Case: DLF Universal Ltd. and Anr Vs. The Director General [Investigation and Registration] and Anr

specified. In other words, if a transfer is made in violation of the undertaking, the statute does not provide that the same would be illegal or the transferee would not derive any title by reason thereof.37. The right of a transferee, however, would be subject to the building laws or regulatory statute relating to user of the property. In terms of the said Act, in the event the Government takes over the plots, it would be at liberty to transfer such land to any person or institution including a local authority as it may deem fit. Purpose of such a clause, therefore, is to ensure that schools, hospitals, community centres and other community buildings are established at the places reserved there for in the sanction plan but there does not exist any embargo as regards the person or persons who would run and manage the same.38. A regulatory Act must be construed having regard to the purpose it seeks to achieve. The State as a statutory authority cannot ask for something which is not contemplated under the Act. A statute relating to regulation of user of land must not be construed to be a limitation prohibiting transfer of land which does not affect its user.39. The plan provides that schools, hospitals etc. would be located at particular sites. When that purpose is satisfied, the court in the name of interpretation would not make a further attempt to find out who did so." 22. The Commission, in the light of the above-noted judgment of this Court, disposed of the complaint of the second-respondent on 21.8.1991 without going into the merits of the case. Later on, on a review application filed by the complainant - second respondent, it was submitted before the Commission on 4.7.2003 that the appellants were now willing to hand over the possession of the site/plot to he complainant - second respondent subject to execution of the fresh lease deed without modification and deviation of the standard lease deed to be executed by all such lessors. The complainant – second respondent suggested the above-stated modifications and their incorporation in the draft agreement in line with clause 11(a)(b)(i) of the lease deed agreement dated 01.12.1992. 23. The Commission disposed of the review application of the complainant - second respondent by order dated 16.01.2004, which reads as under:- "The learned counsel for the respondent states that the respondent is willing to execute a fresh lease deed in favour of the informant. The commercial terms as contained in the earlier lease deed dated 01.12.1992 shall not modified and altered and shall remain the same in framing of the new lease deed which shall be executed between the parties. The respondent will indicate the amount of lease rent which is payable by the informant within one week. The informant shall pay the said lease rent within one week thereafter. The informant as well as the respondent shall sign the modified lease deed and the possession of the plot shall be handed over to the informant. The present review application is disposed of in these terms and the order passed on 21st August, 2001 is modified accordingly.” 24. Thereafter, another order recorded by the Commission on 29.07.2005 reads as under:- "The learned counsel for the respondent states that they have already furnished a standard lease draft to the applicant which he acknowledges to have received. The learned advocate is directed to file the same with the Commission. The applicant is directed to suggest the amendments, if any, he proposes on the draft lease furnished by the informant to him within four weeks with a copy to the Commission. The respondents thereafter would prepare a second draft after incorporating necessary changes that they feel would be accommodated in the agreement. A copy of the 2nd draft shall also be made available to the respondent and also to the Commission. Thereafter the case could be taken for consideration. List on 18.10.2005.” 25. The case of the complainant - second respondent before the Commission was that he has furnished necessary, effective and valid suggestions which are to be incorporated in the fresh lease because of delay in handing over the possession of the alternate site/plot to him. It is the admitted case that the appellants have not challenged the order of the Commission dated 16.01.2004 by which the parties were directed that the commercial terms as contained in the earlier lease deed dated 01.12.1992 shall not be modified and altered and shall remain the same in framing of the new lease deed which shall be executed between the parties.26. Section 13A empowers the Commission to cause investigation to find out whether or not orders made by it under this Act have been complied with or any obligation imposed upon any person by or under any order made by the Commission under this Act, authorizes the Director General or any officer of the Commission to make investigation into the matter and the Director General or the officer so authorized, may, for the purpose of making such investigation, exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the Director General by Section 11. In terms of sub-section (2), the Director General , or, as the case may be, the officer so authorized, shall submit to the Commission a report of the investigation to enable the Commission to take such action in the matter as it may think fit. 27. The Commission under Section 13B is also empowered to exercise the powers, jurisdiction and authority to punish the person in respect of contempt of itself. 28. In the backdrop of the facts of the present case, once the appellants have accepted the earlier order of the Commission dated 16.01.2004 which has attained finality, the appellants are left with no other option but to execute a fresh lease deed with the complainant - second respondent on modified terms suggested by him. The order of the Commission impugned in this appeal does not suffer from any manifest error or perversity or invalidity.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]15. It is not in dispute that DLF is a colonizer. It is further not in dispute that licences had been granted to it for the construction of a colony. It also stands admitted that the schools, hospitals, community centres and other community buildings were required to be constructed in the colony in terms of the licences granted under the State Act.It was the admitted case of the parties before the Commission that agreement to lease of land bearing site/plot No. 3136 admeasuring 0.20 acres for starting a Nursery School for a consideration of Rs. 4 lakhs was entered into between the appellants and second respondent on 01.12.1992. The appellants later on issued a letter dated 19.5.1994 making allotment of 0.35 acres of alternate land bearing site/plot no. 3103 in place of plot No. 3136 to the complainant-respondent on payment of additional charges to the tune of Rs. 2,96,204 on account of increase in area. The order of the Commission reveals that some instructions were issued by the Government of Haryana on 25.10.1994 and 13.2.1996 regarding transferring of community sites to third and fourth parties under the following three heads:-(i) Where the community sites are still in the ownership of the colonizer.(ii) Sites where colonizers have created third party rights before 7.8.1991.(iii) Cases where the licences have created fourth pay right on community sites.The case of the complainant - second respondent before the Commission was that he has furnished necessary, effective and valid suggestions which are to be incorporated in the fresh lease because of delay in handing over the possession of the alternate site/plot to him. It is the admitted case that the appellants have not challenged the order of the Commission dated 16.01.2004 by which the parties were directed that the commercial terms as contained in the earlier lease deed dated 01.12.1992 shall not be modified and altered and shall remain the same in framing of the new lease deed which shall be executed between the parties.26. Section 13A empowers the Commission to cause investigation to find out whether or not orders made by it under this Act have been complied with or any obligation imposed upon any person by or under any order made by the Commission under this Act, authorizes the Director General or any officer of the Commission to make investigation into the matter and the Director General or the officer so authorized, may, for the purpose of making such investigation, exercise all or any of the powers conferred on the Director General by Section 11. In terms of sub-section (2), the Director General , or, as the case may be, the officer so authorized, shall submit to the Commission a report of the investigation to enable the Commission to take such action in the matter as it may think fit.In the backdrop of the facts of the present case, once the appellants have accepted the earlier order of the Commission dated 16.01.2004 which has attained finality, the appellants are left with no other option but to execute a fresh lease deed with the complainant - second respondent on modified terms suggested by him. The order of the Commission impugned in this appeal does not suffer from any manifest error or perversity or invalidity.