RAMESHWAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS.

p. 754 Copy page pinpoint

64Copy pinpoint64. I.A. No. 110995/2019; I.A. No. 91793/2020 and I.A. No. 113206/ 2020 in M.A. (D) No. 26552/ 2019; I.A. No. 36484-85/ 2020; I.A. No. 36487 and I.A. No. 89570/ 2020 in M.A. (D) No. 7888/ 2020; I.A. No. 49986-87 of 2021; I.A. No. 49990/2021 in M.A. (D) No. 9505/ 2021; I.A. No. 31079-81/2022 in M.A. (D) No. 6705/ 2020 are disposed off in the above terms. B IV. M/s Kalinga Realtors Pvt. Ltd.

65Copy pinpoint65. An application (MA No. 50/2019) was filed by Kalinga Realtors Pvt. Ltd. the first applicant, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the second applicant, Anant Raj Ltd. Both applicants are cumulatively referred to C as “Kalinga”. The claim in this application is for a direction for proper calculation of amounts payable by HSIIDC to Kalinga, in terms of the main judgment. It is a matter of record, that Kalinga sought NOC from DTCP to purchase the land in October 2009. The same was granted in January, 2010 and sale deed executed shortly thereafter on 23.04.2010. ABW and its group of companies had acquired License No. 67 of 2009 D dated 19.11.2009, which was transferred to Kalinga pursuant to the sale deed on 12.07.2010. Thus, Kalinga’s attempt to purchase the land and rights granted by the license clearly fell within the mischief of the main judgment of this Court.

66Copy pinpoint66. Kalinga submits that it furnished all details and particulars, in E support of its claim that it had incurred expenses to the tune of 308 crores14, for the construction of the housing project called “Madelia”. It is submitted that Kalinga expended the amounts and deployed resources for the development of the area and construction of 13 towers, of which 10 are complete and in respect of which claims have been received for F 257 allottees.

67Copy pinpoint67. Learned Senior Advocate, Mr. Sanjiv Sen, urged that this Court had sought information from HSIIDC, which filed replies and further affidavits. Despite these, a clear picture has not been given. Instead of verifying all the invoices and materials, apparently HSIIDC has conducted G a piece meal inquiry. It was pointed out that HSIIDC had admitted that according to its valuation and verification, the cost payable was 11.68 crores; even that has not crystallized into a concrete assurance to pay.

68Copy pinpoint68. Learned counsel pointed to an auction notice, issued by HSIIDC, in respect of Kalinga’s project, inviting prospective bidders to 14 H Detailed at pg. 40 of M.A. No. 50 of 2019.

RAMESHWAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 755 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

submit offers for completion. It was urged that the reserve price, including price for the land (12.45 acres) and the constructed towers (which were described in detail in the auction notice) were grossly undervalued by HSIIDC, which has offered a pittance of 11.68 crores. It was submitted on behalf of Kalinga that HSIIDC should be compelled to revise the valuation, within a time bound manner, and this Court should appoint an arbitrator.

69Copy pinpoint69. Counsel for the State and HSIIDC urged that Kalinga cannot claim a grievance, because it was a direct beneficiary of the transactions during the suspect period. It chose to enter into the field, by entering into transactions with ABW, intending fully to make substantial profits, on account of the depressed cost of land. However, this Court’s main judgment resulted in its land being included in the deemed award - it can be at best entitled to those amounts which it actually expended. It was submitted that HSIIDC was prepared to verify all the bills and invoices, provided they were genuine and arrive at the amounts payable. Counsel also submitted that in the event of a dispute, HSIIDC was prepared to submit the dispute to arbitration.

70Copy pinpoint70. From the above discussion, it is evident that Kalinga’s grievance is regarding the amounts it claims it is entitled to. The gap between its claim ( 308 crore) and what HSIIDC offered at one time ( 11.68 crores) is too excessive. The materials placed on record show that E HSIIDC in fact, did put up the entire land, with the construction for auction 15 on an ‘as is where is’ basis. The date of e-auction was 21.09.2021, with a reserve price of 309 crores. The advertisement also states that 12 towers were constructed with finishing remaining; other works (EWS, community centre, etc.) were yet to be constructed. The advertisement further states that the successful bidder was to step into Kalinga’s shoes and complete the project.

71Copy pinpoint71. It is apparent to this Court from the materials on record that the initial valuation of 11.68 crores made by HSIIDC is inaccurate, particularly in view of the reserve price indicated by it in the auction notice. However, in view of the final order proposed, no final opinion or finding is recorded.

72Copy pinpoint72. It is directed that HSIIDC shall complete verification of all the relevant documents furnished by Kalinga. Any additional documents 15 In its portal HTTPS://HSIIDC.BIDX.IN. H

p. 756 Copy page pinpoint

A or invoices, or relevant materials which Kalinga may wish to rely upon, shall be furnished to HSIIDC within two weeks. Thereafter, HSIIDC shall conduct verification, and based upon that exercise, and relevant inquiries (for which it may seek such assistance of Kalinga as is necessary) indicate the final valuation within six months from the date of this judgment. The amount in furtherance of that valuation shall be B released, within three months of completion of verification. In case Kalinga disputes the figure, it is open to it to firstly accept the amount offered, on a without prejudice basis, and secondly, indicate its unwillingness to accept that offer towards final settlement. In such event, Kalinga and HSIIDC shall jointly submit the dispute to arbitration, to a C mutually agreed person. In the event no agreement is possible, the arbitration shall be referred to the Delhi International Arbitration Centre (hereinafter, “DIAC”). The Chairman of the DIAC shall then nominate an arbitrator, who shall enter upon reference. It would be advisable, in such event, that the arbitrator also seeks the assistance of a technical person, versed in verification of construction related documents, as an expert. The fee for the arbitration shall be borne equally by the parties; the proceedings shall be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

73Copy pinpoint73. Some flat owners, who had booked units in the project have applied for appropriate directions to HSIIDC, to refund the amounts deposited by them. HSIIDC shall complete the verification of documents, in relation to all those who claim refund as allottees of Kalinga, within six months. Such allottees or flat owners, (who have not obtained possession) shall be disbursed the amounts they are entitled to within six months thereafter.

74Copy pinpoint74. In the event of any dispute, with respect to the entitlement or amounts payable, it is open to the concerned allottee or flat buyer to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in law, i.e., by filing civil suit, or complaints under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. It is clarified that no proceeding, application or contempt petition in this regard, will be G entertained by this court.

75Copy pinpoint75. I.A. No. 46028/2020; IA No. 59743/2020; I.A. No. 118798/ 2020; IA No. 103292/2020 and I.A. No. 137407/2019 in M.A. No. 50/ 2019; I.A. No. 30807/2020; I.A. No. 3403/2020; I.A. No. 3406/2020; and I.A. No. 191983/2019 in M.A. (D) No. 45009/2019; I.A. No. 192027/ H 2019 in M.A. (D) No. 45026/2019; Contempt Petition No. 716/2021 and

RAMESHWAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 757 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

Contempt Petition (D) No. 21733/2021 are disposed off in terms of the A above directions. V. ABW Infrastructure Ltd.

76Copy pinpoint76. ABW was earlier known as M/s. Aditya Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. ABW and its associated companies had purchased maximum land measuring over 235 acres. ‘ABW Aditya Niketen’ was floated by ABW B in M-I, M-I(A) and M-I(C) adjoining HSIIDC Residential Sector-1, Manesar, Gurgaon, Haryana. That project was the subject matter of the proceedings throughout culminating in the main judgment of this Court.

77Copy pinpoint77. From 2009 onwards, 1993 allottees booked their flats, built floors, plots shops, commercial space as the case was, with ABW. In C ABW Aditya Niketan and City Centre,a residential plotted colony, on 104.912 acres of land with 236 plots, 1488 of floors/flats and 269 shops and commercial places, was to be developed and constructed, pursuant to License No. 66 of 2009 dated 09.11.2009 issued by DTCP.

78Copy pinpoint78. The ABW Manesar Allottee Welfare Society, 118-C, Sector D 30, Gurgaon, Haryana (hereinafter, “Society”) was registered on 21.09.2012. The Society has filed on behalf of its member allottees, several applications, seeking directions. It has filed charts, and proof of payment, by way of copy of receipts issued by ABW, to substantiate its claim of genuine allottees being its members. The Society has sought impleadment before the High Court, in the original proceedings, out of which the main judgment culminated, in this Court. The society was also impleaded during proceedings in this Court.

79Copy pinpoint79. The Society claims that in adherence to the directions contained in para 42.8 of this Court’s main judgement, the allottees preferred their claims and submitted all required information to HSIIDC primarily indicating description of the plot/unit, exact measurement of the area, purchase price and the total payment made to ABW including (a) basic sale price, (b) External and Internal Development Charges, (c) service tax, etc. Along with the claim form, the necessary documents were also enclosed, namely, provisional allotment letter, payment receipts, ID proof and address proof. An attested affidavit duly supporting the contents of the claim was also submitted.

80Copy pinpoint80. The Society claims that as there was no indication of compliance with the direction contained in para 42.8 of the main judgment, on 07.01.2019 it filed an application under the Right to Information Act, H

p. 758 Copy page pinpoint

A 2007. The HSIIDC responded by its reply dated 24.01.2019 stating that claims of 220 plot buyers, 1270 flat/floor buyers and 157 commercial shop buyers had already been received by it. The Society claims it has regularly and continuously impressed upon HSIIDC as to the delay in adherence and compliance of the judgement, but with no effect. The Society’s grievance is that despite diligence by its members, HSIIDC B failed to verify their claims within a period of two months and after deep slumber of nine months, it moved an application (M.A. No.50 of 2019) for three months extension of time and this Court’s order dated 18.01.2019 granted extension up to 22.04.2019.

81Copy pinpoint81. It was submitted that even in the extended period the necessary C compliance was not made and once again I.A. No.68542 of 2019 (in M.A. 864 of 2019) was moved by HSIIDC for yet another extension. It was therefore submitted that although a comprehensive direction was passed by this Court specifically in favour of the innocent allottees, HSIIDC’s inaction has resulted in nothing even after a lapse of 15 months. D The Society had moved a contempt proceeding, Contempt Petition No.2226 of 2018 against HSIIDC as well. The Society is therefore seeking urgent directions, to HSIIDC for completion of its responsibilities.

82Copy pinpoint82. It was further urged that given that HSIIDC has demonstrably failed in complying with the terms of this judgment, it would be in the interest of all allottees that the land is handed over on an ‘as is where is basis’ to the respective buyers of plots, flats or commercial units and a direction issued consequently to HSIIDC to execute conveyance deeds. It is submitted that the Society and the buyers themselves will undertake the work of completing the project having regard to the fact that necessary approvals were granted in terms of License No.66 of 2009; the zoning plans have been approved and furthermore clearance was granted by the concerned Forest and Environment Departments. In addition, to facilitate development, previous deposits of EDC of 29.99 crores and IDC of 14.08 crores was paid long back by the developer, i.e., ABW.. No doubt, the project land stands transferred to HSIIDC. Further, it was submitted that this circumstance is not an impediment to permit the allottees joined together through the Society and to complete the project.

83Copy pinpoint83. On behalf of the State and HSIIDC, it was urged that the process of verification has been delayed. It was further urged that of the total licensed land measuring 104.682 acres, an extent of 2.306 acres were acquired for Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran through an award

RAMESHWAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 759 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

dated 27.12.2016. Furthermore, a sum of 8.31 crores was paid over to the erstwhile owner ABW. It was further submitted that the records indicate total compensation paid to ABW for the land which vested in the State under the deemed award was 12.51 crores, of which 3.32 crores has been paid by the LAC, with 9.91 crores still pending.

84Copy pinpoint84. It was further argued that there has been no development on the land; that no structure or construction or development was undertaken by ABW as on date. A total of 1995 units were contemplated under the scheme - included 453 plots and 221 commercial units. Furthermore, it was submitted -during the hearings before this Court- that a total of 270 claims for refund had been made. In view of the fact that it was submitted on affidavit by HSIIDC dated 12.04.2022 that it had decided to settle C 270 claims on pro rata basis for 20.486 crores. Other claims on the lands of ABW measuring 104.282 acres, including buyers’ claims working out to 128.38 crores and third-party claims working out to 172.15 crores. M/s. Alchemist claimed 33.99 crores as an investor, for the credit facility provided to ABW and its associates, which was rejected. D Likewise, the claim of 1.28 crores to the land given to ABW and its group companies too was rejected. After the hearings were concluded, the HSIIDC filed an affidavit indicating that the figures indicated have now undergone a change, because more refund claims were received, driving upwards the total amounts needed to be refunded. E

85Copy pinpoint85. After obtaining instructions, learned counsel appearing for HSIIDC submitted that since there has been no development or construction, the question of granting any compensation in respect of ABW’s allottees would not arise. Therefore, the HSIIDC would refund all unverified claims on pro rata basis to the allottees and those who had applied under the scheme together with 6% interest per annum from the date of this Court’s judgment.

86Copy pinpoint86. As found in the main judgment as well as the previous part of this judgment, ABW was one of the prime movers behind the entire subversion and abuse of the state machinery for acquisition of farmer’s lands. ABW obtained licenses for 104.682 acres and floated schemes for plots with two-three storied structures and residential as well as commercial units. Despite the fact that licenses were granted way back, even as on the date of the judgment of this Court (and even now), no development has taken place. All that was asserted on behalf of the Society was that IDC and EDC amounts were paid. HSIIDC’s stand is H

p. 760 Copy page pinpoint

A that these charges are in fact in arrears. Having regard to the totality of circumstances, this court is of the opinion that the claim by the Society that the lands be made over to it or the residents on an ‘as is where is’ basis for development by them is untenable.

87Copy pinpoint87. The main judgment expressly stated that it is only in cases where construction is completed or nearing completion that the interests of third party allottees were protected. However, such is not the situation in the case of 104.682 acres of land that belonged to ABW. There is no denial that such lands have now been vested in HSIIDC as a consequence of the main judgment of this Court and are to be included as part of the deemed award. It is apparent that the when the Court delivered the main judgment, it was unaware of the true nature of acts in relation to each project, especially in relation to ABW, i.e., that no development had taken place and that allottees had merely paid certain instalments to the colonizer / developer. Furthermore, the materials on record disclose that a large number of claims have been made for refund. Having regard to these facts and being aware of the practical reality that were HSIIDC mandated to now proceed with the project, it would not be reasonable to expect completion of such project in the foreseeable future, at least for the next 5-7 years, it would be in the fitness of things that HSIIDC refunds the amounts payable to the allottees of the entire project, i.e., allottees of residential units/plots and commercial or shop space. HSIIDC E shall take up this process as expeditiously as possible and facilitate the verification and payment of these amounts at the earliest, so that the process is completed within the next twelve months from the date of this judgment. In case, the HSIIDC is unable to refund the amounts, by that date, the sums shall carry interest at 6% p.a.

88Copy pinpoint88. I.A. No. 102358/2019; I.A. No. 189667/2019; I.A. No. 83251/ 2020; I.A. No. 62216/2020 in M.A. (D) No. 24553/2019; I.A. No. 42263/ 2022 and I.A. No. 49262/2022 in M.A. (D) No. 9002/2022; I.A. No. 76605/2020 and I.A. No. 76602/2020 in M.A. No. 1521/2020; I.A. No. 75955/2020 in Contempt Petition No. 513/2020; Contempt Petition No. G 2226/2018; and Contempt Petition No. 716/2021 are disposed off in terms of the above directions. VI. Speed Town Planners Pvt. Ltd.

89Copy pinpoint89. Eleven applications were preferred in relation to lands that were inter alia, subject of license No. 175 of 2008 dated 30.09.2008 H

RAMESHWAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 761 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

pertaining to 2.443 acres of land in village Naurangpur acquired by Girnar A Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter “Girnar”) and License No. 76 in favour of one Navin Rao to the extent of 11.519 acres). Girnar was a wholly owned subsidiary of Unitech, and Navin Rao too was an affiliate of Unitech. Applications were preferred by Unitech, and one Speed Town Planners Pvt. Ltd. (hereafter “Speed Town”) which claimed to be entitled B to rights to 19.56 acres.

90Copy pinpoint90. In 2008, Girnar obtained license No. 175 of 2008 dated 30.09.2008 for developing a commercial colony on 2.443 acres out of the 19.56 acres of land. The license was granted by DTCP. Out of the 2.443 acres, an area of 1.5125 acres was notified under Section 4 of Acquisition Act, on 07.08.2013 and under Section 6 on 31.07.2013. Finally, C 1.5125 acres of land was acquired under Award No. 13 dated 29.07.2016, for development and utilization of sectors roads (Sector 75 to 80) at Gurugram. Unitech urges that the acquisition of 1.5125 acres rendered the balance area of 0.93 acres to be commercially non-viable for any construction/development thereon as it was not be possible to consume D the entire permissible FAR of 2.443 acres on the residual parcel of land. It is contended that an agreement to sell was executed on 14.03.2016 between Girnar as vendor and Speed Town as vendee for the sale of a portion of land admeasuring 9.69 acres, out of balance 17.116 (19.56 - 2.443 = 17.116 acres) at the rate of 4.40 crores per acre, for a total sale consideration of 42.636 crores. Of that consideration, a sum of E 33.21 crores was received by Girnar from Speed Town for sale of 9.69 acres from 13.01.2016 to 18.06.2016 while an amount of 9.426 crores ( 42.636 - 33.21 = 9.426) is outstanding in the books of accounts.

91Copy pinpoint91. In terms of the agreement, Speed Town was obliged to clear the balance outstanding amount of 9.426 crores upon submission of F the sale deed for registration.

92Copy pinpoint92. Applications are preferred by Unitech and Speed Town. Speed Town claims to have entered into collaboration agreement with Girnar, on 12.02.2016. Subsequently, the agreement to sell was entered into by the parties, and the sum of 33.21 crores was paid to Girnar. Speed G Town seeks directions that the lands in respect of which it entered into collaboration agreement (9.69 acres) ought to be released from the deemed award directions of this Court in its main judgment. In the alternative, it claims for a direction that Girnar should refund amounts paid by it. H

p. 762 Copy page pinpoint

93Copy pinpoint93. During the hearing, Mr. Joydeep Gupta, learned Senior Advocate contended that Speed Town was a bona fide purchaser which had first entered into collaboration agreement with Girnar, and later entered into agreement to sell. It was urged that Girnar’s holding company Unitech was under a cloud and its management has been replaced by virtue of orders of this Court. B

94Copy pinpoint94. It was urged that on the basis of the main judgement, the physical possession of Girnar’s entire land parcels, measuring 19.56 acres, (comprising of 2.443 acres of licensed and 17.117 acres of unlicensed land), was taken over by HSIIDC in furtherance of District Revenue Officer-cum-Land Acquisition Collector’s letter No. 382/LAC dated C 06.07.2018 and correspondingly reflected in the revenue records.

95Copy pinpoint95. Apparently, Speed Town sent a notice dated 24.04.2018 to Girnar to refund the amount of 33.21 crores for the land along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum from the date of payment till the date of actual refund. Speed Town invoked the arbitration clause, and D submitted the dispute for arbitration. This culminated in an award in its favour.

96Copy pinpoint96. It is argued that the site inspection carried out by Unitech’s land division on 15.03.2021 noted that barring the licensed land of 2.443 acres and 2.08 acres (out of the total unlicensed land parcel of 17.117 E acres), the residual land was under unauthorized cultivation since November 2020.

97Copy pinpoint97. The applicants seek directions for exclusion of the lands from the deemed award, urging that they were not purchased from any farmers but rather from one Angelique International Ltd. (hereinafter, F “Angelique”), a public limited company, through a registered sale deed executed on 23.08.2007. The main judgment was based on the premise that the land sellers were the farmers whose only source of income was agriculture. The entire tenor of the main judgement was therefore farmer- centric. In the case of Girnar, the position is entirely different since the land was purchased from a public limited company which was incorporated on 03.01.1996. It was submitted that the original owner, Angelique was a project engineering and construction company and the other assumptions based on which this Court delivered the main judgment, were inapplicable to it. Furthermore, the land parcels purchased by Angelique were mutated in the name of Girnar on 06.06.2006 and 23.08.2007 and, therefore, their ownership is prior to the dates of mutation. Hence, the seller company

RAMESHWAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 763 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

was not in the business of buying and selling land only for minting quick money by duping innocent farmers.

98Copy pinpoint98. It was argued that Girnar acquired ownership of 19.56 acres from Angelique by registered sale deed dated 23.08.2007 whereas the cut-off date fixed by this Court was 24.08.2007 till 29.01.2010, meaning thereby that all land transactions of sale and purchase during the pendency of acquisition proceedings from 24.08.2007 till 29.01.2010 were cancelled by the main judgment.

99Copy pinpoint99. On behalf of the HSIIDC and the State, it was urged that neither Unitech, nor Speed Town, were entitled to any relief. It was highlighted that the acquisition of the land from Angelique, during the suspect period, was expressly noticed by this court. The sale deed, in the present case, was executed just before the scheduled pronouncement of the award. Furthermore, during the pendency of proceedings, Girnar transferred its development rights to Speed Town, which chose to acquire it, and did so at its own peril. Speed Town later entered into agreement to sell. However, at the root of all these transactions, was the transfer of ownership during the suspect period, i.e., after issuance of the notification under Section 4. Counsel drew the notice of this Court to paras 34.2 and 35 of the main judgment which clarified the issue beyond any doubt.

100Copy pinpoint100. This Court’s main judgment, has noted in more than one place, from paras 26.1 to 26.9, and traced the sequence of events which led to the notification of 912 acres for acquisition, the resultant panic and scramble on the part of landowners to get rid of their holdings, the purchase of these lands, and in many places, their entering into agreements of sale or development agreements, by builders, which made no mention of the impending acquisition, leading to a demand to drop acquisition, which was ultimately done at two points of time, i.e. 24.08.2007 and 29.01.2010. F The transactions relating to lands owned by Girnar, and Unitech’s associates, squarely fall within the suspect period. In these given circumstances, Unitech’s plea, or that of Speed Town, that the collaboration agreement with the latter- and the agreement to sell, - were executed after the suspect period, are untenable. The taint that G attaches with the initial transaction (i.e., Girnar acquiring the lands during the acquisition process) attaches equally, to Speed Town’s transaction, because the entire premise, which persuaded the vendor to sell the lands, was that the acquisition proceedings would go through, divesting their title. However, the vendee and its holding company appeared to have full knowledge of the nature of future events, in which they probably H

p. 764 Copy page pinpoint

A had a hand. Thus, the request for exclusion of these lands, from the deemed award, is untenable and is accordingly rejected. Speed Town shall be entitled to the compensation to be decided, in respect of the land, on the same basis as in the case of all others entitled to it.

101Copy pinpoint101. I.A. No. 128802-03/2020; I.A. No. 128807/2020 and I.A. B No. 53868/2022 in M.A. No. 2228/2020; I.A. No. 31185/2021; I.A. No. 31180/2021; I.A. No. 31182/2021; I.A. Nos. 128798-99/2021; and I.A. No. 128801/2021 in MA (D) No. 5699/2021 are disposed off in the above terms. VII. Innovative Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. C a. Legend Height Owners Welfare Association

102Copy pinpoint102. 3.35 acres of agricultural land in Naurangpur was purchased by two individuals, i.e., Shri Ashok Kumar Lakhotia and Shri Subhash Chand Goyal by sale deeds dated 26.02.2004 and 08.03.2004. It was claimed that these two also obtained possession. The lands became the subject matter of acquisition in the notification under Section 4. The D original owners sought for release of land and thereafter objected under Section 5A of the Acquisition Act. Some lands were released from acquisition, however, the major portion was included in the declaration under Section 6. Request for release of these lands for acquisition was made. This was followed up by an order dated 31.07.2007 releasing the land from acquisition. M/s. Innovative Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter, “Innovative”) thereafter entered the scene on 15.10.2007. Subsequently, they sought for and were granted license to develop the lands on 20.06.2008 (License No. 128 of 2008). Apparently, meanwhile on 19.12.2007, Innovative purchased the two parcels of lands. Innovative claims that pursuant to the license granted by DTCP, it developed the land and constructed commercial tower.

103Copy pinpoint103. After the main judgment was delivered, the state while ensuring the publication of the deemed award also included the lands which were the subject matter of License No. 128 of 2008. Aggrieved, Innovative approached the Punjab and Haryana High Court in writ proceedings.16 The writ petition however was rejected by the High Court by an order which has been impugned in the present case by special leave.17 16 M/s Innovative Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. v State of Haryana, W.P. (C) No. 18336 of 2020 (dismissed on 03.11.2020). 17 M/s Innovative Infradevelopers Pvt. Ltd. v State of Haryana, SLP (C) No. 2147 of H 2021.

RAMESHWAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 765 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

104Copy pinpoint104. The construction put up by Innovative is a commercial building A known as “Legend Heights”. Several individuals and entities claimed to have purchased spaces within it. They have approached this Court by filing an application - i.e., the Legend Height Owners Welfare Association (hereinafter, “Legend Heights Association”). It claims to represent 35 individuals who allegedly paid substantial amount ranging between 13 B lakhs and 65 lakhs. The details of the application filed by Legend Heights Association list the amounts paid to Innovative and also describes the units allotted in the building to the individuals. b. Paramveer Distributors Pvt. Ltd.

105Copy pinpoint105. Another set of applications has been preferred by Paramveer C Distributors Pvt. Ltd., (hereinafter, “Paramveer”) a non-banking financial institution. It alleges having entered into an agreement with Innovative on 08.06.2017, whereby an area measuring 96,216.03 sq. ft. was agreed to be purchased by it for a total consideration of 16 crores. The areas sold was for a hotel block. The relevant condition stipulated that out of 16 crores payable by the buyer, 8.05 crores, by way of outstanding D dues of one Ms. Saraswati Devi was agreed to be adjusted. Another sum of 4.24 crores by way of outstanding dues of Paramveer, was agreed to be adjusted. The balance amount was to be paid in the ratio of 55:45 respectively.

106Copy pinpoint106. Paramveer therefore contends that it is entitled to the built- E up space in respect of the hotel block constructed by Innovative. c. Analysis of VII (a) and (b)

107Copy pinpoint107. HSIIDC in its response to the special leave petition and the applications (by Legend Heights Association and Paramveer) submits that no construction has been undertaken with respect to the hotel block. It is argued that this Court should not take cognizance of submissions on behalf of Paramveer since no credible material has been placed on record to establish the genuineness of the transactions claimed by it. As far as the commercial complex of Legend Heights is concerned, HSIIDC points out that since the land transactions for sale of lands, as well as the license in respect of these lands, was issued during the suspect period, it has to be included in the deemed award.

108Copy pinpoint108. From the factual narrative it is evident that the original owners of lands themselves purchased the lands in early February 2004. This Court cannot per se attribute the foreknowledge about the acquisition. H

p. 766 Copy page pinpoint

A However, their subsequent conduct in seeking for denotification which led to the ultimate withdrawal from acquisition of those lands (even though they were included in the notification under Section 6) is an established fact. Innovative concededly entered into transactions for purchase of lands in 2007 and applied and obtained the requisite license in 2008.

109Copy pinpoint109. At the same time, this Court is cognizant of the fact that a number of allottees appear to have invested substantial amounts (in respect of the commercial building of Legend Heights, and not the hotel building of Paramveer). Although HSIIDC is silent as to whether the occupation certificates have been granted, there is some material on record (by way of averments in the special leave petition as well as in the application by the Legend Heights Association) that several sale deeds/conveyance were executed and registered.

110Copy pinpoint110. The larger interest of justice would lie in ensuring that such of the allottees who are either granted occupation, and /or in whose favour conveyance has been executed, should be handed over the commercial units that they had originally booked. As far as others are concerned, HSIIDC should first verify the claims of all persons/entities who claim to have paid substantial amounts and have not been allotted their spaces, and shall, depending on the stage and nature of construction and the extent of amount paid (it is more than 75 per cent of the total consideration) hand over possession of the units, after due completion.

111Copy pinpoint111. In case any allottee seeks refund, HSIIDC should ensure that the amounts are duly verified and repaid within six months of the date of this judgment. In the case of default, HSIIDC shall pay 6% per annum as interest. In respect of all unallotted units and areas which can be constructed upon, title shall vest exclusively with HSIIDC.

112Copy pinpoint112. So far as Paramveer is concerned, this Court is of the opinion that the agreement entered into with Innovative records that certain amounts (over 12 crores) were due and payable to the allottees, which was subsequently adjusted in the builder buyer agreement for the hotel. The details of those transactions have nowhere been verified or placed on record. In addition, Innovative has stated that construction of the hotel block has not taken place. In the circumstances, all rights, title and interest in those portions of Innovatives’ properties shall vest in HSIIDC and be part of the deemed award.

113Copy pinpoint113. Needless to add, Innovative shall be entitled to amounts like in the case of all other developers/owners in accordance with the main judgment. HSIIDC shall verify its claims. In the event of any dispute in

RAMESHWAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 767 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

this regard, Innovative is at liberty to press its claim in substantiative legal proceedings and not their miscellaneous applications before this court. I.A. No. 41690/2021 in M.A. (D) No. 7775 of 2021; I.A. No. 84064-67/2020; I.A. No. 91091/2020; I.A. No. 84067 of 2020 in M.A. No. 50/2019 and SLP No. 2147 of 2021 are disposed off in the above terms. B VIII. Dharamvir & Ors.

114Copy pinpoint114. 105 individuals approached the Punjab & Haryana High Court, through a common writ petition, claiming directions that they were residents of village Manesar.18 The claim put forth by them was that they were bona fide and innocent purchasers who had acquired the lands which were included in the notification under Section 4. They C acquired rights in respect of lands – presently under their occupation during the suspect period, i.e., between 27.08.2004 and 29.01.2010. It is alleged that assuming the transactions to be free from any cloud on the title, these petitioners had even proceeded to construct upon lands. The claim made to the Punjab & Haryana High Court was that their lands should be excluded from the deemed award. The High Court declined the claim, reasoning that the purchases were made by them during the suspect period and this court’s judgment provided relief only to the original land owners who had not transferred, alienated or in any manner sold or parted with rights in respect of the land. Since these petitioners admittedly claimed to have purchased the land when they were facing acquisition, no relief could be granted to them. It was argued on behalf of these petitioners by Mr. Rathi that all the petitioners invested their hard-earned money and had built houses in which they have been living all this while. It was urged that many of those dwellers are ex-army personnel.

115Copy pinpoint115. During the course of hearing, HSIIDC submitted that the land occupied by such individuals are to the extent of 27 acres. HSIIDC expressed practical difficulties in verifying the transactions claimed to be bona fide. It was pointed out that these petitioners proceeded to complete the alleged transactions even though the lands were facing imminent acquisition. This court has granted relief only to those land owners who were coerced into selling lands to developers. Such G developers used the acquisition proceedings to make profit and ultimately ensure that the acquisitions were dropped. These individuals, however, ran the risk of acquisition being completed.

18 Dharamvir v State of Haryana, SLP (C) No. 5490 of 2021. H

p. 768 Copy page pinpoint

116Copy pinpoint116. The entire tenor and reasoning of the main judgment is that proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act were used as device, whereby through a web of holding or shell companies, developers ultimately entered into transactions and paid valuable amounts towards developmental rights – during pendency of acquisition proceedings. Those rights in turn were exploited to persuade the state machinery to withdraw from the acquisition. The prices of land had risen astronomically by then. Taking all these facts into consideration, as well as the fact that developers had proceeded to develop properties and construct buildings in which units were sold or allotted, this Court allowed only one kind of exception, i.e., that bona fide purchasers of such units, flats or shops etc. to be vested with title. In respect of all unallotted, unconstructed land as well as buildings and land forming part of each of such project, title was to vest in HSIIDC.

117Copy pinpoint117. Wherever development agreements were entered into and licenses issued, and no activity took place in the form of construction or development, land was to vest in HSIIDC. If the above thread of reasoning were to be considered, it is apparent that third-party bona fide purchasers who secured allotment by paying valuable considerations which is verifiable as a matter of fact (by independent material) was protected. In the case of all other transactions, however, such protection was not extended for the simple reason that there is no manner for verifying whether in fact a bona fide transaction of the kind alleged took place. For these reasons, this Court is of the opinion that there is no infirmity with the judgment and order of the Punjab and Haryana High Court.

118Copy pinpoint118. As a result of the above, the right and title in respect of lands under occupation of these petitioners is vested with HSIIDC. It is up to the HSIIDC to frame such scheme as is permissible in accordance with its parent enactment and a non-discriminatory manner by a scheme, in regard to such land (i.e. the 27 acres to which the petitioners and others like them may claim relief) as it may deem appropriate. In case the G HSIIDC chooses to do so, it shall be bound by all provisions of the Master Plan and Zoning and such other rules and regulations as are applicable, in the area and shall strictly enforce them. IX. Other issues

119Copy pinpoint119. During the hearing, it was submitted that out of the 688 acres finally notified under Section 6, 420 acres were finally included as part

RAMESHWAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 769 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

of the deemed award. Learned counsel urged that HSIIDC has sought to grant benefit to developers who made colossal profits and have sought to wriggle out from the impact of the judgment to various stratagem, including by filing applications for extension/clarification etc. During the course of hearing, all these applications, the submissions of all parties and that of HSIIDC (which has also preferred this application for directions and clarifications) were considered. Out of the 912 acres originally notified under Section 4 of the deemed consideration of objections under Section 5A, 688 acres were apparently notified under Section 6. The entire acquisition was abandoned on 29.01.2010. This Court, in its main judgment has, in many places - held, in the that the state’s decision to not to go ahead with the acquisition was mala fide and amounting to a fraud under the Acquisition Act. The HSIIDC through its applications sought clarifications about whether the term ‘transfer’, includes only conveyance or formal transfer of lands or would it include parting with valuable developmental rights. In an earlier portion of this judgment, this aspect has been elaborately dealt with, and concluded that the expression ‘transfer’ has to be interpreted widely and not in a narrow or technical manner. Thus, in all cases where collaboration agreements were entered into or developmental rights were parted for valuable consideration or where licenses were applied for during the suspect period whether in favor of the original land owner who might have entered into collaboration agreement and received monies, the transactions would fall within the mischief of transfer. Having regard to these conclusions, the applicants’ apprehensions are unfounded.

120Copy pinpoint120. As far as other steps with respect to acquisition are concerned, during the course of hearing, the Court was told that in respect of 365 acres of land, 185 references have been received. The State shall ensure that these are answered as expeditiously as possible the concerned reference courts are hereby directed to conclude all the proceedings in 185 references and pronounce the award in accordance with law within a period of one year from the date of this judgment. All rights and contentions of the parties are kept open. I.A. No. 118408/2020; I.A. No. 118410/2020 and I.A. No. 126826/2020 in M.A. No. 2149/2020 are disposed off in the above terms. The applications on behalf of the State and HSIIDC (I.A. 2254/2019 and I.A. 100745/2020 in M.A. No. 50/ 2019; and I.A. 93822/2019 in M.A. No. 1175/2019) are also accordingly disposed off. H

p. 770 Copy page pinpoint

A Conclusions and Directions:

121Copy pinpoint121. In the light of the above discussion, this Court’s findings are summarized as follows: a. The expression ‘transfer’ used in the main judgment, especially in light of para 42.6, is not confined to sale, lease or other encumbrance. It includes development and/or collaboration agreements, as well as licenses issued (for development) during the suspect period, whether or not in favour of the developer. b. As a corollary to the above, the lands covered by licenses issued to Paradise (ultimately transferred to Green Heights); Karma (for which collaboration was entered into with Unitech); Ram Pyari, Balbir Singh, Earl and Frontier (ultimately used by Godrej); ExpressGreens (DLF); Kalinga and Innovative amount to transfer. c. With respect to Green Heights, a sum of 5 crores per acre is payable by Green Heights to HSIIDC. Therefore, the final amount payable is 2.681 acres x 5 crores = 13,40,50,000 /- (rupees thirteen crores, forty lakhs, and fifty thousand only) within six months from the date of this judgment, failing which interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be levied from the date of default. Green Heights is entitled to recover from Paradise such proportionate sums it may be entitled to claim having regard to the terms of their agreement. d. With respect to Godrej, a sum of 5 crores per acre is payable by Godrej to HSIIDC. Therefore, final amount payable is 13.743 acres x 5 crores = 67,36,30,000 /- (rupees sixty-seven crores, thirty-six lakhs and thirty thousand only) within six months from the date of this judgment, failing which interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be levied from the date of default. Godrej is entitled to claim such proportionate sums as it may be entitled to in terms of its agreement with Frontier, Earl, Balbir Singh and Ram Pyari in accordance with law. e. Upon full compliance with directions above, the lands covered by Green Heights and Godrej’s projects shall be excluded from the deemed award.

RAMESHWAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 771 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

f. With respect to Karma, the 25.95 acres of land subject of A License No. 206 of 2008 forms part of the deemed award. The State shall take appropriate steps and issue the supplementary award in respect of these lands within six months from the date of this judgment. Karma is entitled to compensation in accordance with the Acquisition Act as on B the date of the notification under Section 4, and is entitled to statutory benefits such as interest, solatium etc. on such determined compensation. g. Lands measuring 2.9875 acres and 10.881 acres respectively belonging to R.P. Estates and Subros, are excluded from the deemed award. C

h. With respect to Express Greens (DLF), contentions to exclude the project from the deemed award are rejected. It is directed that: (i) HSIIDC shall complete the process of validating the title of allottees, including the title to the undivided and proportionate land share, within six months from the date of this judgment; (ii) HSIIDC shall notify the balance allottees about the execution of sale deed - the process of execution and registration of sale deed to be completed within six months from the date of this judgment.HSIIDC shall ensure that a designated nodal officer is deployed to scrutinize the relevant documents and facilitate the execution of such sale deeds; and F (iii) All rights, title and interest in respect of the unsold 39 townhouses in the independent floors vests with the HSIIDC, which shall deal with them in accordance with its policies and applicable laws. Likewise, in case of unsold apartments, all rights, title and interest shall vest with HSIIDC. G (iv) With respect to 96 apartments on the 15th tower which have been completed but no occupation certificate has yet been issued, the DTCP shall ensure due inspection and decision on the pending occupation H

p. 772 Copy page pinpoint

A certificates. HSIIDC to complete any deficiency that has to be rectified. (v) With respect to club houses and boundary wall in sector M-1 and M-1(A), the HSIIDC is directed to take up work immediately and complete the same B with eighteen months from the date of this judgment. (vi) All unconstructed and unallotted portions as well as construction rights (such as FAR) in respect of unconstructed, unallotted plots etc., including two school sites, shall vest absolutely with HSIIDC. C HSIIDC is entitled to develop these areas in accordance with its policies within the frame work of the applicable Master Plan development laws. DLF is entitled to collect amounts, if any, in terms of the main judgment of this Court. It shall hand over all records relating to the allottees, and technical data, pertaining to the entire project to HSIIDC within one month from the date of this judgment. i. With respect to Kalinga, it is directed that (i) HSIIDC shall complete verification of all the relevant documents furnished by Kalinga. Any additional documents or invoices, or relevant materials which Kalinga may wish to rely upon, shall be furnished to HSIIDC within two weeks. Thereafter, HSIIDC shall conduct verification, and based upon that exercise, and relevant inquiries (for which it may seek such assistance of Kalinga as is necessary) indicate the final valuation within six months from the date of this judgment. The amount in furtherance of that valuation shall be released, within three months of completion of verification. G (ii) HSIIDC shall complete the verification of documents, in relation to all those who claim refund as allottees of Kalinga, within six months. Such allottees or flat owners, (who have not obtained possession) shall be disbursed the amounts they are entitled to within six months thereafter. H

RAMESHWAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 773 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

(iii) In the event of any dispute, with respect to the entitlement or amounts payable, it is open to the concerned allottee or flat buyer to take recourse to appropriate proceedings in law, i.e., by filing civil suit, or complaints under the Consumer Protection Act,

1986. It is clarified that no proceeding, application or contempt petition in this regard, will be entertained by this Court. j. With respect to ABW, it is directed that HSIIDC to refund the amounts payable to the allottees of the entire project, i.e., allottees of residential units/plots and commercial or shop space, within the next twelve months from the date of this judgment, failing which interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be levied from date of default. The lands of ABW shall form part of the deemed award. k. With respect to Speed Town, the contentions to exclude the land from the deemed award are rejected. It is held that Speed Town shall be entitled to the compensation to be decided, in respect of the land, on the same basis as in the case of all others entitled to it. l. With respect Paramveer, the contentions to exclude the hotel block from the deemed award are rejected. All rights, title and interest in those portions of Innovative’s properties shall vest in HSIIDC and be part of the deemed award.Innovative shall be entitled to amounts like in the case of all other developers/owners in accordance with the main judgment. HSIIDC shall verify its claims. In the event of any dispute in this regard, Innovative is at liberty to press its claim in substantiative legal proceedings and not their miscellaneous applications before this Court m. With respect to Legend Heights, HSIIDC is directed to: (i) Hand over commercial units to allottees who were either granted occupation, and /or in whose favour conveyance was executed. As far as others are concerned, HSIIDC to first verify the claims of all persons/entities who claim to have paid substantial amounts and have not been allotted their spaces, and H

p. 774 Copy page pinpoint

A shall, depending on the stage and nature of construction and the extent of amount paid (it is more than 75 per cent of the total consideration) hand over possession of the units, after due completion. (ii) Duly verify and pay refunds sought by any allottee B within six months of the date of this judgment, failing which interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be levied from date of default. (iii) In respect of all unallotted units and areas which can be constructed upon, title shall vest exclusively with C HSIIDC. n. With respect to Dharamveer and other petitioners, as well as similarly placed individuals the rights and title in respect of lands under their occupation is vested with HSIIDC. It is up to the HSIIDC to frame such scheme as is permissible in accordance with its parent enactment and a non- discriminatory manner by a scheme, in regard to such land (i.e., the 27 acres to which the petitioners and others like them may claim relief) as it may deem appropriate. In case the HSIIDC chooses to do so, it shall be bound by all provisions of the Master Plan and Zoning and such other rules and regulations as are applicable, in the area and shall strictly enforce them. o. The State is directed to ensure that all references pertaining to the acquisition are answered as expeditiously as possible. The concerned reference courts are hereby directed to conclude all the proceedings in 185 references received for 365 acres of land and pronounce the award in accordance with law within a period of one year from the date of this judgment. p. It is clarified that wherever the allottees have not paid the full amounts (payable in terms of the agreements) HSIIDC shall be entitled to the same rights in law as in the case of the original builder/developer, which include, but are not limited to, insisting full payment before handing over possession to the allottees. H

RAMESHWAR AND ORS. v. STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. 775 [S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.]

122Copy pinpoint122. I.A. No.112515/2020; I.A. No.117025/2020; I.A. No.118401/ A 2020; I.A. No.116268/2020; I.A. No.111557/ 2020, I.A. No. 111562/ 2020; I.A. No.111563/2020; I.A. No.116120/2021; I.A. No. 116128/2021, I.A. No.123690/2021; I.A. No.110995/ 2019, I.A. No. 91793/ 2020; I.A. No. 113206/ 2020; I.A. No. 36484-85/2020; I.A. No. 36487; I.A. No. 89570/ 2020; I.A. No. 31079-81/2022; I.A. No.102358/2019; I.A. No. B 189667/2019; I.A. No. 62216/2020; I.A. No. 42263/2022; I.A. No. 49262 of 2022; I.A. No. 75955/2020; I.A. No. 83251/2020; I.A. No. 76605/ 2020; I.A. No. 76602/2020; I.A. No. 31185/2021; I.A. No. 31180/2021; I.A. No. 31182/2021; I.A. No. 128802-03/2020; I.A. No. 128807/2020; I.A. No. 128798-99/2021; I.A. No. 53868/2022; I.A. No. 128801/2021; I.A. No. 91091/2020;I.A. No. 41690/2021; I.A. No. 84064-65 of 2020; C I.A. No. 84066 of 2020; I.A. No. 84067/2020; I.A. No. 118408/2020; I.A. No. 118410/2020; I.A. No. 126826/2020; I.A. 2254/2019; I.A. 93822/ 2019; I.A. 100745/2020; I.A. No. 46028/2020, I.A. No. 30807/2020; I.A. No. 191983/2019; I.A. No. 192027/2019; I.A. No. 137407/2019; I.A. No. 3403/2020; I.A. No. 3406/2020; I.A. No. 59743/2020; I.A. D No. 118798/2020; I.A. No. 103292/2020; I.A. No.68542 of 2019; I.A. No. 49986-87 of 2021; I.A. No. 49990/2021 in MA No. 50/2019; M.A. No. 864/2019; MA (D) 24553/2019; MA (D) 45009/2019; M.A. (D) No. 45026/2019; M.A. No. 1175/2019; M.A. (D) No. 26552/ 2019; M.A. (D) No. 7888/2020; M.A. No. 1521/2020; M.A. No. 2067 of 2020; M.A. 2150 of 2020; M.A. No. 2149/2020; M.A. No. 2228/2020; M.A. (D) E No. 5699/2021; M.A. (D) No. 7775 of 2021; M.A. (D) No. 9505/2021; M.A. (D) No. 6705/2020; M.A. (D) No. 9002/2022 and Contempt Petition No. 2226/2018, Contempt Petition No. 513/2020, Contempt Petition No. 716/2021, SLP (C) No. 2147/2021 and SLP (C) No. 5490/2021 are thus disposed off in the aforementioned terms. F

Nidhi Jain Applications disposed of. (Assisted by : Shevali Monga, LCRA)