INDEX A. CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP(C) NO(S). 11480 OF 2020; SLP(C) NO(S). 5971 OF 2021; SLP(C) NO(S). 14797 OF 2020 ……………………………………………………………………2 I. BRIEF FACTS .................................................................. 7 LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS .................................................... 8 II. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS .................. 54 III. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS.............. 67 IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ....................................... 70 V. CONCLUSION................................................................ 88 B. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).872-874 OF 2021 ................ 89 I. BRIEF FACTS ................................................................ 90 II. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT........... 96 III. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS .... 98 IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS ....................................... 99 V. CONCLUSION.............................................................. 105 A. CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP(C) NO(S). 11480 OF 2020; SLP(C) NO(S). 5971 OF 2021;

SLP(C) NO(S). 14797 OF 2020

2. Leave granted.

3. At the outset, it would be apposite to clarify that Civil Appeal Nos. 872–874 of 2021, though tagged 2 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters together, emanate from the orders passed by the National Green Tribunal in Original Application No. 238 of 2015. The said appeals pertain exclusively to allegations of environmental violations and issues falling within the specialised jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal. In view thereof, and having regard to the distinct factual matrix and legal considerations involved, the said appeals have been examined independently and are being dealt with separately from the present batch of matters.

4. The above captioned appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 10th July, 2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh1 in Civil Writ Petition No. 20330 of 2015 and involve overlapping questions of facts and law and hence, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

5. The tabular chart of parties in these appeals is noted hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:-

A. Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No(s). 11480 of 2020 1 Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters 1. Mr. Raj Singh Respondent Appellant No. 1 Gehlot No. 1 2. M/s Ambience Respondent Appellant No. 2 Private Limited No. 2 (Formerly Ambience Limited) through its Managing Director Mr. Raj Singh Gehlot 3. M/s Ambience Respondent Appellant No. 3 Developers and No. 3 Infrastructure Private Limited through its Authorized Person Mr. Raj Singh Gehlot Vs

1. Mr. Amitabha Sen Petitioner Respondent No. 1 No. 1 2. Mrs. Dipika Sen Petitioner Respondent No. 2 No. 2 3. The Chief Respondent Respondent No. 3 Secretary, No. 8 Government of Haryana, Vice-

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters 8. Mr. Rajeev Respondent Respondent No. 8 Khanna No. 6

9. Grid Architecture Respondent Respondent No. 9 Interiors Private No. 7 Limited B. Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No(s). 5971 of 2021

1. Kohler India Not a party Appellant Corporation Private Limited, through its Authorized Signatory Sh.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters 7. Mr. Rajeev Respondent Respondent No. 7 Khanna No. 6

8. Grid Architecture Respondent Respondent No. 8 Interiors Private No. 7 Limited 9. The Chief Respondent Respondent No. 9 Administrator No. 9 Haryana Urban Development Authority

10. Dr. Amitabha Sen Petitioner Respondent No. 10 No. 1

11. Mrs. Dipika Sen Petitioner Respondent No. 11 No. 2 C. Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No(s). 14797 of 2020

1. The Chief Town Respondent Appellant Planner Town and No. 10 Country Planning Department Vs

1. Dr. Amitabha Sen Petitioner Respondent No. 1 No. 1 2. Mrs. Dipika Sen Petitioner Respondent No. 2 No. 2 3. Mr. Raj Singh Respondent Respondent No. 3 Gehlot No. 1 4. M/s Ambience Respondent Respondent No. 4 Ltd. No. 5 5. M/s Ambience Respondent Respondent No. 5 Developers and No. 6 Infrastructure Private Limited 6. Mr. A.K. Ganju Respondent Respondent No. 6 No. 7 7. A.K. Ganju & Respondent Respondent No. 7 Associate No. 8 8. Mr. Rajeev Respondent Respondent No. 8 Khanna No. 9

9. Grid Architecture Respondent Respondent No. 9 Interiors Private No. 10 Limited 10. The Chief Respondent Respondent No. 10 Secretary, No. 11 6 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters Government of Haryana Vice-

authorized representative of the appellant No. 3-M/s.

Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited3, and also serves as the Managing Director of appellant No.2-M/s. Ambience Private Limited.4 I. BRIEF FACTS

7. Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No. 11480 of 2020 is treated as the lead matter and reference to facts and issues is being made therefrom for the purpose of disposal of the batch of appeals.

8. Before proceeding further, it would be apposite to set out, a brief chronology of dates and events 2 Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-Raj Singh Gehlot”. 3 Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant No.3-Ambience Developers” 4 Hereinafter, collectively referred to as “appellants-developers”.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters which are necessary and relevant for proper adjudication of the present appeals-:

1991-1992 M/s. HLF Ltd., acquired 22.98 acres of land in Nathupur, Gurgaon.

17.02.1992 M/s. HLF Ltd. applied for a license to set up a residential colony at Village Nathupur, Gugraon. 09.07.1993 An agreement was executed between M/s. HLF Ltd.

and Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Chandigarh, Haryana6, granting M/s. HLF Ltd. permission to develop a residential colony. 15.07.1993 License No. 19 of 1993 was granted by DTCP to M/s. HLF Ltd. for setting up a residential colony on 18.98 acres.

30.03.1994 Appellant-Raj Singh Gehlot, joined M/s. HLF Ltd. / June, as a Director along with Mohan Singh Gehlot and 1994 Narender Mohan Gupta with effect from 30th March, 1994 and upon clearance of all dues, the appellant-Raj Singh Gehlot acquired complete control of M/s. HLF Ltd. in June, 1994. 1994-95 M/s. HLF Ltd. submitted building plans to the DTCP for approval to develop a residential colony on the first 10.98-acre parcel under License No. 19 of 1993.

07.09.1994 M/s. HLF Ltd. sought Change of Land Use approval from the DTCP to develop a five-star hotel & recreational complex on 4 acres land comprising Khasra Nos. 3 and 529.

15.09.1994 DTCP issued CLU No. G/688-10DP-94/1011 for developing a hotel, recreational, and cultural complex over 4 acres in Khasra Nos. 3 and 529. 24.07.1995 DTCP sanctioned the Layout and Building Plan of Ambience Lagoon Complex/Residential colony on 10.98 acres of land.

11.12.1995 M/s. HLF Ltd. applied to the DTCP for a license over 106.175 acres (excluding the earlier 22.98 acres) to 5 Hereinafter, referred to as “M/s. HLF Ltd.”. 6 Hereinafter, referred to as “DTCP”.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters develop an integrated colony with residential, commercial, and ancillary facilities. 06.05.1996 DTCP approved the Ambience Lagoon Complex layout and building plans on 10.98 acres in Phase- I, post-renewal of License No. 19 of 1993. March- Advertisements were given in newspaper for the April, 2000 Ambience Lagoon Housing Project. 18.07.2000 M/s. HLF Ltd. sought DTCP’s license to develop a commercial complex on 8 acres.

28.09.2001 DTCP issued letter of Intent to de-license 8 acres of land out of license No. 19 of 1993.

16.10.2001 License No. 8 of 2001 was granted by the DTCP on / 16.10.2001 for the development of a commercial 18.10.2001 colony on 8 acres of land and same came to be notified on 18th October, 2001.

18.10.2001 DTCP de-licensed area of 8 acres and licensed the M/s. HLF Ltd. to develop commercial complex on 8 acres.

20.10.2001 Apartment Buyers’ Agreement was entered between M/s. HLF Ltd. and respondent Nos. 1 & 2.

construct B1 and C1 (EWS) blocks on the remaining area of 10.98 acres in Ambience Lagoon Complex.

31.01.2002 DTCP sanctioned the Building Plans of a commercial complex on 8 acres of land. 05.02.2004 DTCP approved the application dated 11th December, 1995 for development of an integrated residential-commercial colony over 106.175 acres, pursuant to which License Nos. 13-18 of 2004 were granted.

09.11.2004 DTCP approved Ambience Island’s zoning plan for mixed-use development over 132.06 acres.

- In the mid-2000s, M/s. HLF Ltd. was re-named as Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited.

01.03.2005 DTCP approved the consolidated/composite layout plan of integrated township on 132.065 acres.

- C-1 block, originally sanctioned as EWS flats, was converted into a regular apartment block, leading to an additional utilization of 0.85 acres from 9 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters Licence No. 2 of 2004 and increasing the area of the residential colony to 11.83 acres.

31.03.2005 Residents of Ambience Island Lagoon Apartments filed Consumer Complaint No. 28 of 2005 before National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission7 against the appellants-developers seeking directions to execute and register sale deed.

14.03.2007 The commercial complex was made operational after the issuance of Occupation Certificate by the DTCP.

25.03.2009 Appellant No. 3-Ambience Developers submitted deed of declaration under section 2 read with section 11 of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 for land admeasuring 11.83 Acres. 01.02.2010 Ambience Lagoon Apartments Residents Welfare Association8 instituted a Civil Suit No. 27 of 20109. 09.02.2010 The Civil Judge ordered that no illegal construction be carried out on the land allotted to the plaintiff association and this was subsequently stayed by the High Court on 22nd February, 2010. 2010 ALARWA filed Civil Writ Petition No. 15817 of 201010 before the Punjab and Haryana High Court challenging the delayed filing of the Deed of Declaration.

01.09.2010 DTCP sanctioned the construction of commercial complex on Plot No. 3 admeasuring 5.81 acres, comprised in Khasra Nos. 536 and 526 and forming part of the License Nos. 13 and 14 of 2004. 31.05.2011 High Court dismissed the 2010 writ petition. 31.01.2012 ALARWA filed Civil Writ Petition No. 2147 of 2012 seeking quashing of Memo No. 10894 dated 01st September, 2010.

16.03.2015 2010 civil suit came to be dismissed as withdrawn. 03.06.2015 Original Application No. 238 of 2015 was filed before National Green Tribunal11 seeking restoration of damaged parks/open spaces; compliance with earlier NGT’s order dated 10th April, 2015 in the case “Vardhaman Kaushik vs 7 Hereinafter, referred to as “NCDRC”. 8 Hereinafter, also referred to as “ALARWA”. 9 Hereinafter, also referred to as “2010 civil suit”. 10 Hereinafter, referred to as “2010 writ petition”. 11 Hereinafter, also referred to as “NGT”.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters Union of India”; and payment of suitable compensation, after the first Original Application No. 160 of 2015 was directed to be withdrawn. 08.07.2015 This Court, in Writ Petition (C) No. 338 of 2015, directed respondent Nos. 1 & 2 to approach the High Court.

06.09.2015 Respondent Nos. 1 & 2 approached the High Court by filing Civil Writ Petition No. 20330 of 2015. 05.05.2016 Shri Mohan Singh, District Town Planner submitted his report before the NGT in Original Application No. 238 of 2015.

16.08.2016 NGT appointed a Court Commissioner to inspect the site.

19.09.2016 Court Commissioner submitted the report. 11.05.2018 Consumer Complaint No. 28 of 2005 before NCDRC was dismissed as the complainants chose to file individual complaints instead of contesting jointly. 29.04.2019 NGT directed the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change12 to file report with respect to environmental compensation.

07.11.2019 MoEF&CC quantified environmental compensation at Rs. 68,51,250/-.

09.01.2020 Appellant No. 3-Ambience Developers was directed by the NGT to pay interim compensation of Rs. 68,51,250/-.

16.01.2020 High Court disposed of the Civil Writ Petition No. 2147 of 2012.

11.02.2020 NGT ordered revision of MoEF&CC’s compensation assessment and appointed a Joint Expert Committee comprising of MoEF&CC, Central Pollution Control Board, and Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal.

13.02.2020 NGT dismissed the Review Petition. 10.07.2020 High Court delivered impugned judgment and order in Civil Writ Petition 20330 of 2015. 03.12.2020 Joint Expert Committee recommended imposition of fine of Rs. 138.83 crores, Rs. 10.33 crores environmental compensation, withholding 25–50% of profits, and possible demolition of the commercial complex.

05.08.2021 Pursuant to the order dated 16th January, 2020, the DTCP passed an order dated 5th August, 2021, 12 Hereinafter, also referred to as “MoEF&CC”.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters which is subject matter of challenge in Civil Writ Petition No. 6047 of 2025 before the High Court. 29.12.2023 CBI filed chargesheet before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula.

9. M/s. HLF Ltd. was incorporated on 23rd October, 1991, inter alia, with the primary objective of carrying on the business of hotel construction, colonisation and development, including acting as builders, town planners, decorators, and developers of resorts and amusement parks. M/s. HLF Ltd. acquired a parcel of land admeasuring 22.98 acres at village Nathupur, District Gurgaon, Haryana. On 17th February, 1992, M/s. HLF Ltd. moved an application to the Director, Town and Country Planning Department, Chandigarh, Haryana, seeking permission to set up a residential colony on the aforesaid tract of land. It was specifically mentioned at Serial No. 9 of the said application, that the applicant intended to establish a residential colony (group housing society) over an area measuring 18.98 (19) acres from the above chunk of land. The said application culminated into an agreement dated 9th July, 1993 executed between M/s. HLF Ltd. and the DTCP, pursuant to which M/s. HLF Ltd., was granted 12 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters License No. 19 dated 15th July, 1993 for development of a residential colony on 18.98 acres of land.

10. The appellant-Raj Singh Gehlot, joined M/s. HLF Ltd. as a Director along with Mohan Singh Gehlot and Narender Mohan Gupta with effect from 30th March, 1994. Upon clearance of all dues and completion of other formalities, the appellant-Raj Singh Gehlot acquired complete control of M/s. HLF Ltd. in June, 1994.

11. The appellants-developers have set up a case that the layout plan for this residential colony, later named as Ambience Lagoon Group Housing, was sanctioned on 24th July, 1995 and in this plan, there is a clear indication that the residential colony would be constructed on an area of 10.98 acres of land.

12. M/s. HLF Ltd. was having other parcels of land in the surrounding areas and hence, another application dated 11th December, 1995 was moved on its behalf seeking grant of license in respect of land admeasuring 106.175 acres, distinct from and in addition to the aforesaid tract of 22.98 acres, for development of an integrated colony comprising residential and commercial complexes along with ancillary services. It is the case of the appellants-

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters developers that the said application was duly considered and accepted by the DTCP and the development plans submitted along with the application were approved on 5th February, 2004, pursuant to which License Nos. 13 to 18 of 2004 came to be granted.

13. The appellants-developers issued advertisements for the Ambience Lagoon Housing Project in newspapers in March-April, 2000. The appellants-developers unequivocally maintain that in these advertisements, it was never projected or promised that the residential colony would be constructed on entire 18.98 acres of land and that rather, the approved layout plan clearly manifested that the project would be coming up over 10.98 acres of land only.

14. Another application was submitted by M/s. HLF Ltd. in July, 2000 to the DTCP seeking de-licensing of 8 acres out of total 18.98 acres of land covered under License No. 19 of 1993. The language of the said application would be relevant and germane for decision of these appeals and hence, the same is reproduced hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:-

The development and construction of Phase I of the group housing colony is going on in full swing as per plan sanctioned by the competent authority in your esteemed office vide Memo No.8903 dated 6.5.1996. The above said licence to set up group housing colony and CLU to set up hotel 15 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters project have duly been renewed from time to time and are valid as on date.

We further applied in 1995 & 1996 for issuance of additional licence to develop the land owned by our different group companies in “Ambience Island” in Special Zone allowing group housing, commercial, institutional and recreation & entertainment uses.

Schematic layout plan of the said colony was submitted to the department earmarking the total area of “Ambience Island” complex i.e., licenced area of 22.98 acres and area of 106.175 acres applied to be licenced for various purposes allowed in special zone.

This area of 8 acres presently licenced for setting up residential group housing colony is to be developed in Phase II of licence No.19 of 1993 and is adjoining to hotel, recreational and cultural complex, therefore, it shall be more prudent, convenient, practicable and viable to develop a shopping, commercial and recreational complex on this land. Norms of town planning definitely favour such type of blended, balanced and mixed development of the area. Moreover, it is also necessary to develop this 8 acres of land as a shopping, commercial and recreational complex keeping in view the overall perspective and layout of the “Ambience Island” project. It is also significant to submit that the development and construction of Phase-I of residential group housing colony on 10.98 acres of land under Licence No. 19 of 1993 is going on in full swing and it is likely to be habituated very soon. Development of hotel project is also likely to be commenced on as the building plans of the project have already been got sanctioned in July, 2000. In this respect, it is noteworthy that no other development of commercial nature is coming up at present in the Special Zone. Moreover, Special Zone being having all the locational advantages e.g., nearest to Indira Gandhi International Airport, National Capital Region of Delhi and so many posh South Delhi colonies and it being facing lush green farm houses 16 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters in village Rajokri and situated immediately on Delhi Haryana border at the outskirts of Delhi or NH-8, must consist of an ultra modern shopping, commercial and recreational complex. It shall serve the purpose of decongesting of the national capital region of Delhi by relocating of the existing and prospective offices of Government, Semi-Govt., Multinational and Private corporations in upcoming Satellite Township of Gurgaon as conceptualise din the NCR Act and Plan. It is also submitted that the international chains of hotel are not comfortable with the development of residential apartment complex on the land immediately adjoining to the land of hotel, recreational and cultural complex and they are insisting us to develop the proposed ultra modern international standard and size of shopping-cum-commercial and office complex on this 8 acres of adjoining land. We, therefore, propose to develop the abovesaid 8 acres of land as a ultra modern shopping and commercial complex comprising of shops, offices, marketing, recreational and entertainment outlets.

Keeping these aspects in mind, we propose to develop an ultra modern shopping, commercial, office and recreational complex on the abovesaid 8 acre of land to have natural blending with the existing CLU for hotel, recreational and cultural complex on 4 acres of land and with this object, we request your goodself:-

It is also pertinent to mention that for the area of 8 acres proposed to be delicenced and afterwards to be licenced for setting up the proposed shopping, commercial and recreational complex/colony, the defence authorities and irrigation department have already issued their respective No Objection Certificates/clearances which are on record of your department, therefore, for consideration and issuance of abovesaid licence, no further permission/clearance need to be obtained by us either from the defence authorities or from the 18 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters irrigation department. However, we shall comply with the conditions/stipulation laid in the above No Objection Certificate/clearance issued by these authorities/department.

We, therefore, request your goodself to get our application for setting up of a commercial colony on 8 acres of land processed by the competent authority in your office at the earliest. We further request that in case your goodself require any further information, detail, explanation, document, undertaking, affidavit and bond etc. in this respect, please do let us know for compliance.

Thanking you, Yours faithfully, For HLF ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD.

(RAJ SINGH GEHLOT) Director Encl: 1) Form LC-I alongwith requisite documents, certificates, details, informations and explanation for issuance of licence to set up commercial colony on 8 acres of land.”

15. The aforesaid application seeking de-licensing was acknowledged and accepted by the DTCP vide Memo No. 13948 dated 18th October, 2001 whereby an area admeasuring 8 acres out of the total licensed area of 18.98 acres was formally de-licensed, resulting in the licensed area under License No. 19 of 1993 being curtailed to 10.98 acres, matching with the approved layout plan for the residential colony.

16. The DTCP issued a permission letter dated 16th/18th October, 2001 authorising M/s. HLF Ltd. to 19 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters raise a commercial complex over the de-licensed area admeasuring 8 acres in the revenue estate of Village Nathupur, Gurgaon, Haryana. The same came to be published by Endst. No. SDP 2001/13959 dated 18th October, 2001. While respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contend that the permission to construct the commercial complex was granted on 16th October, 2001, prior to the de-licensing order dated 18th October, 2001, the appellants-developers assert that the permission attained the cloak of legality only vide notification issued on 18th October, 2001, and not on 16th October, 2001.

17. Shortly thereafter i.e., on 20th October, 2001, respondent No.1-Amitabha Sen and respondent No.2-Dipika Sen, entered into an Apartment Buyers’ Agreement with M/s. HLF Ltd. for the purchase of a flat/apartment in Ambience Lagoon.

18. The construction was commenced and part completion certificate was issued by the DTCP on 10th January, 2002 in respect of Ambience Lagoon Housing Project. The DTCP, vide Memo No. 2161 dated 31st January, 2002 sanctioned the building plans for construction of a commercial complex over the land area admeasuring 8 acres which had been 20 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters de-licensed and re-licensed in October, 2001. It is the case of the appellants-developers that construction of the integrated commercial complex comprising of the Leela Ambience Hotel over 4 acres of land and Ambience Mall/Ambience Commercial Tower-I over 8 acres of land was commenced sometime in the year 2002 and concluded in the year 2007.

19. On 25th March, 2009, appellant No.3-Ambience Developers filed a Deed of Declaration under Section 2 read with Section 11 of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983, with respect to land admeasuring 11.83 acres stating that the external roads were specifically excluded from the scope of common areas.

20. The flat owners of Ambience Lagoon formed an association named Ambience Lagoon Apartments Residents Welfare Association. Few members of the ALARWA instituted a Civil Suit No. 27 of 201013 under Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 before the District Court at Gurgaon, Haryana, seeking a declaration that there were flagrant illegalities and statutory violations in the 13 Hereinafter, referred to as “2010 civil suit”.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters development of the Ambience Lagoon Housing Project, arraying the Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, and others as defendants. Notably, the appellants-developers were not impleaded as party to the said suit at the time of its institution. Subsequently, an application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908 was moved, which came to be allowed by the trial Court vide order dated 17th March, 2010, and appellant No.3- Ambience Developers was impleaded as defendant No.9 in the said civil suit. It is pertinent to note that respondent No.1-Amitabha Sen, was representing ALARWA in the said proceedings in the capacity of an advocate.

21. In the meantime, the DTCP, vide Memo No. ZP-

-318/JD(BS)/2010/10894 dated 01st September, 2010, acting on an application dated 9th June, 2010 submitted by appellant No. 3–Ambience Developers, sanctioned the construction of commercial complex on Plot No. 3 admeasuring 5.81 acres, comprised in Khasra Nos. 536 and 526 and forming part of the License Nos. 13 and 14 of 2004, subject to specified terms and conditions.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters

22. Respondent No. 1-Amitabha Sen and respondent No.2-Dipika Sen, in the capacity of flat owners, approached this Court by way of writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India being Writ Petition (C) No. 338 of 2015 alleging that the appellants-developers had put up constructions in violation of the applicable building laws and without obtaining the requisite sanctions from the concerned authorities. This Court vide order dated 8th July, 2015 relegated them to approach the High Court for ventilating their grievances. Pursuant thereto, respondent No. 1-Amitabha Sen and respondent No.2-Dipika Sen,14 instituted the captioned Civil Writ Petition No. 20330 of 2015 before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh wherein the following reliefs were sought:-

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters

d) Issue Writ, Order or Direction to the Respondents to strictly maintain the 35% Ground Floor coverage and the maximum FAR for a Group Housing as stipulated by and under the law for the said Ambience Lagoon Apartment Complex; and

e) Issue Writ, Order or Direction to the Respondent for handing over the peaceful possession of the land measuring 18.98 acres, including the Ambience Mall to the Petitioners along the other Apartment Owners of the Ambience Lagoon Complex, and

f) Pass any other order(s) or direction(a) as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the facts and circumstances of the case.”

23. It is pertinent to mention that ALARWA had also instituted Civil Writ Petition No. 2147 of 201215 before the High Court, seeking the following relief:— “(i) Issue an appropriate writ, order or direction quashing Memo No.10894 dated 01.09.2010 (Annexure P-11) granting permission to the construction plans of commercial building to respondent No.9 by District Town Planner on behalf of Chairman Building Plan Approval Committee.”

24. The appellants-developers raised an objection to the maintainability of Civil Writ Petition No.2147 of 2012 on the ground that a civil suit had already been filed in year 2010 seeking the very same reliefs and was pending before the competent civil Court. In response, the said 2010 civil suit was unconditionally withdrawn and disposed of as such vide order dated 16th March, 2015, without any liberty having been 15 Hereinafter, referred to as “2012 writ petition”.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters sought or granted to approach any other forum. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow: -

Surprisingly, perusal thereof shows that builder at 26 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters the outset made certain changes/interpolations in the application dated 17.2.1992 itself. The format for the application is provided in rule 3(1) of the 1976 rules. The application was required to be filled in form in LC-1. Clause 2(v) whereof reads as under:-

Form LC-1 is reproduced hereunder:-

(ii) a copy of the shajra plan showing the location of the colony along with the names of revenue estate, Khasra number of each field and the area of each field.

(iii) A guide map on a scale of not less than 10 centimetres to 1 Kilometre showing the location of the colony in relation to surrounding geographic features to enable the identification of the site.

(iv) A survey map of the land under the colony on a scale of 1 centimetre to 10 metres showing the spot levels at distance of 30 metres and where necessary, contour plans. The survey will also show the boundaries and dimensions of the said land, the location of streets, buildings, and premises within a distance of at least 30 metres of the said land and existing means of access to if from existing roads.

(v) Layout plan of the colony on a scale of 1 centimetre to 10 metres showing the existing and proposed means of access to the colony, the width of streets, sizes and types of plots, sites reserved for open spaces, community buildings and schools with area under each and proposed building lines on the front and sides of plots.

(vi) An explanatory note explaining the salient feature of the proposed colony, in particular the sources of water supply arrangement for disposal and treatment of storm and sullage water and site for disposal & treatment of storm and sullage water.

(vii) Plans showing the cross-sections of the proposed roads showing in particular the width of the proposed carriage ways, cycle tracks and footpaths, green verges, 28 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters position of electric poles and of any other works connected with such roads.

(viii) Plans as referred to in clause (vii) above indicating in addition the position of sewers, storm water channels, water supply and other public health services.

(ix) Detailed specifications and designs of road works shown in clause (vii) above and estimated cost thereof.

(x) Detailed specifications and designs of sewerage, storm-water and water supply schemes with estimated cost of each.

(xi) Detailed specification and design for disposal and treatment of storm and sullage water and estimated cost of works.

(xii) Detailed specification and designs for electric supply including street lighting.

3 to 5 xx xx xx [Amenities

6. I/We solemnly affirm that the particulars given in para 1 above are correct to the best of my/ our knowledge and belief.

7. Details of Land admeasuring 23 movable/immovable acres, bearing khasra Property held by the no.2/2,3,4,5,528,529,530, applicant: 531,532,533,535,527 at Village Nathupur, Distt.

colony or is establishing complex (Group Housing a colony and if so, on 19 acres. Land out of details thereof: mentioned above.

We enclose the following documents in triplicate:—

(i) Copy or copies of all title deeds and/or other documents showing the interest of 30 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters the applicant in the land under the proposed colony, along with a list of such deeds and/or other documents.

(ii) a copy of the shajra plan showing the location of the colony along with the names of revenue estate, Khasra number of each field and the area of each field.

(iii) A guide map on a scale of not less than 10 centimetres to 1 Kilometre showing the location of the colony in relation to surrounding geographic features to enable the identification of the site.

(iv) A survey map of the land under the colony on a scale of 1 centimetre to 10 metres showing the spot levels at distance of 30 metres and where necessary, contour plans. The survey will also show the boundaries and dimensions of the said land, the location of streets, buildings, and premises within a distance of at least 30 metres of the said land and proposed building lines on the front and sides of plots.

(v) An explanatory note explaining the salient feature of the proposed colony, in particular the sources of water supply arrangement for disposal and treatment of storm water and sullage water.

(vi) Plans showing the cross-sections of the proposed roads showing in particular width of the proposed carriage ways, cycle tracks and footpaths, green verges, position of electric poles and of any other works connected with such roads.

(vii) Plans as referred to in clause

(viii) above indicating in addition the position of sewers, storm water channels, 31 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters water supply and other public health services.

(ix) Detailed specifications and designs of road works shown in clause (vii) above and estimated cost thereof.

(x) Detailed specifications and designs of storm-water and water supply schemes with estimated cost of each.

(xi) Detailed specification and design for disposal and treatment of storm and sullage water and estimated cost of works.

(xii) Detailed specification and designs for electric supply including street lighting.” A comparison of the prescribed format in LC-1 and the application submitted by the builder purportedly in form LC-1 shows that he omitted clause (v) from the application which provides for submission of a lay out plan of the colony on a scale of 1 centimetre to 10 metre showing the existing and proposed means of access to the colony, the width of streets, sizes and types of plots, site reserved for open spaces, community buildings and schools with area of each, besides proposed building lines on the front and sides of plots. He made changes in clause

(iv) and omitted the line “….. and existing means of access to it from existing roads” and instead substituted the same by “….proposed building lines on the front and sides of plots.” In a clever move he projected as if the application contained all (xii) clauses envisaged by rule 3(1). A careful perusal, however, shows that one para i.e. para 2(v) with regard to lay out plan is missing which was mandatory. Strangely, this application was accepted by the authorities as such and licence was granted. It is inconceivable that concerned authorities failed to notice the stark omissions, interpolations and tampering with the basic document required for purpose of initiation of a project. This is fortified from the fact that during the course of hearing when 32 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters we asked the authorities to produce the original record they straightway referred to licence No.19 granted on 9.7.1993 to M/s HLF Enterprises. Para 3(a) thereof reads as under:-

In this context it is apposite to refer to section 3(2) of the 1975 Act which is as below:-

A perusal of record further shows that on 6.5.1996, the Director, Town & Country Planning granted approval to erect building on 18.98 acre for group housing scheme in phase I in accordance with the building plan submitted by the builder. On the 34 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters basis of this letter the builder issued a brochure in 1998 promising following amenities to the buyers:-

Total landscape surrounded by water falls, fountains and lagoons. Fully developed water body/channel for recreational facilities and recycling of water. Hassle-free property management services. Optimum space utilisation.” Prominent amongst the above promises made to the buyers was that 80% areas shall be reserved for open and community services out of 18.98 acres. It is pertinent to point out here that it is the requirement of rule 4 of 1976 rules as well. As per said rule 45% area is otherwise required to be kept as open area for roads, schools, community buildings etc. Same is reproduced as under:-

There is no dispute about the fact that the provisions of Haryana Apartments Ownership Act, 1983 are also attracted to a group housing project sanctioned under 1975 Act. This finds mentioned in clause 27 of the Builder-Buyer Agreement as well. As per section 6(1) and (2) thereof, the undivided interest of each apartment owner in the common area would be in the percentage expressed in the Deed of Declaration. The percentage of undivided interest of each apartment owner as expressed in the Deed of Declaration has to have a permanent character and cannot be altered without consent of the apartment owners expressed in an amended declaration duly executed and registered as provided. By resorting to delicencing and sanction of the commercial project the authorities completely ignored the vested right of the apartment owners and acted in flagrant violation of section 6 (1) and (2) of 1983 Act. Section 6(1) and (2) read as under:-

The conclusion is inescapable that the submission of Deed of Declaration was intentionally delayed for so many years as there appears to be dishonest intention of the builder from the very 39 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters inception of project to dupe the buyers by raising a commercial complex within the space sanctioned for group housing project. The design to develop a commercial complex was never divulged either by the builder or State authorities to the innocent buyers at any stage. An ambiguous term was used in the Builder-Buyer agreement that 8.0 acre was reserved for “future development”. It is beyond comprehension how builder himself could reserve a part of the area (8.0 acres) out of 18.98 acres for future development. The builder acted in a manner as if he was not governed by any Enactment/Rules. In view of same, the reliance placed by the counsel for the builders repeatedly on Builder-Buyer agreement is absurd. An agreement between parties cannot override the law lay down to regulate urbanization and to prevent ill-planned and haphazard development.

As regards delicencing of an area of 3.9 acres vide order dated 1.9.2010 this court does not intend to give any finding on the same, it being subject matter of CWP No.2147 of 2012 wherein the matter is pending before the concerned authority. The petitioners, in the instant petition, however, maintained that they were left with 7.9 acres out of 18.93 acres meant for housing project.

The probability of connivance between the builder and the Department cannot be ruled out in view of delicencing of area meant for residential purposes and allocating the same to commercial projects. Entire sequence of events points to a prior meeting of minds between the builder and the officials who dealt with the matter. Apart from above, the fact that there has been undue enrichment of the builder perhaps with the active involvement of the State officials, cannot be ignored by this Court. Such enrichment is not just in violation of various enactments but also a loss to public exchequer at the cost of general public, the apartment buyers in particular. However, this aspect needs to be investigated by an expert agency.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters The entire record leaves no room for doubt that various authorities, builders and probably some facilitators got unnatural gains with impunity making the entire scheme contained in Acts and Rules with respect to setting up a group housing project a mockery. Unjust enrichment has been defined by the Courts as retention of benefit by one to the loss of another or retention of money or property of another against the fundamental principles of justice, equity and good conscience. A person is enriched if he has received a benefit and is unjustly enriched if retention of benefit would be illegal. Such enrichment occurs if he has retained money for benefits which actually belonged to another (See Indian Council for Enviro-Legal Action v. Union of India , (2011)8 SCC 161).

As regards the action of the authorities in “delicensing” area meant for housing project, the same can be termed as nothing but a colourable exercise of power. It is settled position that when a custodian of power is influenced in its exercise by considerations outside those for promotion of which the power is vested, such exercise amounts to colourable exercise of power (see State of Punjab v. Gurdial Singh , (1980)2 SCC 471). It is settled proposition of law that fraud on power vitiates the State action. If State seeks to do some action indirectly though it has no power to do it directly, such action cannot be sustained. In other words, fraud vitiates all actions (see Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. v Sant Singh , (2016)11 SCC 378).

In Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority Vs State of Kerala Maradu Municipality & Ors. , (2019)7 SCC 248, setting up of a resort was challenged as the same was set up within 200 meters of the High Tide Line, construction activities whereof are strictly restricted under the provisions of Coastal Regulations Zones. Permission from Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority was not sought. The resort was set up on the basis of permission granted by local Panchayat. Kerala High Court found the action 41 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters illegal and directed demolition of the resort. It rejected the argument that resort would promote tourism in Kerala and it had immense potential for creation of jobs. It held that notification issued under the Environment Protection Act was meant to protect the environment and bring about sustainable development. It held that the law of the land was meant to be obeyed and enforced. The fait accompli of the construction made in teeth of notification was unsustainable. Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the view of the Kerala High Court.

In the case in hand, no justification whatsoever is forthcoming for delicensing of part of the area meant for housing project for commercial purpose and a huge mall (Ambience Mall) having been allowed to be raised thereon. We are, thus, faced with a similar situation as in Kerala case (supra) due to flagrant violation of provisions of 1975 Act which are meant to prevent ill-planned and haphazard urbanization in or around towns.

In Rameshwar & Ors Vs State of Haryana & Ors (2018)6 SCC 215, Hon’ble Supreme Court found that State sought to acquire land issuing notification by the process contemplated under Land Acquisition Act . Certain private builders, however, purchased the land from land owners at higher price post issuance of notification and thereafter State denotified the same. It is thus observed that this action led to unjust enrichment of individuals and revealed unholy nexus between the builder and the State authorities. It found that where power is conferred to achieve a particular purpose, same has to be exercised reasonably and in good faith. Where power is exercised for extraneous or irrelevant considerations, it would unquestionably be a colourable exercise of power. It further held that State had enabled the builder to enter the field after initiation of acquisition to seek colonization of the land covered by acquisition defeating the objective for which the land was acquired. The Supreme Court thus declared the action of State illegal and also ordered CBI investigation into the matter.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters It would be relevant to reproduce the order of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed while disposing of Writ Petition (Civil) No.338 of 2015 on 8.7.2015 filed by the instant petitioners, which is as below:-

(b) In view of our findings in the foregoing paragraph, the State shall take necessary consequential steps forthwith;

(c) In view of the fact that the responsibility has to be fixed it is further directed that the Central Bureau of Investigation would investigate the entire issue after registering a formal FIR by a team of Officers to be chosen by the Director, CBI within six weeks from today. An effort shall be made to complete the entire investigation within six months and a status report be submitted in sealed cover within three months.

The original record of HUDA be retained in the safe custody of Registrar (Judicial). CBI shall be at liberty to move an application for obtaining the record after it begins its proceedings.” 44 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters

27. Hence, these appeals have been instituted challenging the above judgment.

28. It is relevant to mention here that pursuant to the order dated 16th January, 2020, the DTCP passed a detailed order dated 5th August, 2021 whereby, the action of de-licensing and grant of permission for construction of the disputed commercial project over 8 acres of land and the commercial and office complex on 5.81 acres of land have been found to be within the four corners of law. The said order is reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:-

B. Whether, the impugned orders are against the deed of declaration.

C. Whether, the area of licence no. 19 of 1993 was reduced by 3.9 acres on account of impugned orders dated 01.09.2010.

D. Whether, the De-licensing of 8.00 acres land forming part of licence no. 19 of 1993 was permissible.

E. Whether, the Deed of Declaration filed by the licencee is in order.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters

12. I have heard the petitioner as well as the licencee company and gone through the relevant record. The findings/decision is as under:-

a. The main contention in the writ petition was that commercial building was being constructed and the licence was not granted for commercial purpose, directly against licence no. 19 of 1993 granted by the Department. It has also been alleged that the commercial building has become property of apartment owners who have purchased the apartment in the residential colony by virtue of Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 . The reference made in the petitioner is with regard to commercial plot no. 3 of the integrated colony measuring 132.06 acres for which building plans were approved on 01.09.2010.

b. Licence no. 19 of 1993 dated 09.07.1993 was(sic) granted to HLF Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Seeting up of group housing colony over an area measuring 18.98 acres under the provision of section 3 of Act of 1975. The Khasra no. of licence no. 19 of 1993 were 527, 528, 529, 530, 531, 532,533, 534,535, 2/2/1 and 3 min north. The building plans were approved on 06.05.1996 for an area of 18.98 acres. An area measuring 8 acres (phase-II) was reserved for further expansion.

c. The occupation certificate was granted for building blocks A to M, basement and club to group housing under licence no. 19 of 1993 on 31.12.2001 and thereafter, part completion certificate under Rule 16 of Rules of 1976 was granted on 10.01.2002.

d. The area measuring 8 acres reserved for further expansion was de-licenced and re-licenced by granted of licence for setting up of commercial colony on 16.10.2001. The de-licensing and re- licensing was done with the approval of Government in reference to the legal opinion of Law & Legislative Department which is reproduced as under: -

g. Thereafter, licence no. 1 & 2 of 2004 for an area measuring 0.317 acres and 0.05625 acres respectively were granted on 08.01.2004. Thereafter, licence no. 3 of 2004 for 0.985 acres was granted on 14.01.2004 and then licence no. 13 to 18 of 2004 was granted for 106.17 acres on 05.02.2004 and licence no. 23 of 2004 dated 11.02.2004 was granted for area measuring 10.552 acres. h. The khasra no. of licence no. 13 of 2004 are 536, 537, 538,541, 543, 544, 562, 563, 564, 539, 540, 542, 545, 546, 561 and khasra no. of licence no. 14 of 2004 are 577, 578, 579, 580, 582, 583, 584, 585, 586, 587, 588, 589, 433, 435, 448, 449, 450, 526. i. After the grant of the above mentioned licenses zoning plan of integrated group housing/commercial colony namely Ambience Island measuring 132.06 acres including licence no. 19 of 1993 and subsequent licences was issued on 09.11.2004, wherein an area measuring 79.10 acres under the use of residential group housing and 52.965 acres for commercial purpose were allowed.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters j. A master layout plan for the integrated colony over an area measuring 132.065 acres was also approved. For proper identification of the land of integrated colony, the entire 'Ambience Island' 1322.06 acres was divided by the colonizer into 29 plots for residential, commercial and institutional purposes as per approved Master Layout Plan on 01.03.2005. As per the Master layout Plan, Lagoon Residential Apartment Complex was assigned Plot no. 29, whereas, the area for which building plans were approved on 01.09.2010 for commercial purpose was assigned plot no. 3 having area 23500 Sq. mtr (5.807 acres).

k. Occupation Certificate for two towers Block BI & CI was granted on 02.03.2005.

l. The plot no. 3 is not part of the licensed area of licence no. 19 of 1993 granted to develop a group housing colony over an area measuring 18.98 acres. The plot no. 3 has been constructed on part of khasra no. 536 and 526 of village Nathupur, District Gurugram. From the perusal of the land schedule of licence no. 13 of 2004 and licence no. 14 of 2004, it is revealed that khasra no. 536 is part of licence no. 13 of 2004 and khasra no. 526 is part of licence no. 14 of 2004. Hence, the plot no. 3 is not constructed over the land forming part of licence no. 19 of 1993.

m. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana has quashed the approval of building plans as approved on 01.09.2010 vide orders dated 10.07.2020 passed in CWP No. 20330 of 2015. The Department has already filed SLP No. 14797 of 2020 for challenging the orders of the Hon'ble High Court. The Hon'ble Apex Court vide orders dated 08.310.2020 in SLP No.11480 of 2020 filed by the licencee company has ordered that no coercive steps be taken by any of the authorities.

Accordingly, I do not find any merit for quashing approval of building plan approved vide memo dated 01.09.2010 (P-11) as the same is not part the licence no. 19 of 1993 granted for area measuring 18.98 acres.

The building plans cannot be restored after the approval of same have been quashed by Hon'ble 48 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters High Court vide orders dated 10.07.2020 passed in CWP No. 20330 of 2015.

B. Whether, Deed Declaration filed by the licensee is in order.

a) Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 was enacted to provide for the ownership of an individual apartment in a building and to make such apartment heritable and transferable property and matters connected therewith. As per the provisions of section 2 of Act of 1983, DOD is required to be filed within a period of 90 days from the dame of grant of occupation certificate/part completion certificate/completion certificate. The provision of section 2 are reproduced are as under:-

f) The area of 11.83 acres mentioned in the DOD is in accordance with the FAR consumed and as per 50 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters the as built drawings. The perusal of the Shajra plan of the area of the as built drawing super imposed on the Shajra plan reveals that part of the said land forms part of Khasra no. 536 min, which has not been mentioned in the DOD.

g) As per Section 13 of Act of 1983, the DOD is required to be registered by Sub-Registrar under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 . In the present case, the DOD has been registered by Sub-Registrar, Gurugram.

h) Since, the licence no. 19 of 1983 has become part of integrated township having an area of 132.065 acres and the integrated layout plan was also issued on 01.03.2005, therefore, the licence nos. of all the licences forming part of 132.065 acres should have been mentioned in the DOD and also the revenue details for the area for which DOD was filed. Therefore, the mentioning of licence no. 19 of 1993 only with its land schedule is not correct and thus requires amendment.

Accordingly, the licensee is directed to file amendment DOD by rectifying the revenue particulars and license no. by including additional licenses on which the constructed has been raised beyond the licensed area forming part of licence no. 19 of 1993.

Apart from the above, it was observed that Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. had filed the DOD on 25.03.2009 with a substantial delay. The notice for taking penal action against the licensee was issued on 06.11.2020. In reference to the notice, the licensee made representation viz-a- viz legal provisions and requested for hearing before taking penal action. The request of the licensee has been accepted and hearing has been granted on 13.04.2021. The subsequent action after issuance of notice shall be taken after hearing the licensee company.

C. Whether, the impugned orders are against the Deed of Declaration.

DOD is required was filed for an area measuring 11.83 acres for the group housing colony. As deliberated in part 10-A above, the land forming part of plot no.3 is separate from the land of licence no.19 of 1993. Hence, impugned orders with regard to 51 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters approval of building plans of plot no. 3 area not related the DOD filed for Lagoon Residential Complex.

D. Whether, the area of licence no. 19 of 1993 was reduced by 3.9 acres on account of impugned orders dated 01.09.2010.

The DOD was filed for an area measuring 11.83 acres and the petitioner has worked out the reduced area measuring 3.9 acres by excluding the area under fencing measuring 7.96 acres from 11.83 acres. The petitioner has not referred to the actual area of plot no.3, which is 5.807 acres. As deliberated in para 12-A above, the land forming part of plot no. 3 is separate from the land of licence no. 19 of 1993. Hence, the area of licence no.19 of 1993 was not reduced by 3.9 acres on account of impugned orders dated 01.09.2010. E. Whether, the De-licensing of 8.00 acres land forming part of licence no. 19 of 1993 was permissible.

a) The licence no. 19 of 1993 was granted to develop group housing colony over an area measuring 18.98 acres. The building plans of the group housing colony was approved on 06.05.1996 and 8.00 acres of land was reserved for future expansion as phase- II. However, subsequently a request was submitted by the licensee wherein be requested to de-license 8.0 acre land from the already granted license and to re-licence the same for setting up of commercial colony.

b) The matter was examined and on the basis of earlier advice of Law and Legislative Department, Haryana, the request was considered. This advice is in consonance with Clause 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 . The above advice of Law and Legislative Department of the State was categorically mentioned which processing the case of 8.00 acres of Group Housing land for de-licensing and for re- licensing the same land for commercial complex which was permissible activity in the special zone earmarked in the Final Development Plan prevailing at that time.

c) In order to make explicit provision in the law, amendment has been carried out by the State Legislature by inserting Sub-Section (3A) in Section 52 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters 3 of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1975’) which is effective from 30th January 1975 and notification in this regard has been issued on 14.09.2020. The inserted provision in the Act of 1975 is as under-

(3A) “Where, by virtue of any section of this Act, power to grant any license or issue any notification, order, rule or direction is conferred, then that power shall include power exercisable in like manner and subject to terms and conditions, as may be prescribed, to add to, amend, vary, suspend, withdraw or rescind such licence or such notification, order, rule or direction or to de-licence”.

d) The Statement of Objects and Reasons before enactment of the inserted provision as appended to the Bill passed by the State Legislature duly clarifies that the Bill was proposed primarily to make express statutory provisions to clarify certain provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 by drawing upon the land down law in provision of Section-21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Section-20 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, 1956 and to validate various actions taken and being taken by the Department as a consequence which would have the effect of reconciling the conflicting judicial pronouncements on the issue. Hence, no ambiguity w.r.t. de- licensing remains as on with regard to de- licensing of 8.00 acres land forming part of licence no. 19of 1993.

11. The matter is decided with the directions given in the para 10-B above. These orders are appealable under section 19 of Haryana Development and Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975.

Final orders reserved on 19.10.2020 are pronounced today. To be communicated to the all concerned.” (Emphasis Supplied) 53 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters

29. The aforesaid order was challenged before the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 4573 of 2022, which was disposed of as withdrawn on 9th March, 2022 with liberty to exhaust the statutory remedy under Section 19 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 197516, pursuant where to Appeal No. 19 of 2022 was filed and stands rejected vide order dated 24th October, 2024 on the ground of non-maintainability and lacking in merit. The said order is under challenge in Civil Writ Petition No. 6047 of 2025, pending consideration before the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.

II. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS

30. Shri Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and Shri Mukul Rohatgi learned senior counsel, representing the appellants-developers, vehemently and fervently contended that the High Court has fallen in grave error in entertaining the Civil Writ Petition No. 20330 of 2015 which was filed after long and unexplained delay of more than 10 years for oblique purposes and mala fide motives. It was submitted that the flat owners’ association i.e., ALARWA had earlier 16 Hereinafter, referred to as “1975 Act”.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters instituted Civil Writ Petition No. 2147 of 2012 seeking almost identical reliefs, which came to be disposed of by the High Court vide order dated 16th January, 2020. The impugned judgment, however, completely glosses over the earlier order, thereby rendering the High Court’s approach self-contradictory. Furthermore, the High Court erred in entertaining a highly belated writ petition involving gravely disputed questions of fact, at the instance of the writ petitioners who are well versed in law, respondent No.1-Amitabha Sen being a practising Advocate. In rendering the impugned decision, the High Court misread the documentary record and misconstrued the material facts.

31. It was submitted that in the original application dated 17th February, 1992, filed by M/s. HLF Ltd., a generic reference was made that the residential colony would be built on 18.98 acres of land. However, the appellants-developers, at the very inception, intended to bring up the Ambience Lagoon Housing Project on 10.98 acres of land only. The approved layout plan for the Ambience Lagoon Housing Project clearly portrayed that it would be set up on 10.98 acres of land only. The entire thrust of 55 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters the High Court’s decision that the area of 8 acres, de- licensed vide order dated 18th October, 2001 was also meant for Ambience Lagoon Housing Project, is patently erroneous and contrary to record. It was urged that the burden was on the writ petitioners before the High Court to establish by unimpeachable material that the entire 18.98 acres of land was meant for the residential colony. The finding recorded by the High Court that no layout plan was filed at the time of submission of the permission to construct is also erroneous and contrary to record. The approved layout plan dated 24th July, 1995 was available right from the inception and a copy thereof had been submitted on record by the appellants-developers with their reply to the captioned Civil Writ Petition No. 20330 of 2015. Attention of this Court in this regard was drawn to paragraph Nos. 5 and 6 of the said reply, which reads as below: -

32. It was vehemently and fervently urged that the duly approved layout plan clearly indicated that the residential colony would be constructed only on 10.98 acres of land.

33. Shri Abhishek Manu Singhvi, learned senior counsel, while drawing attention of the Court to Apartment Buyers’ Agreement dated 20th October, 2001 executed between M/s. HLF Ltd. and the writ petitioners (respondent No. 1-Amitabha Sen and respondent No.2-Dipika Sen), submitted that the said agreement expressly mentioned the appellants- developers’ intention to develop the Lagoon Residential Apartments Complex over an area admeasuring 10.98 acres out of the total licensed 57 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters land of 18.98 acres in Phase-I, and that the building plans for the said Phase-I development had been duly sanctioned and approved by the competent authority in the office of the DTCP. On this basis, it was contended that the writ petitioners were, from the very beginning, fully aware of the scope of the licensed development and the phased manner in which the project was to be executed, thereby repelling the aspersions of fraud, concealment or illegality levelled in the writ petition in relation to the construction of the subject housing project. There was no averment in the writ petition that the builder promised in the Apartment Buyers’ Agreement that the housing project would be developed over an area of more than 10.98 acres of land.

34. Learned senior counsel Shri Singhvi and Shri Rohatgi strenuously contended that there was no violation of the applicable building bye-laws in the construction of the residential colony. They asserted that the stipulated requirement of maintaining 80% open spaces, public amenities and green areas had been duly complied with, within the 10.98 acres of land earmarked for the residential colony and the development is completely in conformity with the 58 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters project brochure, and the approved layout plan. They urged that the High Court’s conclusion to the contrary, is unreasonable, arbitrary and against the material on record.

35. It was further contended that the construction of the Ambience Mall/Ambience Corporate Office Tower-I over 8 acres of land and the Leela Ambience Hotel over 4 acres of land, which together comprise the integrated commercial complex on Plot No. 1, commenced in the year 2002 and was completed by 2007. The writ petitioners and other flat owners were well aware of the said construction activities undertaken throughout this period of five years. Yet they chose to remain silent for this long period and it was only in the year 2010 that the construction of the commercial complex was challenged for the first time, by way of a civil suit, which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn. Civil Writ Petition No. 2147 of 2012, filed by ALARWA, raising similar concerns culminated in a direction by the High Court noting that the issues relating to the alleged violations in construction of the projects would have to be examined by the DTCP. Pursuant to such direction, the DTCP, after due consideration of material 59 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters available on record, has passed a detailed reasoned order dated 5th August, 2021, expressly ruling out the concerns of illegality or violations in the impugned actions of the developer.

36. Moreover, the writ petition giving rise to the present appeals suffers from gross delay as the same was instituted in the year 2015. Notably, respondent No.1-Amitabha Sen had earlier represented ALARWA in Civil Suit No. 27 of 2010 as its Advocate and hence the successive institution of proceedings by the same set of interested flat owners, choosing different forums at varying points of time, clearly demonstrates an intentional attempt at covering up for the delayed action and indulging in forum shopping, with the collateral objective of exerting pressure upon the appellants-developers for extraneous and oblique motives. It was contended that such repeated invocation of jurisdictions demonstrates a calculated attempt to re-agitate settled issues and to pursue couched personal agenda under the guise of public interest litigation.

37. It was further contended that there was no element of illegality or criminality in the procedure followed by the appellants-developers or the planning 60 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters authority and thus the High Court committed manifest error in directing the Central Bureau of Investigation17 to straightaway register an FIR. The said direction is in teeth of settled jurisprudential principles. The impugned judgment rests purely on conjectures and surmises, bereft of any credible or tangible basis justifying such a drastic direction.

38. They referred to the chargesheet dated 29th December, 2023 filed by the CBI in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Panchkula and urged that after thorough investigation, the agency found no criminality in grant of the original license; did not support the alleged absence of layout plan and held no substantive/tangible illegality in de-licensing/re- licensing process, zoning approvals, or delayed filing of Deed of Declaration. The chargesheet categorically records that both the de-licensing of the 8 acres and the grant of the fresh license were approved on the same date, i.e. 16th October, 2001, and the formal letters were dispatched on 18th October, 2001; consequently, it was not a case where the license for the commercial project was issued prior to the de-

17 Hereinafter, referred to as “CBI”.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters licensing of the said land. Moreover, the investigation revealed that commercial complex constructed on Plot No. 3 does not overlap on any part of land set apart for development of the residential colony. However, the investigation agency did return a finding that the appellant-Raj Singh Gehlot and the appellant No.3-Ambience Developers concealed some material facts from flat owners while executing the Apartment Buyers’ Agreement in October 2001, thereby committing offences of cheating and conspiracy under Sections 420 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. As per learned senior counsel, the said finding is patently erroneous and yet to be tested before the appropriate court and hence, the same cannot be read to the detriment of the appellants-developers.

39. Learned senior counsel thus submitted that the conclusions drawn by the High Court in the impugned judgment are manifestly erroneous and contrary to record. Furthermore, most of the conclusions in the impugned judgment have not been found substantiated pursuant to extensive investigation conducted by the CBI and by the DTCP 62 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters while passing the detailed reasoned order dated 5th August, 2021.

40. It was further submitted that the High Court has contradicted itself while deciding the writ petition holding the actions of the appellants-developers to be in contravention of law while specifically observing that the issues could not be decided because the order dated 1st September, 2010 passed by the DTCP was subject matter of challenge in 2012 Writ Petition.

41. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants-developers urged that the High Court gravely erred in entertaining a writ petition involving seriously disputed questions of fact while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. They urged that a writ petition ought not to be entertained, particularly where the issues raised require detailed evaluation of evidence and factual determination beyond the scope of writ proceedings.

42. It was further submitted that all the issues raised in the writ petition have been extensively examined by the competent authority i.e. DTCP who passed a detailed reasoned order dated 5th August, 2021 wherein, the actions of de-licensing and the consequent grant of permission to raise the 63 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters commercial complex on 8 acres of land have been found to be within the legal framework. The said order is under challenge before the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6047 of 2025, and hence, the findings recorded in the impugned judgment would prejudice the appellants-developers gravely and may also influence the outcome of the said writ petition. Hence, it was submitted that the impugned judgment deserves to be quashed and set aside leaving it open for the High Court to examine the legality and validity of the order dated 5th August, 2021 in the pending writ petition.

43. Shri Tushar Mehta, learned Solicitor General, along with Shri Lokesh Sinhal, learned A.A.G., representing the appellant-Chief Town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department, in Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No(s). 14797 of 2020, submitted that the expression “de-licensing” is a misnomer in law. Shri Mehta contended that a “license” under the 1975 Act is essentially a permission regulating the use of land for any of the purposes falling within the definition of a “colony” under Section 2(c) of the 1975 Act. What is colloquially referred to as “licensing” is, in substance, nothing but permission for change of land use. Such 64 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters permission, it was argued, can validly be granted, modified, or regulated from time to time in accordance with law, including by permitting a modification of the purpose of land use or by simply accepting the surrender of the license by the coloniser.

44. Learned Solicitor General relied upon the provisions of General Clauses Act, 1897 to contend that the power to grant a license, by necessary implication includes the power to withdraw, modify, or rescind the same. It was submitted that the DTCP, being the competent authority to grant a license for land use, is equally empowered to de-license the land or to bifurcate a license into residential and commercial components, in accordance with the applicable statutory framework.

45. Learned Solicitor General further submitted that the State Legislature has now enacted Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas (Second Amendment and Validation) Act, 202018 as a legislative measure validating actions taken by the DTCP under the 1975 Act. The 2020 Amendment 18 Hereinafter, referred to as “2020 Amendment”.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters expressly recognises that the power to grant licenses includes the power to modify, suspend, revoke, or de- license them, in sync with Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and retrospectively validates actions taken earlier in good faith, without conferring any new authority. He thus urged that the impugned judgment is unsustainable in the eyes of law.

46. Shri Mehta further submitted that, upon an enquiry pursuant to the impugned judgment passed by the High Court, it has come to light that as many as 58 projects have been developed in a similar fashion pursuant to de-licensing undertaken in exercise of statutory powers. He submitted that if the impugned judgment is allowed to stand, all such projects, which were brought up long back, would be exposed to serious jeopardy.

47. Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant–Kohler India Corporation Private Limited19 in Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s). 5971 of 2021, submitted that the said appellant had purchased commercial premises situated on the 6th floor of Ambience Corporate Office Tower–I from 19 Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-Kohler India Corporation”.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters appellant No.3–Ambience Developers under a registered sale deed dated 27th September, 2007, for a total consideration exceeding Rs.30.81 crores, along with applicable stamp duty and registration charges. It was contended that any coercive or precipitative action in respect of the said complex would directly and adversely affect the crystalized proprietary rights of the appellant-Kohler India Corporation. It was further submitted that the appellant-Kohler India Corporation had not been impleaded as a party to the original writ proceedings, despite being a bona fide purchaser for consideration.

48. They, thus, implored the Court to allow the appeals and set aside the impugned judgment while leaving it open to the parties to pursue Civil Writ Petition No. 6047 of 2025 pending before the High Court.

III. ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS

49. Ms. Uttara Babbar, learned senior counsel and Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, learned counsel, appearing for the respective respondents, submitted that the Ambience Lagoon Housing Project was originally sanctioned over an area admeasuring 18.98 acres under License No. 19 of 1993. It was contended that 67 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters the appellants-developers, in collusion with State authorities, unlawfully reduced the residential area first to 10.98 acres and thereafter to 7.93 acres only by diverting the illegally de-licensed portions of the originally licensed area for construction of the Ambience Mall and other commercial complexes, thereby defeating the object of the original license and acting in patent violation of the governing statutory framework.

50. It was submitted that the appellants-developers had made deliberate strategic interpolations in the original application form, specifically referring to the omission in Clause 2(v), which expressly required the submission of a layout plan. It was further contended that, notwithstanding the absence of a layout plan, the competent authorities proceeded to entertain the application and granted the license with closed eyes. According to the respondents’ counsel, such approval in the face of a mandatory statutory deficiency could not have materialized without active connivance and collusion on the part of the concerned officials.

51. It was further submitted by the learned counsel that the 1975 Act does not contain any express or implied provision enabling the State authorities to de-

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters license land once a license has been granted for a specific project and purpose. Any purported exercise of de-licensing is therefore wholly without jurisdiction, de hors the statutory framework and was rightly struck down by the High Court as contrary to the Act and the Rules framed thereunder.

52. Learned counsel for the respondents contended that, notwithstanding representations in the brochures assuring nearly 80% open and community areas, the subsequently raised illegal commercial constructions substantially increased ground coverage and correspondingly impinged upon green and open spaces of the residential colony. It was submitted that the progressive regression in the land area earmarked for the residential colony resulted in a gross violation of the permissible Floor Area Ratio20, thereby imposing an excessive and unsustainable burden on the existing civic and infrastructural facilities in the residential colony.

53. It was argued that the Court Commissioner’s report dated 19th September, 2016 submitted in pursuance of the order dated 16th August, 2016 20 Hereinafter, referred to as “FAR”.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters passed by the National Green Tribunal, New Delhi21 conclusively establishes that the portions of land areas earmarked as Green Area Nos. 10 and 11 in the sanctioned layout plan were never developed or maintained as green spaces on the ground. Instead, Green Area No. 10 stands encroached upon by a multi-storeyed commercial building, while Green Area No. 11 has been converted into a road and areas of private use. The report, being an independent factual verification ordered by the NGT, clearly demonstrates a gross deviation from the sanctioned plan and substantiates the allegations of misuse and illegal construction by the concerned respondents. They thus implored the Court to dismiss the appeals and uphold the impugned judgment.

IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

54. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at the bar and have gone through the impugned orders and the material placed on record.

55. The main thrust of arguments of the writ petitioners before the High Court was that there had 21 Hereinafter, referred to as “NGT”.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters been a blatant violation of the statutory provisions and the rules made thereunder while raising the residential colony and the commercial complex. The specific case set up by the writ petitioners before the High Court was that while originally, the residential colony was sanctioned over land area admeasuring 18.98 acres, the construction was in fact carried out only on 10.98 acres of land. The writ petitioners thus, prayed for demolition of the commercial complex on the ground that it had been constructed by encroaching on 8 acres of land which, according to them, was originally earmarked for the residential colony and the use thereof could not have been diverted for raising the commercial construction. They further sought a direction for a CBI investigation into the alleged usurpation of 8 acres of residential land by the appellants-developers in active connivance with the concerned authorities. Additionally, a prayer was made for issuance of appropriate directions to the appellants-developers to adhere to and maintain the prescribed ground coverage and the maximum FAR applicable to the group housing project under the governing statutory framework. In submissions before the High Court, 71 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters the appellants-developers as well as the State authorities, took a specific stand that out of the original land mass admeasuring 18.98 acres, an extent of 8 acres was de-licensed in accordance with law vide Memo No.5DP-2001/13948 dated 18th October, 2001 and thereafter permission was diligently granted by the DTCP to construct a commercial complex on this chunk of land admeasuring 8 acres, which had been already been de-licensed, vide Endst. No. SDP 2001/13959 dated 18th October, 2001.

56. The High Court observed that despite the absence of a layout plan and the presence of serious omissions, deletions, interpolations and tampering in the original application form, allegedly benefiting the appellants-developers, the authorities inexplicably accepted the defective application and granted the license without noticing such glaring irregularities. According to the High Court, the entire exercise was fraudulent, which in turn had a cascading effect on the Ambience Lagoon Housing Project, including non-adherence to FAR, lack of open spaces, insufficient width of streets/roads and total lack of essential community facilities such as schools and 72 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters other public amenities. The High Court noted that the possibility of the appellants-developers acting in collusion with the concerned authorities and duping innocent apartment buyers, could not be ruled out. The buyers were made to sign on the dotted line, as by using couched language, some misleading clauses were introduced by the appellants-developers in the Apartment Buyers’ Agreement, in connivance with the State authorities. The High Court concluded that as per the approval granted by the DTCP, the township was to be constructed on 18.98 acres of land from which 80% area was to be reserved for open and community services. The de-licensing of 8 acres out of the total land admeasuring 18.98 acres, and the subsequent grant of permission for raising the commercial complex thereon, were done in sheer violation of the extant statutory provisions, with the authorities acting more promptly than warranted. The order granting permission for construction of a commercial complex over 8 acres of land falling within 18.98 acres licensed area was passed on 16th October, 2001 whereas the order de-licensing the said 8 acres was issued subsequently on 18th October, 2001. The fact that permission preceded de-

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters licensing by two days was held to indicate a preconceived and premeditated plan to raise a commercial complex within land originally licensed for residential colony. The High Court also held that the Town Planning authority had no power to de- license the land in respect of which a license had already been granted for a particular purpose, as there was no provision for de-licensing under the 1975 Act or rules framed thereunder. It was further held that, by dint of such fraudulent action, the appellants-developers stood unjustly enriched, while the flat owners were deprived of their legitimate entitlement to open spaces, amenities and green areas. It was accordingly concluded that the de- licensing order dated 18th October, 2001; the order granting license/permission dated 16th October, 2001 and the order dated 01st September, 2010 passed pursuant to submission of the deed of declaration dated 25th March, 2009, were illegal and hence, the same were fit to be quashed and struck down. The State was further directed to take all consequential steps; the CBI was directed to investigate the issues after registering a formal FIR 74 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters and to submit a status report before the High Court in a sealed cover within the stipulated time.

57. From the foregoing narration of facts and circumstances, the following indisputable conclusions can be drawn.

58. That the Apartment Buyers’ Agreement executed in the year 2001 unequivocally conveyed that the Ambience Lagoon Housing Project (residential colony) would be coming up on 10.98 acres of land out of the total licensed land of 18.98 acres in Phase-I.

59. Upon a careful examination of the pleadings in Civil Writ Petition No. 20330 of 2015, we find no averment whatsoever to the effect that the flat owners, including the writ petitioners, were unaware of the contents of the Apartment Buyers’ Agreement. Rather they are completely silent on this most vital aspect of the case which flows from the contractual obligations of the parties. On the contrary, the appellants-developers took a specific and categorical plea in their reply that the township had been developed strictly in accordance with the area and specifications stipulated in the Apartment Buyers’ Agreement as well as the approved layout plan. It was 75 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters only for the first time in the rejoinder that the writ petitioners sought to propound a new theory, namely, that the Apartment Buyers’ Agreement had been drafted by the appellants-developers to serve their own interests, allegedly taking advantage of a dominant position. According to the respondents, the said agreement could, therefore, not be enforced to the detriment of the apartment owners.

60. At this stage, we may advert to the observations made by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Gurgaon, Haryana in paragraph 13 of the order dated 10th September, 2014 while deciding the application filed by the ALARWA under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure , 1908, which read as under:

61. We are of the considered view that, as the writ petition was instituted in the year 2015 containing allegations of the so-called misuse of dominant position by the appellants-developers, the plea raised for the first time in the rejoinder that the writ petitioners were compelled to sign the Apartment Buyers’ Agreement by keeping them in dark is wholly unconvincing and untenable. The finding recorded by the High Court that the flat owners were made to sign on the dotted line is, ex facie, conjectural and unsupported by any pleadings or credible material or pleadings. Significantly, the apartment buyers did not plead, either in the writ petition filed in 2015 or in the earlier civil suit instituted in 2010, that any fraud, misrepresentation, coercion, or deceit had been practised in the execution of the Apartment Buyers’ Agreement. In the absence of any foundational pleadings or credible evidence, the conclusion arrived at in the impugned judgment that the agreement was executed under misrepresentation of facts is wholly unjustified and unsustainable in law.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters

62. The finding recorded by the High Court that any agreement between the parties cannot override the law laid down to regulate the regulations and to prevent hazardous development, is also contrary to record. It bears reiteration that the Apartment Buyers’ Agreement was never put to challenge in the writ proceedings. That apart, it is a matter of serious concern that the High Court proceeded to entertain and effectively sustain a challenge to the said agreement, despite the absence of any foundational pleadings, and that too after the lapse of more than a decade from its execution.

63. Though the writ petitioners have taken a vacillating stand before the High Court and this Court with regard to the actual area on which the residential colony stands but from the material available on record, more particularly, the order dated 5th August, 2021 passed by the DTCP, it becomes crystal clear that the residential colony has been constructed on 11.83 acres of land which includes the extent of land utilised to develop the approach road.

64. Inspite of the seriously disputed questions of facts, the High Court seems to have been swayed by 78 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters the unsubstantiated assertions of the writ petitioners and proceeded to hold that the appellants-developers had reduced the availability of green areas and amenities/facilities. For reaching to this conclusion, the High Court treated the residential colony as sanctioned over 18.98 acres.

65. We are of the firm view that the High Court has proceeded on a totally erroneous assumption that the residential colony was required to be developed over the entire 18.98 acres and not 10.98 acres. The above conclusion drawn is ex facie erroneous in face of the contract executed between the parties and the approved layout plan.

66. The observation of the High Court that the layout plan was not placed before it, is also contrary to the record. In a writ petition, which is decided on affidavits, the burden of establishing the existence of the facts asserted squarely lies upon the writ petitioner, and such burden can be discharged only by placing clear and unimpeachable material on record. This Court in Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana22 , while emphasising that a writ petitioner 22 AIR 1988 SC 534.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters is required to specifically plead and substantiate the supporting facts by placing cogent material on record, held as follows:-

2008. The flats in Ambience Lagoon Residential Colony had been occupied in the beginning of this period and thus, the flat owners cannot be expected 81 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters to be ignorant of the construction activities going on in the area appurtenant to the residential colony. The rank silence and utter indifference shown by the flat owners in taking any action for a period of almost a decade for the alleged violation of their rights creates a serious doubt on the bonafides of the actions of the writ petitioners. Admittedly, Amitabha Sen, writ petitioner No. 1 before the High Court had represented the plaintiff-ALARWA in Civil Suit No. 27 of 2010, which was instituted in respect of an analogous dispute and was ultimately disposed of as withdrawn.

70. The present writ petition came to be filed in the year 2015, that is, almost 8 years after the Ambience Mall and the Leela Ambience Hotel had been constructed and had become fully operational. In this backdrop, the gross delay in approaching the High Court constituted a material and decisive factor, which by itself ought to have disentitled the writ petitioners to any sort of discretionary relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. However, the High Court seems to have totally ignored this material aspect of the case which, in our opinion, goes to the root of the matter.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters

71. Furthermore, in Civil Writ Petition No. 2147 of 2012, which raised overlapping and substantially similar issues, the Division Bench of the High Court, vide order dated 16th January, 2020, had directed the DTCP to examine the entire controversy and to pass a detailed and reasoned order. Pursuant thereto, the DTCP has passed a comprehensive order dated 5th August, 2021, and held that the approval of building plans for Plot No.3-Ambience Corporate Office Tower 2, did not violate License No. 19 of 1993, as Plot No. 3 formed part of separate licenses (Licenses Nos. 13 and 14 of 2004) and not the original group housing license No. 19 of 1993. The DTCP also concluded that the de-licensing of 8 acres reserved for Phase-II expansion under License No. 19 of 1993 and its re- licensing for commercial use was legally permissible, being supported by prior legal opinion, Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and expressly validated by the 2020 Amendment inserting Section 3(3A) in the 1975 Act with retrospective effect. It was further held that the area under License No. 19 of 1993 was not reduced by 3.9 acres by effect of the order dated 01st September, 2010. The Deed of Declaration, duly registered, was found to be broadly 83 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters in conformity with the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 . Certain deficiencies were noted regarding incomplete disclosure of licenses forming part of the integrated township, for which amendment was directed and penalty was charged. Consequently, no merit was found in the challenge to the approval of building plans or the de-licensing action, subject to corrective steps being taken in respect of the Deed of Declaration. The said order conclusively determines the controversy in favour of the appellants-developers.

72. Section 3(3A) , introduced by the 2020 amendment retrospectively validating the disputed actions of the town planning authorities, is not under challenge before this Court, nor would it be appropriate to entertain any such challenge in the present proceedings, particularly when the said issue can be independently agitated by the parties before the appropriate forum, if they so desire.

73. Moreover, the High Court itself, while rendering the impugned judgment, expressly recorded that it would not enter into or examine the issues covered by the order dated 1st September, 2010. Notwithstanding the said self-imposed limitation, the 84 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters High Court, at the stage of final adjudication, proceeded to hold that the entire action of the appellants-developers, including the construction of the commercial complex, was in violation of law, and went on to quash the order dated 1st September, 2010. This, in our opinion, indicates a fundamental error in the impugned judgment.

74. It is also not in dispute that the order dated 5th August, 2021 passed by the DTCP in effect covering all the disputed issues is subject matter of assail in Civil Writ Petition No. 6047 of 2025, which is pending before the High Court and in case the impugned judgment is upheld, it would definitely prejudice the outcome of the said writ petition and effectively foreclose all available defences of the appellants- developers.

75. We are further of the view that the direction given by the High Court to the CBI for registering the FIR was also uncalled for as the said direction was given on unverified and inconclusive material. Be that as it may, in the intervening period, the CBI registered the FIR and has since filed a report under Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. In the said report, the act of de-licencing of 8 85 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters acres of land has been found to be in accordance with law. However, the only illegality attributed to the appellants-developers pertains to the alleged misrepresentation in the Apartment Buyers’ Agreement, in respect whereof the following findings have been recorded in the report:-

Amitabha Sen & Smt. Dipika Sen was executed without any mention of these crucial developments. Investigation has revealed that in the builder buyer agreement, it is, inter alia, mentioned that “......The company intends/plans to develop Lagoon Residential Apartments Complex on 10.98 acres of land out of total licensed land of 18.98 acres in phase-i building plans of which have already been sanctioned/approved by the Competent Authority at the Office of Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh.....” 86 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters From the above, it is evident that it was clearly mentioned in the Builder-Buyer Agreement that the company holds licence to set up a group housing colony on 18.98 acre. However, the facts pertaining to filing of application for conversion to commercial licence for the rest of 8 acres and subsequent obtainment of the said commercial licence was concealed from the buyer.

(16.79) Investigation has revealed that M/s HLF Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. engaged in communication with the department well in advance of entering into the Builder-Buyer Agreement with buyer i.e. Sh. Amitabha Sen & Smt. Dipika Sen. Specifically. the builder had initiated the process of acquiring a license for the commercial use of 8 acres of land by submitting an application dated 18.07.2000 and subsequently, on 15.10.2001, he had complied with the conditions of LOI dated 28.09.2001 for issuance of license to develop the commercial colony on 8 acres of land by d licensing the same from the licenced group housing colony, even before the Builder-Buyer Agreement was executed. This crucial information, pertaining to the ongoing efforts to obtain a commercial license, was intentionally omitted from the subsequent agreements with buyer. Consequently, the Builder-Buyer Agreement, executed on 20.10.2001 with Sh. Amitabha Sen & Smt. Dipika Sen, failed to disclose the fact that the builder had sought de-licensing and re-licensing of the land for commercial purposes and finally he got the license, creating a situation where the true nature of the property was not transparently conveyed to the buyer.

(16.80) From the facts and circumstances discussed above, it is established that the accused builder Raj Singh Gehlot, Director in M/s Ambience Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as M/s HLF Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.) dishonestly & fraudulently during the period Oct, 2001 executed builder buyer agreement with the dishonest intention from the beginning, concealed material facts from the buyer and true nature of the property was not transparently conveyed to the buyer in order to deceive the buyer for purchasing the flats in the said colony, thereby causing wrongful loss to buyer and wrongful gain to 87 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters himself and the said company and thereby committed the offence of conspiracy and cheating punishable U/s120B r/w 420 of IPC & substantive offence of 420 IPC .

(16.81) Thus, the aforesaid facts disclosed commission of offence punishable under Section 120B r/w 420 of IPC & substantive offence of 420 IPC on the part of the accused company M/s Ambience Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as M/s HLF Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.) through its director, and Sh. Raj Singh Gehlot.

(16.82) In view of the aforesaid, it is prayed that M/s Ambience Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (formerly known as M/s HLF Enterprises Pvt. Ltd.) through its director, and Sh. Raj Singh Gehlot may kindly be summoned and tried as per the provisions of law.”

76. These findings are issues which would fall for consideration and adjudication before the competent court before which the chargesheet has been filed and as such, if the impugned judgment is allowed to stand, outcome of the trial may also be prejudiced.

V. CONCLUSION

77. In wake of the discussion made hereinabove, we are of the firm view that the impugned judgment dated 10th July, 2020 rendered by the High Court is, ex facie, unsustainable in facts and in law and hence, the same cannot be sustained. The same is, thus, set aside.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters

78. We make it clear that none of the observations made by us in this judgment may be treated as prejudicing the disposal of the Civil Writ Petition No. 6047 of 2025 pending before the High Court. The High Court shall proceed to consider and decide the said writ petition uninfluenced by this judgment.

79. The appeals are allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.

80. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

B. CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).872-874 OF 2021

81. Heard. Admit.

82. These civil appeals are directed against the orders dated 9th January, 2020 and 11th February, 2020 passed by the National Green Tribunal, Principal Bench, New Delhi in Original Application No. 238 of 2015 and order dated 13th February, 2020 passed in Review Application No. 10 of 2020 in the same O.A. By order dated 9th January, 2020, the NGT after considering the report of the Ministry of Environment, Forest, and Climate Change dated 22nd November, 2019 directed the appellant, Ambience 89 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters Developers & Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.23, to pay an interim environmental compensation of Rs.68,51,250/-. Subsequently, vide order dated 11th February, 2020, NGT constituted a Joint Expert Committee comprising the MoEF&CC, Central Pollution Control Board and Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal and directed the said committee to re-assess the environmental compensation. NGT, vide order dated 13th February, 2020, dismissed the application filed by the appellant-Ambience Developers seeking review of the order dated 9th January, 2020.

I. BRIEF FACTS

83. The factual background of the present appeals being substantially similar to that of the connected appeals, the same is not being re-stated herein to avoid repetition.

84. The Original Application No. 238 of 2015 was instituted by the respondent-Anil Uppal and his companions being the flat owners24 in the Ambience Lagoon Apartment Housing Complex. The 23 Hereinafter, referred to as “appellant-Ambience Developers”. 24 Hereinafter, referred to as “respondents-applicants”.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters respondents-applicants, inter alia, sought following reliefs:-

applicants before the NGT contended that the said report had been furnished without conducting an actual site inspection. In this backdrop, the NGT, vide order dated 16th August, 2016 appointed a Court Commissioner to carry out a site visit and submit an independent report.

86. The Court Commissioner in his report dated 19th September, 2016 indicated that Green Area No. 10, which was designated as a green area in the approved layout plan, was occupied by a nursery school, a sewage treatment plant, and an electric sub-station. Green Area No. 11, also earmarked as a green area, was found to be non-existent; a portion thereof was covered by a road, while another portion was occupied by a flat. The Court Commissioner further reported that ready-mix concrete trucks were 92 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters plying in the area, generating high decibel noise, and that the sewage treatment plant was engulfed in foam.

87. The appellant-Ambience Developers having been impleaded as respondent No. 6 in the proceedings before the NGT, contested the allegations by asserting that the subject project formed part of an integrated larger development known as “Ambience Lagoon Island,” within which the prescribed green area norms were being duly maintained, and that all requisite statutory approvals had been duly obtained.

88. During the course of the proceedings, the NGT, vide order dated 24th April, 2019, directed the MoEF&CC to submit its report on the issue of environmental compensation and observed as follows:-

Learned Counsel for the MoEF & CC submits that the report will be submitted within one month positively. The report may be furnished to the Tribunal by email at [email protected] . It is made clear that there will be no further adjournment on any account without adverse orders against the party in default. List for further consideration on 20.08.2019.”

89. In pursuance of the said order, the MoEF&CC submitted a report dated 7th November, 2019, assessing the environmental damage to the tune of Rs.68,51,250/-.

90. Upon submission of the said report, the respondents-applicants contended that it was incomplete, on the ground that it did not address the issue of alleged illegal constructions in Green Areas Nos. 10 and 11, which were earmarked as open and green areas in the approved layout plan and, according to them, could not have been converted into covered areas in violation of environmental laws. The respondents-applicants further assailed the adequacy of the assessed compensation, particularly with respect to the alleged loss of ecological services 94 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters resulting from purported illegal commercial constructions in the designated open areas.

91. The NGT, vide interim order dated 9th January, 2020 directed the appellant-Ambience Developers, to deposit a sum of Rs.68,51,250/- towards interim environmental compensation. The said amount has since been deposited by the appellant-Ambience Developers on 11th December, 2020.

92. In light of the submissions advanced by the respondents-applicants, the NGT in its order dated 11th February, 2020, observed that a Joint Expert Committee comprising representatives of the MoEF&CC, the Central Pollution Control Board, and the Indian Institute of Forest Management, Bhopal, was required to examine whether, in light of the original Deed of Declaration and the sanctioned layout plan for the residential colony developed over 10.98 acres with stipulated open areas, any revised plan implemented after the allotment of apartments had illegally deprived the respondents-applicants of their entitlement to ecological benefits envisaged under the original plan. The NGT further directed the Committee to consider whether such changes amounted to a violation of law, including 95 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters impermissible alteration of common areas for private commercial gain to the detriment of the environment, and to assess the consequential environmental compensation. The Joint Expert Committee was accordingly directed to submit its report.

93. The appellant-Ambience Developers filed an application seeking review of the order dated 9th January, 2020 contending that no opportunity had been afforded to it to file objections to the report of the MoEF&CC dated 7th November, 2019. The NGT, however, dismissed the said review application, terming the plea as an afterthought.

94. Shri Pinaki Misra, learned senior counsel representing the appellant-Ambience Developers, submitted that the orders passed by the NGT travel beyond the scope of proceedings contemplated under the National Green Tribunal Act, 2010 ,25 inasmuch as they impinge upon the issues relating to alleged violations of the approved plan, which were already the subject matter of consideration before the High 25 Hereinafter, referred to as “ NGT Act ”.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters Court as well as DTCP, pursuant to order dated 16th January, 2020 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 2147 of 2012. It was thus prayed that the impugned orders are ex facie illegal and unsustainable in the eyes of law.

95. Learned senior counsel further contended that the appellant-Ambience Developers, was not afforded any opportunity to file objections to the report of the MoEF&CC dated 7th November, 2019, before it was saddled with the penalty, thereby causing serious prejudice to the appellant-Ambience Developers.

96. Learned senior counsel further contended that the NGT committed a manifest error in placing reliance on the report submitted by the Court Commissioner, which, according to them, was factually incorrect, misleading, and did not accurately reflect the ground realities, thereby vitiating the findings recorded by the NGT.

97. It was further submitted that the appellant- Ambience Developers, had consistently complied with the mandatory requirement of maintaining green and open spaces within the residential colony, and that the actual existing green area exceeded 17%, thereby surpassing the prescribed statutory 97 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters minimum. It was also urged that provisions for a nursery school, a sewage treatment plant, and an electric sub-station were made in other parts of the larger Ambience Island Project, rather than within the Ambience Lagoon Residential Colony. He, thus, urged that the impugned orders passed by the NGT are contrary to law and facts on record, and hence, the same deserve to be set aside.

appearing for the respondents-applicants submitted that the respondents-applicants had no grievance with respect to the construction of the residential colony on 10.98 acres of land. However, their primary grievance was that the construction of the commercial complex over 5.81 acres of land, situated directly in front of the residential flats, had obstructed their access to natural light and air. She vehemently contended that the said construction had been raised in violation of the designated land use and statutory norms, and urged that the offending commercial construction over the said 5.81 acres deserved to be demolished.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters

99. The areas originally designated for essential services such as a nursery school, a sewage treatment plant, and an electric sub-station were instead encroached upon and occupied by the commercial complex, resulting in the displacement of these essential utilities and necessitating their relocation to other areas.

100. It was urged that the respondents-applicants possess an indivisible, and permanent interest in the common areas and facilities of the complex, which forms an integral part of their proprietary rights. Such common areas and facilities cannot be altered, alienated, reduced, or diverted for any other use, nor can any portion thereof be siphoned off, except with the express, informed, and prior consent of all the flat owners in accordance with law.

IV. DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

101. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the impugned orders passed by the NGT.

102. We are of the considered opinion that the issues sought to be agitated before the NGT and those forming the subject matter of dispute in the 99 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters proceedings before the High Court were overlapping to a great extent and hence, the decision of the NGT without taking into account the pendency and scope of the proceedings before the High Court on issues involving seriously disputed questions of fact, is indeed questionable.

103. The Tribunal placed implicit reliance upon the report of the Court Commissioner dated 19th September, 2016 on the premise that the appellant- Ambience Developers had not objected to it, and thereafter, while considering the review petition, declined to entertain the plea of denial of opportunity on the ground that it had been raised belatedly.

104. We are of the firm opinion that, as the matter relating to alleged illegality in change of land use was already under scanner in the writ petition filed before the High Court in the year 2015, the NGT was not justified in interfering with the issues concerning violation of building plans in relation to the construction of commercial premises. We also feel that the aforesaid issues are beyond the scope and purview of the proceedings before the NGT under Section 14 of the NGT Act which reads as below:-

105. The dispute relating to the non-adherence of the building plans qua the open and green spaces was intrinsically connected and co-related to the ones under adjudication before the High Court. The appellant-Ambience Developers was agitating before the High Court that there was no deviation from the sanctioned layout plan so far as the residential colony is concerned. While deciding the connected appeals, we have found favour with the aforesaid argument raised by the appellant-Ambience Developers. In this view of the matter, we are of the 101 Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters prima facie opinion that the issue of environment was not a substantial question before the NGT thereby justifying its invocation of jurisdiction by the NGT in this matter. Rather, the present matter involved disputed claims of the parties in relation to irregularities in utilisation of the land belonging to the appellant-Ambience Developers in developing the residential colony.

106. In this regard, reference may be made to recent judgment of this Court in Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody26 , wherein this Court held as follows:-

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters individual or group of individuals is affected or likely to be affected by the environmental consequences; or (b) the gravity of damage to the environment or property is substantial; or (c) the damage to public health is broadly measurable. The substantial question would also include the environmental consequences relating to a specific activity or a point source of pollution.

32. In view of the said definition also the Tribunal before exercising the jurisdiction has to satisfy itself that a substantial question pertaining to the violation of or implementation of any specific statutory environmental obligations contained in any of the enactments specified in Schedule I, is involved.

33. Recently in State of M.P. v. Centre for Environment Protection Research & Development [State of M.P. v. Centre for Environment Protection Research & Development, (2020) 9 SCC 781] , this Court held as follows :

34. From the above, it is explicitly clear that every question or dispute raised by an applicant before the Tribunal pertaining to the environment cannot be treated as a substantial question. It has to be a substantial question relating to environment as contemplated in Section 2(1)(m) , and such substantial question must arise out of the implementation of any of the enactment/enactments specified in Schedule I. Though strict law of evidence may not be applicable to the cases filed before the Tribunal, the applicant has to raise the substantial question in his application specifically alleging the violation of a particular enactment specified in Schedule I.” (Emphasis supplied)

107. Viewed in light of the aforesaid precedent, a serious doubt arises as to the jurisdiction of the NGT to entertain the original application.

108. Further, we have already concluded in the foregoing part of the decision in Civil Appeals @ SLP(C) No(s). 11480 of 2020; SLP(C) No(s). 5971 of 2021; SLP(C) No(s). 14797 of 2020; that the issues of violations in raising the constructions stand concluded in favour of the appellants-developers vide order dated 5th August, 2021 passed by the DTCP, which is under challenge before the High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 6047 of 2025.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters V. CONCLUSION

109. Thus, the order passed by the NGT directing the formation of the Joint Expert Committee, deserves to be stayed for the present. Consequently, the report of Joint Expert Committee dated 3rd December, 2020 which recommends the imposition of fine of Rs.138.83 crores, Rs.10.33 crores environmental compensation, withholding 25–50% of profits, and possible demolition of the commercial complex, shall not be acted upon for now.

110. The proceedings before the NGT shall remain in abeyance till disposal of the aforesaid Civil Writ Petition No. 6047 of 2025 before the High Court. Pursuant to the disposal of the said writ petition, it would be open to the parties to seek revival of the proceedings before the NGT which may examine the same upon being strictly satisfied regarding the substantial questions relating to environment as contemplated in Section 2(1)(m) of the NGT Act, 2010, if any, surviving pursuant to disposal of the writ petition.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters

111. The appeals stand disposed of in these terms. No order as to costs.

112. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

….……………………J. (J. B. PARDIWALA) ...…………………….J. (SANDEEP MEHTA) NEW DELHI;

JANUARY 20, 2026.

Civil Appeal @ SLP (C) No(s).11480/2020 & connected matters