Case: D.L.F. Qutab Enclave Complex Educational Charitable Trust Vs. State of Haryana and Ors

2. M/s. DLF Universal Ltd. (DLF) is a public limited company registered and incorporated under the Indian Companies Act. It purchased free-hold lands at Gurgaon in the State of Haryana for setting up a colony known as DLF Qutab Enclave Complex. It applied for and was granted licence in terms of the provisions of the said Act.3. M/s. DLF Universal Limited and other group of companies created DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Educational Charitable Trust (Trust) wherefor 85 sites were earmarked for constructions of schools community buildings in the complexes. The said sites vested in the Trust by reason of a deed. The Trust entered into agreements of lease with Gunjan Nikunj Educational Institute (P) Ltd. Mr. A.H. Handa, New Ekta Educational Society, Satish Mohindra and Sukhjeet Kaur Mann (hereinafter referred to as fourth parties).4. Three of the lessees from the Trust, namely, New Ekta Educational Society, Satish, Mohindra and Sukhjeet Kaur Mann applied for approval and were granted building plans by the 2nd respondent herein.5. On or about 9.2.1994 the 2nd Respondent issued a letter to the DLF directing it to ensure that no other fourth party right is created on community site, in respect whereof third party interest was created prior to 7.8.1991. The said cut off date was fixed purported to be on the basis of the resolution taken in a meeting held under the Chairmanship of the then Chief Minister of the State of Haryana wherein a resolution was adopted to the effect that no further third party right could be created. The State of Haryana by a letter dated 25.10.1994 issued instructions as regards transferring community sites to third and fourth parties and raising constructions thereupon which are broadly classified into threeWhere community sites are still in the ownership of the colonizers.II. Sites where colonizers have created third party rights before 7.8.1991.III. Cases where the licensee has created fourth party right on community sites.The said instructions were followed by another addenda in terms of a letter dated 13.2.1996 stating that the time schedule of three years for construction on community buildings would also apply to all sites where third and fourth party rights have been created before 7.8.1991 and in respect thereof, the remaining conditions of letter dated 25.10.1994 shall be applicable. The legality or validity of the directions contained in the said two letters dated 25.10.94 and 13.2.96 were the subject matter of the writ petition filed by the Trust in Punjab and Haryana High Court marked as Civil Writ Petition No. 7245 of 1997.7. It appears that a proposal was mooted in the said proceedings as to whether the dispute between the parties could be amicably resolved and pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof by an order dated 21.9.2001 the Trust was given an opportunity by the High Court to obtain and file affidavits of the parties in whose favour licences had been ranted for construction and running of the schools.8. Allegedly, the respondents No. 1 and 2 pursuant to the observations made by the High Court held meetings with all concerned and found the said proposal to be acceptable.9. Thereafter affidavits were filed by the concerned fourth parties stating that they would abide by the conditions of the licence issued in favour of DLF as also the rules and regulations and instructions issued by the First and Second Respondents. In the said affidavits it was further affirmed that schools would be built within the time specified by the Respondents.10. The High Court by an order dated 13.12.2000 recorded that the parties had nearly reached a consensus and draft agreement was directed to be put up for its consideration.11. However, the learned Advocate General for the State of Haryana on or about 16.2.2001 appeared and stated before the High Court that it was not possible for the State to accept the said proposal and requested that the Writ Petition be decided on merits.12. The Writ Petition by reason of the impugned judgment was dismissedThe petitioner is a duplicate of the licensee. It has been created to fiddle with figures. A consuming avarice and not charity is the cause for its creation.(ii) The Act and the Rules do not permit the licensee to transfer sites without the permission of the competent authority. The action of the respondents in refusing to recognize the transfers cannot be said to be illegal.(iii) The impugned circulars are not arbitrary, illegal or unfair. These do not impinge upon the protection of Art.14 of the Constitution.(iv) The failure of the Authority to act or the mere silence of the State cannot be a ground for the court to put its seal of approval on deeds which do not have the sanction of the Statute and the

Court's reasoning:
43. The High Court in our opinion, committed a manifest error in holding that despite the fact that the statute uses two different expressions as regards cost to be incurred for construction of schools, hospitals and community centres etc. the effect thereof would be the same. In case of licensee the words used are at his own cost whereas in respect of the others, the words used are at its cost. When different terminologies are used by the legislature it must be presumed that the same had been done consciously with a view to convey different meanings.65. The cap on profit, in our opinion, is irrelevant for the purpose of construction as regards the right of colonizer to transfer the land. Clause (t) of the Licence, in other words, cannot be construed to put in an implied limitation of the owner of the land to transfer its land. It is for the State of Haryana to invoke the said clause if and when any occasion arises therefor66. Furthermore, having regard to the fact that the DLF had made its intention to transfer the lands known through advertisements in the widely circulated newspapers; offerees must be held to have exercised their due diligence at the time of acquisition of interest in the plots and in that view of the matter such interest cannot be put in jeopardy unless it is found out without any difficulty whatsoever that the colonizer had no right to transfer the said land and the effect of such transfer would lead to illegality. The fourth parties are bona fide transferees for value and thus their right of claiming interest cannot be jeopardized by reason of executive instructions or otherwise particularly in absence of any pleadings by the respondents No. 1 and 2 to the effect that fraud has been practised by the colonizer or the parties colluded with one another to achieve an illegalimpugned judgment cannot be sustained which is set aside accordingly.68. Before parting, however, we may observe that in the event, it is found that the colonizer or the transferees had failed to discharge their obligations in terms of the said Act, Rules and conditions of licence, it would be open to the prescribed authorities to take such action against them as is permissible in