The Supreme Court has clarified that the disputed claims of the parties in relation to irregularities in utilisation of the land belonging to the Ambience Developers (appellant) in developing the residential colony, is not essentially related to environmental issue, and hence, does not justify invocation of jurisdiction by the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in such matter.
The Apex Court explained that the jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal under Section 14 of the NGT Act is confined to civil cases involving a “substantial question relating to environment” that arises from the implementation of enactments specified in Schedule I. It does not extend to disputes that are primarily contractual or related to building plan violations, unless a substantial environmental question is intrinsically involved.
The Court said that it cannot grant relief based on allegations of fraud, coercion, or misrepresentation concerning a contract if such grounds are not raised in the foundational pleadings (the writ petition) and are only introduced at a later stage (the rejoinder). Further, parties are bound by the clear and unambiguous terms of a contract they have entered into, and they cannot seek relief contrary to those terms without a successful challenge to the contract itself, especially after a significant lapse of time.
Emphasising that administrative actions, even if their statutory basis is initially questioned, can be validated by subsequent legislation with retrospective effect, and the validity of such actions must be assessed in light of the amended law, the Court concluded that a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution, being a discretionary remedy, should not be entertained in cases of gross and unexplained delay, particularly when the rights of third parties have crystallized in the interim.
A Two-Judge Bench comprising Justice J. B. Pardiwala and Justice Sandeep Mehta observed that the Apartment Buyers’ Agreement, executed in 2001, unequivocally stated that the residential project would be developed on 10.98 acres. The respondents never pleaded in their petition that they were unaware of the agreement’s contents. The plea that they were made to “sign on the dotted line” was raised for the first time in the rejoinder, which the Bench found to be an unconvincing afterthought, especially since the agreement was never challenged for over a decade.
The Bench heavily criticized the High Court for entertaining the writ petition, which was filed in 2015, nearly 8 years after the commercial complex had been constructed and become fully operational, by 2007. This gross and unexplained delay was a material and decisive factor that should have disentitled the writ petitioners to any discretionary relief.
Moving further, the Bench noted that the High Court was swayed by unsubstantiated assertions and proceeded on the erroneous assumption that the residential colony was meant for the entire 18.98 acres, despite the contractual terms and approved layout plan indicating otherwise. The High Court’s finding that no layout plan was submitted was also contrary to the record, as the developer had filed it with their reply.
On the legality of “De-licensing”, the Bench took note of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas (Second Amendment and Validation) Act, 2020, which retrospectively inserted Section 3(3A) into the 1975 Act. This amendment expressly validated the power of the authorities to de-license, thereby providing statutory backing to the impugned action.
Lastly, the Bench found the High Court’s direction for a CBI investigation to be uncalled for, as it was based on unverified and inconclusive material. It also noted that the CBI’s final report found the act of de-licensing to be in accordance with the law, with the only alleged illegality being the concealment of facts in the Apartment Buyers’ Agreement, a matter to be adjudicated by the trial court.
Briefly, in 1991, M/s. HLF Enterprises (P) Limited was incorporated and acquired 22.98 acres of land. On 15th July 1993, the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana (DTCP) granted License to M/s. HLF Ltd. for developing a residential colony on 18.98 acres of this land. Later, in 1994, Raj Singh Gehlot acquired control of HLF Ltd, and the developer decided to develop the residential colony, named ‘Ambience Lagoon Group Housing’, on 10.98 acres in Phase-I, with the layout plan for this area being sanctioned on 24th July 1995.
Later, in July 2000, HLF Ltd. applied to the DTCP to de-license 8 acres from the original 18.98 acres and simultaneously sought a new license to develop a commercial complex on this 8-acre parcel. On 16th/18th October 2001, the DTCP granted a License for a commercial colony on the 8 acres and formally de-licensed this area from the original residential license, thereby reducing the area under License No. 19 of 1993 to 10.98 acres.
Thereafter, on 20th October 2001, the respondents entered into an Apartment Buyers’ Agreement with HLF Ltd., as per which, the ‘Lagoon Residential Apartments Complex’ was planned for development on 10.98 acres out of the total licensed land of 18.98 acres in Phase-I. Construction of the residential complex proceeded, with a part completion certificate issued in January 2002. The commercial complex (Ambience Mall) was also constructed between 2002 and 2007. Later, on 25th March 2009, the developer filed a Deed of Declaration under the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983, for an area of 11.83 acres.
In the meantime, the residents’ association (ALARWA) filed a civil suit in 2010, which was later withdrawn in 2015. The respondents thereafter filed a petition before the High Court in 2015, alleging illegal construction of the commercial complex on land meant for the residential project. The High Court then quashed the de-licensing and commercial license orders and directed a CBI investigation. Separately, proceedings were initiated before the National Green Tribunal (NGT) in 2015 regarding environmental violations, leading to orders for interim compensation and the formation of an expert committee.
Appearances:
AORs Samar Vijay Singh and Preetika Dwivedi, along with Advocates Abhisek Mohanty and Ansh Rajauria, for the Appellant
Solicitor General Tushar Mehta, Senior A.A.G. Lokesh Sinhal, A.S.G. K.M. Nataraj and Aishwarya Bhati, Senior Advocates Shailesh Madiyal and Uttara Babbar, AORs Preetika Dwivedi, Kamini Jaiswal, Niharika Ahluwalia, Samar Vijay Singh, Gurmeet Singh Makker, Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, Piyush Beriwal, N. Visakamurthy, Arvind Kumar Sharma, Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, and Jasmeet Singh, along with Advocates Guneet Singh Sidhu, Ayush Shah, Aakash Deep Singh, Abhisek Mohanty, Ansh Rajauria, Rani Mishra, Aditi Pandey, Kanika Agnihotri, Noopur Singhal, Madhav Sinhal, Sabarni Som, Nikunj Gupta, Aman Dev Sharma, Ishika Gupta, Sarthak Arya, Gaj Singh, Ashta Singh, Anmol Chandan, Sharath Nambiar, Balaji Srinivasan, T.S. Sabarish, Varun Chaug, Shagun Shahi, Meera Chugh, Aisha Singh, Yash Tyagi, Vikash Tyagi, Kartik Sharma, Ali Mohammed Khan, Saurav Kumar, Ruchita Srivastava, Ruchi Kohli, Megha Karanwal, Preeti Rani, Digvijay Dam, Raman Yadav, Sushil Tekriwal, and Dr. Mamta Tekriwal, for the Respondent
