\n                                                    ......Appellant\n\n                        Versus\n\n\n\nThe Haryana Urban Development Authority and another\n\n                                                  .......Respondents\n\n\nCORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA\n\n\nPresent:   Mr. A.S.Grewal, Advocate,\n           for the appellant.\n\n                 ****\n\n\nSABINA, J.\n<\/pre>\n
           Plaintiff -appellant    filed a suit for declaration and<\/p>\n
permanent injunction, which was      decreed by the Additional Civil<\/p>\n
Judge (Sr.Divn.), Panchkula       vide judgment and decree dated<\/p>\n
28.4.2007. In appeal, the said judgment and decree were set aside<\/p>\n
by the Additional District Judge, Panchkula vide judgment and<\/p>\n
decree dated 17.11.2008 and the suit of the plaintiff was dismissed.<\/p>\n
Hence, the present appeal by the plaintiff.\n<\/p>\n
           Brief facts of the case, as noticed by the lower appellate
\n R.S.A.No. 1680 of 2009 (O&M)                                                2<\/span><\/p>\n
Court in para Nos. 2 and 3 of its judgment, are as under:-<\/p>\n
           “2.         Sans un-essentials, the facts of this case are<\/p>\n
           that the Haryana Urban Development Authority (for short<\/p>\n
           ‘the HUDA’) was established by the Government of<\/p>\n
           Haryana to provide better residential accommodation to<\/p>\n
           the public in the Urban Area at concessional rates and<\/p>\n
           therefore, HUDA launched a scheme for Group Housing<\/p>\n
           Societies in 1983 but the same did not get good response<\/p>\n
           from the public and, therefore, the HUDA has launched a<\/p>\n
           fresh Group Housing Scheme in 1990 and main feature of<\/p>\n
           the same was that developed sites would be allotted to<\/p>\n
           the Societies on ‘ no profit no loss basis’. It was pleaded<\/p>\n
           that the plaintiff society was allotted uneven sites whereas<\/p>\n
           in the brochure it was mentioned that the developed sites<\/p>\n
           will be allotted.     The plaintiff society has devloped the<\/p>\n
           sites after spending huge amount and now they are<\/p>\n
           feeling cheated that they are being burdened with<\/p>\n
           unreasonable        costs     without       any     justification.   In<\/p>\n
           Panchkula the defendant has allotted the land to the<\/p>\n
           plaintiff in Sector 20, Panchkula with a view to<\/p>\n
           accommodate         maximum           number      of    employees    in<\/p>\n
           comparatively minimum area of land in this respect, the<\/p>\n
           applications   were         invited    by     the      HUDA     through<\/p>\n
           newspaper. Twenty number of interested persons formed
\n R.S.A.No. 1680 of 2009 (O&M)                                    3<\/span><\/p>\n
          the plaintiff society and applied for the land. The land<\/p>\n
          was allotted to the plaintiff society at the rate of Rs.1206\/-<\/p>\n
          per sq. meters and the total area of the society is 2000<\/p>\n
          sq. meter and three storey building consisting of 20 flats<\/p>\n
          were constructed over the land. It was the case of the<\/p>\n
          plaintiff society that they applied for the land in Sector 20,<\/p>\n
          Panchkula as the HUDA had mentioned in their brochure<\/p>\n
          that the land will be allotted on ‘no profit no loss basis’<\/p>\n
          and all the basic facilities will be provided at very<\/p>\n
          reasonable rates; that the said land was acquired by the<\/p>\n
          HUDA at the rate of Rs.25\/- per sq. meters which is 48<\/p>\n
          times of the amount paid to the land owners. The HUDA<\/p>\n
          has paid near about 2.55 crores approximately to the land<\/p>\n
          owners for 254.75 acres of land whereas they charged<\/p>\n
          from the society @ Rs.1206\/- per sq. mtrs. And collected<\/p>\n
          an amount of Rs.43.93 crores against allotment of only<\/p>\n
          91.07 acres of land out of 254.75 acres of land. It was<\/p>\n
          further the case of the plaintiff that the compensation has<\/p>\n
          been enhanced in favour of the land owners at the rate of<\/p>\n
          Rs.135\/- per sq. mtrs. and on this account, the HUDA<\/p>\n
          has to pay to the land owners an amount of Rs.13.76<\/p>\n
          crores approximately and in view of the above mentioned<\/p>\n
          enhancement the HUDA has issued alleged notice under<\/p>\n
          challenge to the Society for payment of additional cost at
\n R.S.A.No. 1680 of 2009 (O&M)                                       4<\/span><\/p>\n
          the rate of Rs.811.85 per sq. mtrs. In this way, the total<\/p>\n
          amount payable by the Societies along is Rs.29.92 crores<\/p>\n
          approximately     for   91.07   acres     of   land;   that   on<\/p>\n
          mathematical calculations, it is found that HUDA paid<\/p>\n
          Rs.16.31 crores for 254.75 acres of land and being<\/p>\n
          charged Rs.73.85 crores from the plaintiff society for<\/p>\n
          91.07 acres of land.       It was     the case of the plaintiff<\/p>\n
          society that HUDA has already recovered excess amount<\/p>\n
          from the group housing society at the time of allotment<\/p>\n
          and the HUDA can bear the cost of enhancement from<\/p>\n
          surplus fund lying deposited with the HUDA and<\/p>\n
          additional amount was justified and was against the<\/p>\n
          principle   of   natural   justice.      The    plaintiff-society<\/p>\n
          challenged the notice issued by defendant No.2 under<\/p>\n
          Section 17(2) of the HUDA Act 1977 for the recovery of<\/p>\n
          the alleged amount i.e. at the rate of Rs.811.85 paise per<\/p>\n
          sq.mtrs. which is totally arbitrary, illegal, null and void,<\/p>\n
          abinitio, ultra vires unconstitutional. It was specifically<\/p>\n
          pleaded that HUDA having allotted a plot to the allottees<\/p>\n
          on ‘no profit no loss basis’ could not charge Rs.811.85<\/p>\n
          per sq.mtrs and calculated the enhance price only at the<\/p>\n
          rate of Rs.447\/- per sq.mtrs. which is totally arbitrary and<\/p>\n
          against the well settled principles of law. On failure of<\/p>\n
          defendants to admit the claim of the plaintiff, the present
\n R.S.A.No. 1680 of 2009 (O&M)                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
          suit was brought.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          3.          Defendants     filed   written   statement   and<\/p>\n
          opposed the suit on law and facts questioning jurisdiction<\/p>\n
          and disputing cause of action and locus standi in favour<\/p>\n
          of the plaintiff society and pleaded concealment of facts;<\/p>\n
          non-joinder of necessary parties and want of statutory<\/p>\n
          notice. On merits, it was alleged that a fully developed<\/p>\n
          site was allotted to the plaintiff society and with all basic<\/p>\n
          amenities were available; that the allotment letter issued<\/p>\n
          on 15.6.1995, it was clearly mentioned in para No.6 that<\/p>\n
          the price was tentative and was subject to enhancement<\/p>\n
          of the cost of land by competent authority under the Land<\/p>\n
          Acquisition Act<\/a> and that additional price was to be paid<\/p>\n
          within 30 days of the demand. It was further alleged that<\/p>\n
          the plaintiff society had executed an agreement dated<\/p>\n
          17.9.1994 prior to issuance of allotment letter agreeing<\/p>\n
          that the price was tentative and further agree to pay<\/p>\n
          enhanced amount if any within 30 days from the date of<\/p>\n
          demand.      It was pleaded that total liability of the<\/p>\n
          plaintiff\/society was worked out on the basis of rate<\/p>\n
          awarded by the competent court which was Rs.678.80<\/p>\n
          per sq. yard or Rs.811.85 per sq.mtrs.       The defendants<\/p>\n
          denied the entire claim of the plaintiff society and prayed<\/p>\n
          for dismissal of the suit with costs.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n R.S.A.No. 1680 of 2009 (O&M)                                       6<\/span><\/p>\n
           On the pleadings of the parties, following issues were<\/p>\n
framed by the trial Court:-\n<\/p>\n
            “1.           Whether notice dated 14.10.2003 issued by<\/p>\n
            defendant No.2 is illegal, null and void? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            2.            If issue No.1 is proved, whether the plaintiff is<\/p>\n
            entitled for decree of permanent injunction as prayed for<\/p>\n
            as well as to declaration as mentioned in the plaint? OPP<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            3.            Whether the suit is not maintainable? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            4.            Whether the      jurisdiction of Civil Court is<\/p>\n
                 barred under Section 50 of HUDA Act? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            5.            Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi and<\/p>\n
                 cause of action to file the present suit? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            6.            Whether the suit is bad for mis-joinder and<\/p>\n
                 non-joinder of necessary parties? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            7.            Whether the plaintiff has concealed the true<\/p>\n
            and material facts from the court? OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            8.            Whether the suit of the plaintiff is pre-mature<\/p>\n
            without availing efficacious remedy under HUDA Act?<\/p>\n
            OPD<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
            9.            Relief. “<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
           After hearing learned counsel for the appellant, I am of<\/p>\n
the opinion that the present appeal is devoid of any merit and<\/p>\n
deserves to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
           The facts in this case are not much in dispute. The
\n R.S.A.No. 1680 of 2009 (O&M)                                   7<\/span><\/p>\n
plaintiff-society was allotted land in Sector 20, Panchkula for<\/p>\n
consideration of Rs.1,206\/- per square meters vide allotment letter<\/p>\n
dated 15.6.1995.    The land was acquired by the defendants for<\/p>\n
establishment of the residential sectors. The society was to work on<\/p>\n
‘no profit no loss’ basis. However, after the enhancement of land<\/p>\n
acquisition compensation, the defendants worked out cost of<\/p>\n
enhancement to be recovered from the allottees. Clause 6 of the<\/p>\n
allotment letter, as reproduced by the learned Additional District<\/p>\n
Judge, in para 12 of the impugned judgment, reads as under:-<\/p>\n
                “The above price is tentative to the extent that any<\/p>\n
                enhancement in the cost of land awarded by the<\/p>\n
                competent authority under the Land Acquisition Act<\/a><\/p>\n
                shall also be payable proportionately as determined<\/p>\n
                by the authority.   The additional price determined<\/p>\n
                shall be paid within 30 days of its demand”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
\n
           Thus, as per the said clause, the price fixed by the<\/p>\n
defendants was tentative and was subject to enhancement of cost of<\/p>\n
land by the competent authority.    The society had agreed to the<\/p>\n
terms and conditions of the allotment letter.   Hence, the learned<\/p>\n
Additional District Judge rightly held that it was not open to the<\/p>\n
plaintiff-society to challenge the demand for additional price as<\/p>\n
arbitrary or unjustified. The defendants were legally entitled to ask<\/p>\n
for additional price from the society \/ its members on account of<\/p>\n
enhancement of land acquisition compensation.
\n R.S.A.No. 1680 of 2009 (O&M)                                8<\/span><\/p>\n
           In the facts of the present case, the judgments relied<\/p>\n
upon by learned counsel for the appellant in P.G. Gupta v. State of<\/p>\n
Gujarat and others 1995 Supp(2) SCC 182 and U.P.Avas Evam<\/p>\n
Vikas Parishad and another v. Friends Coop.Housing Society<\/p>\n
Ltd. And another<\/a> 1995 Supp (3) SCC 456 fail to advance the case<\/p>\n
of the appellants as these are based on different facts.<\/p>\n
           No substantial question of law arises in this regular<\/p>\n
second appeal. Accordingly, the same is dismissed.<\/p>\n
\n\n\n\n                                               (SABINA)\n                                                JUDGE\nOctober    28, 2009\nanita\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court C.S.I.O. Co-Op Group Housing … vs The Haryana Urban Development … on 28 October, 2009 R.S.A.No. 1680 of 2009 (O&M) 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 1680 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 28.10.2009 C.S.I.O. Co-op Group Housing Society (Regd.) ……Appellant Versus The Haryana Urban Development […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-251216","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nC.S.I.O. Co-Op Group Housing ... vs The Haryana Urban Development ... on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"C.S.I.O. Co-Op Group Housing ... vs The Haryana Urban Development ... on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-01-26T07:23:22+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"8 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"C.S.I.O. Co-Op Group Housing … vs The Haryana Urban Development … on 28 October, 2009\",\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-26T07:23:22+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009\"},\"wordCount\":1524,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009\",\"name\":\"C.S.I.O. Co-Op Group Housing ... vs The Haryana Urban Development ... on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-01-26T07:23:22+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"C.S.I.O. Co-Op Group Housing … vs The Haryana Urban Development … on 28 October, 2009\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"C.S.I.O. Co-Op Group Housing ... vs The Haryana Urban Development ... on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"C.S.I.O. Co-Op Group Housing ... vs The Haryana Urban Development ... on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-01-26T07:23:22+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"8 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"C.S.I.O. Co-Op Group Housing … vs The Haryana Urban Development … on 28 October, 2009","datePublished":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-26T07:23:22+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009"},"wordCount":1524,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009","name":"C.S.I.O. Co-Op Group Housing ... vs The Haryana Urban Development ... on 28 October, 2009 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2009-10-27T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-01-26T07:23:22+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/c-s-i-o-co-op-group-housing-vs-the-haryana-urban-development-on-28-october-2009#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"C.S.I.O. Co-Op Group Housing … vs The Haryana Urban Development … on 28 October, 2009"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251216","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=251216"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/251216\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=251216"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=251216"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=251216"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}