JUDGMENT : S.J. Vazifdar, J. Civil Writ Petition Nos.12210 of 2013 and 4764 of 2015 are disposed of by this common order and judgment in the following circumstances. Civil Writ Petition No.12210 of 2013 was heard at considerable length and the judgment was reserved. Thereafter, the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.4764 of 2015 requested that his petition be heard before delivering the judgment in CWP No.12210 of 2013 stating that some of the important issues raised by him would be affected by the judgment in CWP No.12210 of 2013. The developers in CWP No.12210 of 2013, though not the developers or parties in CWP No.4764 of 2015, also requested us to hear CWP No.4764 of 2015 before delivering the judgment in CWP No.12210 of 2013. Accordingly, before pronouncing the judgment in CWP No.12210 of 2013, CWP No.4764 of 2015 was taken up for hearing by another Division Bench to which one of us (S.J. Vazifdar, C.J.) was a party. That Division Bench, however, acceded to the request made by all the counsels in both the writ petitions that CWP No.4764 of 2015 be heard by our Division Bench as we had heard CWP No.12210 of 2013. During this period, an application being C.M. No.8323 of 2016 in CWP No.12210 of 2013 was filed on behalf of several purchasers, who claim to be similarly situated as the petitioners, for intervention/impleadment. It is in these circumstances that we heard CWP No.4764 of 2105 and we proceed to deliver our judgment in both the petitions. 2. We will first deal with CWP No. 12210 of 2013. The petitioners claim to be an association of owners of apartments in a group housing society named ‘Park Place’ developed by respondent No.2 – M/s DLF Limited in Gurgaon, State of Haryana. Respondent No.3 is M/s DLF Home Developers Limited (Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereinafter referred to as the “developers”). Respondent No.1 is the Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. 3. Respondent No.3 is M/s DLF Home Developers Limited (Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereinafter referred to as the “developers”). Respondent No.1 is the Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. 3. The petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to take action against the developers for violations of the conditions of the licence, zonal plan, site plan, applicable FAR and PPA norms and an order restraining the developers from creating any third party rights in respect of the building named ‘The Crest’ in the area falling within the FAR norms of Park Place and from putting up any construction except for building common area and facilities for Park Place. They have also sought an order quashing a deed of declaration filed by respondent No.2 and to ensure that the area in accordance with applicable FAR ratio of 1:1.75 is made available to the group housing project ‘Park Place’. Lastly, they seek an order directing that no third party rights be created on 46.20 acres of contiguous land falling within the FAR norms of the group housing project ‘Park Place’ and to restrain the developers from any further revision in plans which directly or indirectly affects the rights of the owners of ‘Park Place’. 4. The developers are engaged in a large development which they refer to as DLF Qutab Enclave Complex, Phase-V (hereinafter to be referred to as the “DLF Phase-V”) now comprising of about 500 acres. Within this area the developers have constructed various buildings including thirteen buildings which together are referred to as ‘Park Place’. The petitioners contended that each of these projects including ‘Park Place’, ‘Magnolias’ and ‘Belaire’ are independent group housing colonies. They contend that each of these group housing colonies is entitled to an area of land adjoining them commensurate with the FAR and density norms. Their grievance is that the land allotted by the developers in respect of Park Place, with which this petition is concerned, falls short of this requirement. The developers have accordingly violated the FAR and density norms on account of the land allotted to the group housing complex ‘Park Place’ not being commensurate with the FAR and density norms. 5. Mr. Khanna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that ‘Park Place’, ‘Magnolias’ and ‘Belaire’ are separate and independent group housing schemes. This petition concerns only Park Place. 5. Mr. Khanna, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that ‘Park Place’, ‘Magnolias’ and ‘Belaire’ are separate and independent group housing schemes. This petition concerns only Park Place. Based on this submission, he contended that the respondents had violated the FAR and PPA norms. Alternatively, he submitted, the owners of premises in Park Place are entitled to an area of 30 acres as owners thereof or, in any event, to the exclusive use of 30 acres of land appurtenant to the buildings. He submitted that, assuming the first submission is not well-founded, the development of the entire area of about 476 acres would be part of one group housing scheme and in that event the purchasers of premises therein would be entitled to a right in the entire area of 476 acres. 6. There is a dispute as to the petitioners’ entitlement to file this petition raised both by the developers and other residents. Suffice it to note at this stage that these respondents contend that the petitioners’ association comprises of only a few members whereas the intervener/respondent association claims a membership of over 1500 members. 7. The matter involves an interplay of the following Acts and Rules: The Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled areas Restriction of unregulated Development Act, 1963 (1963 Act); The Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Rules, 1965 (1965 Rules); The Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (1975 Act); The Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976 (1976 Rules); The Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 (1983 Act); The Haryana Apartment Ownership Rules, 1987 (1987 Rules) and The Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 (2012 Act). As considerable reliance was placed on the provisions of these laws and much of the documentary evidence is pursuant to the provisions thereof we must burden our judgment with the same considerably. It would be convenient to compile the relevant provisions of these enactments hereunder:- “The Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (Punjab Act No. 41 of 1963) 3. It would be convenient to compile the relevant provisions of these enactments hereunder:- “The Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (Punjab Act No. 41 of 1963) 3. Prohibition to erect or re-erect buildings along scheduled roads.– No person shall erect or re-erect any building or make or extend any excavation or layout any means of access to a road within one hundred meters of either side of the road reservation of a bye-pass or expressway, or, within thirty meters on either side of the road reservation of any scheduled road not being bye-pass or expressway. Provided that nothing in this section shall apply to- (a) the repair to a building which was in existence immediately before the commencement of this Act or any erection or re-erection of such a building which does not involve any structural alteration or addition therein; or (b) the erection or re-erection of a building, which was in existence immediately before the commencement of this Act and which involves any structural alteration or addition with the permission of the Director; or (bb) a building, which was in existence, immediately before the commencement of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development (Haryana Amendment) Ordinance, 2009, or to any repair, erection, re-erection of such a building which does not involve any structural alteration or addition therein, on payment of such fee, as may be prescribed; or.” (c) the laying out of any means of access to a road with the permission of the Director; or (d) the erection or re-erection of a motorfuel- filling station or a bus queue shelter with the permission of the Director; or (e) “the public utility buildings “and” community assets” which were in existence immediately before the commencement of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development (Haryana Second Amendment & Validations) Act, 1996. Explanation.-(1) “Public utility buildings” means buildings belonging to Government, Government controlled Organizations, Local Bodies, Voluntary Organisations and individuals which are being used for the benefit of public at large without profit motive.; and (2) “Community assets” means assets belonging to Government, Government Controlled Organizations, Local bodies, Voluntary Organizations, and individuals which are created for the beneficial use of public at large without profit motive. 8. Application for permission etc. 8. Application for permission etc. and the grant or refusal thereof.- (1) Every person desiring to obtain the permission referred to in Section 3 or Section 6 or Section 7 or licence under Section 7 shall make an application in writing to the Director in such form and containing such information in respect of the land, building, excavation or means of access to a road to which the application relates as may be prescribed. (2) On receipt of such application the Director, after making such enquiry as he considers necessary, shall by order in writing either:- (a) grant the permission or licence subject to such conditions if any, as may be specified in the order, or (b) refuse to grant such permission or license. (3) The Director shall not refuse permission to the erection or re-erection of a building which was in existence in a controlled area on the date on which the notification under sub-section (1) of Section 4 was published, nor shall he impose any condition in respect of such erection or re-erection unless he is satisfied, after affording to the applicant an opportunity of being heard, that there is a probability that the building will be used for a purpose, or is designed in a manner, other than that for which it was used or designed on the date on which the said notification was published. (4) If, at the expiration of period of three months after an application under sub-section (1) has been made to the Director, no order in writing has been passed by the Director, the permission shall, without prejudice to the restrictions and conditions signified in the plans published in the Official Gazette under sub-section (7) of Section 5, be deemed to have been given without the imposition of any conditions: Provided that such time limit of three months shall not be applicable to the cases where directions have been issued by the Government under section 11 of the Act and require approval of the Government accordingly: Provided further that where an application is made for change of land use for industrial purpose and orders are to be passed by the Director, the time limit for granting permission shall be two months. (5) The Director shall maintain such register as may be prescribed with sufficient particulars of all such cases in which permission or license is given or deemed to have been given or refused by him under this section, and the said register shall be available for inspection without charge by all persons interested and such persons shall be entitled to take extracts therefrom. 25. Power to make rules.- (1) The Government may, by notification and subject to the condition of previous publication, make rules for carrying out the purposes of this Act and may give them prospective or retrospective effect. (2) In particular, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing power, such rules may provide for all or any of the following matters, namely:- (a) the manner, in which the plans in respect of controlled area shall be prepared under sub-section (1) of section 5; (b) the other manner in which the final plans in respect of a controlled area shall be published; (c) the Form and contents of the plans in respect of a controlled area and the procedure to be followed and any other matter in connection with the preparation, submission and approval of the plan; (d) the conditions on which the licences under section 7 shall be granted or renewed and the fees to be charged for the grant and renewal thereof; (e) the form in which application for permission or licence shall be made under sub-section (1) of section 8 and the information which shall be furnished therein; (f) the principles and condition under which application for permission or licence under this Act may be granted or refused; (ff) the recovery of arrears of fee and charges under section 7; (g) the form and manner in which the register referred to in sub-section (5) of section 8 shall be maintained; (h) the procedure to be followed in hearing appeals under sections 10 and 12C, the fees to be paid in respect of, and the document which shall accompany such appeals; and (i) any other matter which may be prescribed. ….. ….. ….. ….. … The Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Rules, 1965 NOTIFICATION The 26th May, 1965 RULES PART I 1. ….. ….. ….. ….. 2. ….. ….. ….. ….. … The Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Rules, 1965 NOTIFICATION The 26th May, 1965 RULES PART I 1. ….. ….. ….. ….. 2. Definitions.- In these rules unless the context otherwise requires:- (a) “Act” means the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963; (b) “Colony” means an area of land, within a controlled area, which is developed or proposed to be developed for the purpose of subdividing it into plots for residential, commercial, industrial or other purposes; (c) “Coloniser” means an individual, company or association or body of individuals whether incorporated or not including a Co-operative Society owning or acquiring or agreeing to own or acquire, whether by purchase or otherwise, land for the purpose of setting up a colony; (d) “Development Plan” means the final plan notified in the official Gazette under sub-section (7) of section 5; (e) “Form” means a form appended to these rules: (f) “Section” means a section of the Act; (g) “Sector” means any part of the controlled area indicated as such in the Development Plan; (h) “Sector Plan” shall mean the Plan as proposed under rule 8 and kept in the office of Director showing the layout of a sector and in particular defining the main road system and approximate location of sites for shopping centre, schools and other public buildings and major open spaces within the sector. (i) “title to land” or “title deed” means a document evidencing applicant’s ownership or lease right for such period, as may be specified by the Government for different purpose. ….. ….. ….. ….. PART VII BUILDING RULES SECTION I-INTRODUCTORY 38. Definitions [Sections 8(2) and 25(1)]-In this Chapter unless the context otherwise requires:- ….. ….. ….. ….. (xlii) “Zoning plan” shall mean the detailed layout plan of the sector or a part thereof maintained in the office of the Director showing the sub division of plots, open spaces, streets, position of protected trees and other features and in respect of each plot, permitted land use, building lines and restrictions with regard to use and development of each plot in addition to those laid down in the building rules. ….. ….. ….. ….. SECTION 2 Procedure for submission of Building Applications and Execution of Works 39. Application for erection or re-erection of building [Sections 3, 8 and 25 (2)(c)].- ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. SECTION 2 Procedure for submission of Building Applications and Execution of Works 39. Application for erection or re-erection of building [Sections 3, 8 and 25 (2)(c)].- ….. ….. ….. ….. (1A)(i) Any person intending to erect or re-erect any building in a residential/industrial licensed colony may apply on form BRS-I to the Director for approval of building plans under self certification by giving fifteen days notice to the Director or Officers of the department delegated with powers for approval of building plans intimating the date of start of construction. The construction can be started after fifteen days, in case any objection is not conveyed to the applicant. (ii) Any person applying under the provision of rule 39(1A)(i) above, shall make an application in writing to the Director or any other person authorized in this behalf in the Form BRS-I accompanied by the following documents:- (a) a site plan (in triplicate) showing the position of site proposed to be built upon as required by the rules along with an un-editable Compact Disc/DVD or any other electronic medium permissible by Director from time to time containing the drawings as required by rule 40. ….. ….. ….. ….. 40. Site Plan [Sections 8 and 25 (2)(c)].– ….. ….. ….. ….. (2) The site plan shall be prepared with sufficient accuracy to enable the site to be identified and shall be submitted on distinct prints triplicate two of which shall be mounted on cloth. One mounted copy shall be returned to the applicant with the words “Rejected” or “Sanctioned” as the case may be, written on it. The site plan shall be fully dimensioned and shall show:- (a) the boundaries of the site; ….. ….. ….. ….. (g) the area and proportion of the site to be covered by building; ….. ….. ….. ….. 41. Building Plan.-The building plan or plans shall be drawn to a scale of not less than 1:50 for sites upto 1000 square meter; 1:100 for sites above 1000 square meter; but less than 2000 square meter; and, 1:200 for sites above 2000 square meter and shall be submitted on distinct prints in triplicate two of which shall be mounted on cloth. One mounted copy shall be returned to the applicant with the words “Rejected” or “Sanctioned”, as the case may be, written on it. One mounted copy shall be returned to the applicant with the words “Rejected” or “Sanctioned”, as the case may be, written on it. It shall show- (a) the plan of all the floors and elevation and cross-sections as under:- (i) in the case of buildings in a row, two elevations and one typical cross-section and (ii) in the case of other buildings two cross-sections and elevations on four sides; (b) the plinth level of the building with reference to the level at the center of the street or streets on which the proposed building is to abut or front; (c) the size of the doors, windows, openings and other methods of ventilation of each room; (d) the means of access to the buildings and their various floors as well as the means of escape in case of fire; (e) in the case of proposed additions and alterations to an existing building all new works on the plan by an indelible distinctive colour and a key to the colours used; (f) the proposed method of draining it, including the position, forms and dimensions of all privies, urinals, drains and the method of disposal of sewage, sullage and storm water in full detail. Note.- In case of large of buildings various blocks of the building may be drawn in separate sheets. …. ….. ……. ……. ……. The Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (Haryana Act No. 8 of 1975) ….. ….. ….. ….. 2. Definition - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- ….. ….. ….. ….. Note.- In case of large of buildings various blocks of the building may be drawn in separate sheets. …. ….. ……. ……. ……. The Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (Haryana Act No. 8 of 1975) ….. ….. ….. ….. 2. Definition - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- ….. ….. ….. ….. (b) “building” means any shop, house, hut, hut-house, shed or stable, whether used for the purpose of human habitation or otherwise and whether of masonry, bricks, wood, mud, thatch, metal or any other material whatsoever, and includes a wall; (c) “colony” means an area of land divided or proposed to be divided into plots or flats for residential, commercial, industrial, cyber city or cyber park purposes or for construction of flats in the form of group housing or for the construction of integrated commercial complexes, but an area of land divided or proposed to be divided- (i) for the purpose of agriculture; or (ii) as a result of family partition, inheritance, succession or partition of joint holding not with the motive or earning profit; or (iii) in furtherance of any scheme sanction under any other law; or (iv) by the owner of a factory for setting up a housing colony for the labourers or the employees working in the factory; provided there is no profit motive; or (v) when it does not exceed one thousand square metres or such less area as may be decided from time to time in an urban area to be notified by Government for the purposes of this sub-clause, shall not be a colony; (d) “Colonizer” means an individual, company or association, body of individuals, whether incorporated or not, owning land for converting it into a colony and to whom a licence has been granted under this Act; ….. ….. ….. ….. (e) “development works” means internal and external development works; (f) “Director” means the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, and includes a person for the time being appointed by the Government, by notification in the Official Gazette, to exercise and perform all or any of the powers and functions of the Director under this Act and the rules made thereunder; ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. (hh) “Group housing” means a building designed and developed in the form of flats for residential purpose or any ancillary or appurtenant building including community facilities, public amenities and public utility as may be prescribed; ….. ….. ….. ….. 3. Application for licence.- (1) Any owner desiring to convert his land into a colony shall, unless exempted under section 9, make an application to the Director, for the grant of license to develop a colony in the prescribed form and pay for it such fee and conversion charges as may be prescribed. The application shall be accompanied by an income-tax clearance certificate; Provided that if the conversion charges have already been paid under the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Area Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (41 of 1963), no such charges shall be payable under this section. (2) On receipt of the application under sub section (1), the Director shall, among other things, enquire into the following matters, namely :- (a) title to the land; (b) extent and situation of the land; (c) capacity to develop a colony; (d) the layout of a colony; (e) plan regarding the development works to be executed in a colony; and (f) conformity of the development schemes of the colony land to those of the neighboring areas. (3) After the enquiry under sub section (2), the Director, by an order in writing, shall- (a) grant a licence in the prescribed form, after the applicant has furnished to the Director a bank guarantee equal to twenty five per centum of the estimated cost of development works in case of area of land divided or proposed to be divided into plots or flats for residential, commercial or industrial purposes and a bank guarantee equal to thirty-seven and a half per centum of the estimated cost of development works in case of cyber city or cyber park purposes as certified by the director and has undertaken- (i) to enter into an agreement in the prescribed form for carrying out and completion of development works in accordance with licence granted; (ii) to pay proportionate development charges if the external development works as defined in clause (g) of section 2 are to be carried out by the Government or any other local authority. The proportion in which and the time within which, such payment is to be made, shall be determined by the Director. (iii) the responsibility for the maintenance and upkeep of all roads, open spaces, public park and public health services for a period of five years from the date of issue of the completion certificate unless earlier relieved of this responsibility and thereupon to transfer all such roads, open spaces, public parks and public health services free of cost to the Government or the local authority, as the case may be; (iv) to construct at his own cost, or get constructed by any other institution or individual at its cost, schools, hospitals, community centers and other community buildings on the lands set apart for this purpose, in a period as may be specified, and failing which the land shall vest with the Government after such specified period, free of cost, in which case the Government shall be at liberty totransfer such-land to any person or institution including a local authority, for the said purposes, on such terms and conditions, as it may deem fit: Provided that in case of licenses issued prior to the notification of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012, the licensee, the purchaser or the person claiming through him shall construct the school, hospital, community centres and other community buildings on the land set apart for this purpose, within a period of four years, extendable by the Director by another period of two years, for reasons to be recorded in writing, from the notification of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012: Provided further that at the end of the period as specified under the proviso, if the site is not utilized for the purpose, it was meant for, the land shall vest with the Government and in which case, the Government shall be at liberty to transfer such land to any person or institution including a local authority, for the said purposes, on such terms and conditions, as it may deem fit: Provided further that a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing shall be issued before vesting the land in the Government. (iv-a) to pay proportionate cost of construction of such percentage of sites of such school, hospital, community centre and other community buildings and at such rates as specified by the Director; (v) to permit the Director or any other officer authorised by him to inspect the execution of the layout and the development works in the colony and to carry out all directions issued by him for ensuring due compliance of the execution of the layout and development works in accordance with the licence granted; (vi) to fulfill such terms and conditions as may be specified by the Director at the time of grant of licence through bilateral agreement as may be prescribed: Provided that the Director, having regard to the amenities which exist or are proposed to be provided in the locality, is of the opinion that it is not necessary or possible to provide one or more such amenities, may exempt the licensee from providing such amenities either wholly or in part; (b) refuse to grant a licence, by means of speaking order, after affording the applicant an opportunity of being heard. (4) The license so granted shall be valid for a period of five years, and will be renewable from time to time for a period of two years, on payment of prescribed fee: Provided that in the licensed colony permitted as a special project by the Government , the license shall be valid for a maximum period of five years and shall be renewable for a period of as decided by the Government. (5) Each colony may comprise of one or more licences with contiguous land pockets. (6) After the colonizer has laid out the colony in accordance with the approved layout plan and executed the internal development works in accordance with the approved design and specifications, he may apply to the Director for grant of completion or part-completion certificate. The Director may enquire into such matters, as he deems necessary before granting such certificate. (6) After the colonizer has laid out the colony in accordance with the approved layout plan and executed the internal development works in accordance with the approved design and specifications, he may apply to the Director for grant of completion or part-completion certificate. The Director may enquire into such matters, as he deems necessary before granting such certificate. (7) After enquiry under sub-section (6), the Director may, by an order in writing, grant completion or part-completion certificate on such terms and conditions and after recovery of infrastructure augmentation charges, as may be prescribed: Provided that where in the agreement executed to set up a colony, a condition was incorporated for deposit of surplus amount beyond maximum net profit @ 15% of the total project cost and the colonizer has not taken the completion certificate of the said project, then notwithstanding the said condition in the agreement, the colonizer shall have the option either to deposit the infrastructure augmentation charges as applicable from time to time at any stage before the grant of such completion certificate and get the exemption of the restriction of net profit beyond 15% or deposit the amount as per terms of the agreement. ….. ….. ….. ….. … The Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976 Dated 7th March, 1976 RULES PART I 2. Definitions.- In these rules unless the context otherwise requires:- ….. ….. ….. ….. (cc) “development plan” means the plan prepared under the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restrictions of Unregulated Development Rules, 1965; ….. ….. ….. ….. (e) “layout plan” means a plan of the colony depicting the division or proposed division of land into plots, roads, open spaces, etc, and other details as may be necessary; ….. ….. ….. ….. PART II 3. Application for licence [sections 3 and 24].- ….. ….. ….. ….. (e) the following plans and documents in triplicate;- ….. ….. ….. ….. (iv) a survey plan of the land under the proposed colony on a scale of 1 centimetre to 10 metres showing the spot levels at a distance of 30 metres and where necessary, contour plans. Application for licence [sections 3 and 24].- ….. ….. ….. ….. (e) the following plans and documents in triplicate;- ….. ….. ….. ….. (iv) a survey plan of the land under the proposed colony on a scale of 1 centimetre to 10 metres showing the spot levels at a 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 it 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; ….. ….. ….. ….. 4. Percentage of area under roads, open space etc. in layout plans:- [Sections 3 (3) 4 and 24] – (1) In the layout plan of a colony, other than an industrial colony, the land reserved for roads, open spaces, schools, public and community buildings and other common uses shall not be less than forty five percent of the gross area of the land under the colony: Provided that the Director may reduce after recording reasons therefor this percentage to a figure not below thirty-five where in his opinion the planning requirements and the size of the colony so justify. (2) In the layout plan of an industrial colony, the land reserved for the purposes specified in sub-rule (1) shall not be less than thirty-five percent of the gross area of the land under the colony: ….. ….. ….. ….. 10. (2) In the layout plan of an industrial colony, the land reserved for the purposes specified in sub-rule (1) shall not be less than thirty-five percent of the gross area of the land under the colony: ….. ….. ….. ….. 10. Applicant to be called upon to fulfill certain conditions for grant of licence [Section 3 (3)].- (1) If after scrutiny of the plans and other necessary inquiries which the Director may deem fit, he is satisfied that the application is not for the grant of licence, he shall before granting licence, call upon the applicant to fulfill conditions laid down in rule 11 within a period of thirty days from the date of the service of notice in form LC-III: Provided that on an application within the aforesaid period, for the extension of time limit, the Director, if satisfied of the reasons given therein extend such time up to thirty days: Provided further that on the request of the applicant, for the extension of time limit for submission of Bank guarantees under clause (a) of sub-rule (1) of rule 11, the Director, if satisfied that the reasons for delay in submission of the bank guarantee are beyond the control of the applicant, extend such time upto further ninety days period. ….. ….. ….. ….. 11. Conditions required to be fulfilled by applicant [Section 3 (3)].- (1) the applicant shall:- ….. ….. ….. ….. (h) execute bilateral agreement in Form LC-IV-A for group housing colony, in Form LC-IV-B for plotted colony, in Form LC-IV-C for industrial colony and in Form LC-IV-D for commercial colony. ….. ….. ….. ….. 12. Grant of licence [Section 3(3) and (4)].- (1) After the applicant has fulfilled all the conditions laid down in rule 11 to the satisfaction of the Director, the Director shall grant the licence in form LC-V. (2) The licence granted under sub-rule (1) shall be valid for a period of two years from the date of its grant during which period all development works in the colony shall be completed and certificate of completion obtained from the Director as provided in rule 16. ….. ….. ….. ….. PART IV 24. Submission of copies advertisements, etc. ….. ….. ….. ….. PART IV 24. Submission of copies advertisements, etc. by colonizer [Section 24].- On obtaining a license to set up a colony, the colonizer shall furnish to the Director an authenticated copy of the advertisement made by him for the sale of plots in the colony and of the terms of agreement entered into between him and each of the plot-holders. ….. ….. ….. ….. … Form LC-I [see rule 3(1)] Registered To The Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh. Sir, I/We beg to apply for grant of licence to set up a residential/industrial/Commercial colony at _________ in tehsil _________ and district _________ The requisite particulars are as under- 1. Name ………………………………….…………………………………… 2. Father’s name ……………………….…………………………………… 3. Occupation-…………………….………………………………………… 4. Permanent residential address …………………………………………. 5. Address for the purpose of Correspondence ………………………………. 6. Whether applicant is income tax payer, if so, the amount of income tax paid during each of the last three years ………………………………………. 7. Details of movable/immovable property held by the applicant …………. 8. Whether the applicant had ever been granted permission to set up a colony under any other law, if so, details thereof--………………………. 9. Whether the applicant has ever established a colony or is establishing a colony, and if so, details thereof …………………………………………… 10. Any other information the applicant likes to furnish 2. I/We enclose the following documents in triplicate:- (i) Copy or copies of all the title deeds and/or other documents showing the interest of 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 name of revenue estate, Khasra number of each field and area of each field. (iii) A guide map on a scale of not less than 10 centimetre 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 level at a distance of 30 metres and where necessary, contour plans. (iv) A survey map of the land under the colony on a scale of 1 centimetre to 10 metres showing the spot level at a 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 it from existing roads. (v) Layout plan of the colony on a scale of 1 centimetre to 10 mtr. 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 and proposed building lines on the front and sides of plots. (vi) An explanatory note explaining the salient features of the proposed colony, in particular the sources of water supply arrangement for disposal and treatment of storm and sullage water and sites for disposal and treatment of storm and sullage water. (vii) 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. (viii) Plans 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 costs thereof. (x) Detailed specifications and designs of sewerage, storm-water and water supply schemes with estimated cost of each. (xi) Detailed specification and designs for disposal and treatment of storm and sullage water and estimated cost of works. (xii)Detailed specification and designs of electric supply including street lighting. 3. The names and qualification of the Engineers responsible for the execution of the development works of the colony are given below and the engineer has also signed below in token of his engagement:- Name of Engineer Qualification of Engineer Signature of Engineer 1 2 3 1. 2. 3. 4. I/We enclose the further following documents:- (i) Demand draft No.……… Dated for Rs. ………… (ii) Income tax clearance certificate issued by the Income Tax officer…………… 5. 2. 3. 4. I/We enclose the further following documents:- (i) Demand draft No.……… Dated for Rs. ………… (ii) Income tax clearance certificate issued by the Income Tax officer…………… 5. It is further requested that I/we may be exempted from providing the following amenity/amenities in the proposed colony and an explanatory note in triplicate along with plans marked A,B,C (so on) as to why the said amenity/amenities are not required to be provided in the colony is enclosed:- 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. Dated : Place : Attested: Your faithfully (Name and address) Oath Commissioner/Magistrate, Ist Class *** FORM LC-II (See Rule 9) From The Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh To ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ Memo No. Dated the Reference your application, dated the for grant of a licence. 2. It is regretted that the grant of licence is refused for the reasons given below:- Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh. *** FORM LC-III (See Rule 10) Registered A.D. From The Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh To --------------------------- -------------------------- Memo No. Dated the Reference to your application, dated the………………………… for grant of licence to set up a colony at …………… Tehsil ……… District …………… 2. It is proposed to grant licence to you for setting up a colony at …………… tehsil ………… district ……………… You are therefore, called upon to fulfill the conditions laid down in rule 11 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976 within a period of thirty days from the date of the service of this notice. Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh. *** FORM LC-IV (See rule 11) Agreement by owner of land intending to set up a colony This agreement made on the ……………………… day of ……………… One thousand nine hundred and seventy ………………………… between Shri/M/s ………………… s/o Shri ……………………, resident of ………… (hereinafter called the “owner”) of the one part and the Governor of Haryana, acting through the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the “Director”) of the other part. Whereas the owner is in possession of or otherwise well entitled to the land mentioned in Annexure hereto for the purposes of converting into residential/commercial/industrial colony; And whereas under rule 11, one of the conditions for the grant of licence is that the owner shall enter into an agreement for carrying out and completion of development works in accordance with the licence finally granted for setting up a colony at …………………… tehsil ………………………… and district …………………………. NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS 1. In consideration of the Director agreeing to grant licence to the owner to set up the said colony on the land mentioned in Annexure here to on the fulfillment of all the conditions laid down in rule 11 by the owner the owner hereby convents as follows:- (a) That the owner shall be responsible for the maintenance and up keep of all roads, open spaces, public parks and public health services for a period of five years from the date of issue of the completion certificate under rule 16 unless earlier relieved of this responsibility, when the owner shall transfer all such roads, open spaces, public parks and public health services free of cost to the Government of the local authority, as the case may be. (b) That the owner shall at his own cost construct or get constructed, by any other institution or individual at its cost schools, hospitals, community centres and other community buildings on the land set apart for this purpose, or if so desired by the Government, shall transfer to it at any time, it may desire, free of cost land thus set apart for schools, hospitals, community centres and other community buildings, in which case the Government shall be at liberty to transfer such land to any person or institution including a local authority on such terms and condition as it may lay down. (c) That the owner shall deposit fifty percent of the amount realized by him from plot holders, from time to time, in a separate account to be maintained in a scheduled bank and that this amount shall only be utilized by the owner towards meeting cost of internal development works in the colony. (c) That the owner shall deposit fifty percent of the amount realized by him from plot holders, from time to time, in a separate account to be maintained in a scheduled bank and that this amount shall only be utilized by the owner towards meeting cost of internal development works in the colony. (d) That the owner shall permit the Director or other officer authorised by him in this behalf to inspect the execution of the layout, and the development works in the colony and the coloniser shall carry out all directions issued by him or ensuring due compliance of the executions of the layout and development works in accordance with licence granted. (e) That the owner shall pay proportionate development charges as and when, required and as determined by the Director in respect of external development charges. (f) That without prejudice to anything contained in this agreement all the provisions contained in the Act and these rules shall be binding on the owner. 2. Provided always and it is hereby agreed that if the owner shall commit any breach of the terms and conditions of this agreement or violate any provision of the Act or these rules, then and in any such case, and notwithstanding the waiver of any previous cause or right, the Director, may cancel the licence granted to him. 3. Upon cancellation of the licence under clause 2 above, the Government may acquire the area of the aforesaid colony under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, and may develop the said area under any other law. The Bank guarantee in that events shall stand forfeited in favour of the Director. 4. The stamp and registration charges on this deed shall be borne by the owner. 5. The expression that ‘owner’ hearing before used shall include his hirers, legal representatives, successors and permitted assigns. 6. The Bank guarantee in that events shall stand forfeited in favour of the Director. 4. The stamp and registration charges on this deed shall be borne by the owner. 5. The expression that ‘owner’ hearing before used shall include his hirers, legal representatives, successors and permitted assigns. 6. After the layout and development works or part there of in respect of the colony or part there of have been completed and a completion certificate in respect there of issued, the Director may on an application in this behalf from the owner release the bank guarantee or part there of as the case may be, provided that if the completion of the colony is taken in parts only the part of bank guarantee corresponding to the part of the colony completed shall be released and provided further that the bank guarantee equivalent to 1/5th amount thereof shall be kept unrealized to ensure upkeep and maintenance of the colony or the part thereof as the case may be for a period of five years from the date of issue of the completion certificate under rule 16 or earlier in case the owner is relieved of the responsibilities in this behalf by the Government. In witness where of the coloniser and the Director have signed this deed on the day and year first above written. 1. Witnesses: The owner 1. 2. Dated……………… Director for & on behalf of the Governor of Har. 2. 1. _______________ 2. _______________ Dated: Note-In case the owner is exempted from providing any one or more amenities sub clauses (a), (b) & (c) may be modified accordingly. ANNEXURE *** [FORM LC-IV-A] [See Rule 11(1)(h)] Bilateral Agreement by owner of land intending to set up a Group Housing colony This agreement made on the ………………… day of………………………… between Shri/M/S………………………….…………s/o Shri…………………………, resident of ………………………… (hereinafter called the “owner”) of the one part and the Governor of Haryana, acting through the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana (hereinafter referred to as the “Director”) of the other part. Whereas in addition to agreement executed in pursuance of the provisions of rule 11 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules”) and the conditions laid down, therein for grant of licence, the owner shall enter into a bilateral agreement with the Director for carrying out and completion of the development works in accordance with the licence finally granted for setting up of a group housing colony on the land measuring ……………………… acres ………………………… falling in the revenue estate of village ………………………… district…………………………AND WHEREAS the bilateral agreement mutually agreed upon and executed between the parties shall be binding on the owner:- NOW THIS DEED OF BILATERAL AGREEMENT WITNESSETH AS FOLLOWS: 1. In consideration of the Director agreeing to grant licence to the owner to set up the said colony on the land mentioned in Annexure to Form LC-IV and on the fulfillment of the conditions of this bilateral agreement, the owner, his partners, legal representatives, authorized agents, assignees, executers etc. shall be bound by the terms and conditions of this bilateral agreement executed by the owner hereunder covenanted by him as follows:- (a) That in case of group housing adequate accommodation shall be provided for domestic servants and other services Population of economically weaker section and number of such dwelling units shall not be less than 10% of the number of main dwelling units and the area of such a unit shall not be less than 140 square feet., which will cater to the minimum size of the room along with bath and water closet. (b) That all the buildings to be constructed shall be with the approval of the competent authority and shall conform to the building bye-laws and regulations in force in that area and shall conform to the National Building Code with regard to the interse distances between various blocks, structural safety, fire safety, sanitary requirements and circulation (vertical and horizontal). (c) That adequate educational, health, recreational and cultural amenities to the norms and standards provided in the respective development plan of the area shall be provided by the owner. (c) That adequate educational, health, recreational and cultural amenities to the norms and standards provided in the respective development plan of the area shall be provided by the owner. The owner shall at his own cost construct the primary-cum-nursery school, community buildings/dispensary and first aid centre on the land set apart for this purpose or if so desired by the Government shall transfer to the Government at any time free of cost and thus set apart for primary-cum-nursery school, community centre buildings/dispensary and first aid centre, in which case he Government shall be at liberty to transfer such land to any person or institution including a local authority on such terms and conditions as it may lay down. No third party right shall be created without obtaining the prior permissions of the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh. The colonizer shall construct all the community buildings within a period of three years from the date of grant of licence. (d)(i) That the owner undertakes to pay proportional external development charges (EDC) for the area earmarked for group housing scheme, as per rate, schedule and conditions annexed hereto. (ii) That the rates, schedule and terms and conditions of external development charges as mentioned above may be revised by the Director during the licence period as and when necessary and the owner shall be bound to pay the balance of the enhanced charges, if any, in accordance with rates, schedule and terms and conditions determined by him along with interest from the date of grant of licence. (e) That the owner shall not be allowed to recover any amount whatsoever on account of internal community building from the flats holders/plot holders @ Rs. _________ per gross acre which is a tentative charges only for construction of a portion of the total community buildings. (f) That the owner shall ensure that the flats/dwelling units are sold/leased/transferred by him keeping in view the provisions of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983. (g) That the owner shall abide by the provisions of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983. (h) That the responsibility of the ownership of the common area and facilities as well as their management; and maintenance shall continue to vest with the colonizer till such time the responsibility is transferred to the owner of the dwelling unit under the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983. (h) That the responsibility of the ownership of the common area and facilities as well as their management; and maintenance shall continue to vest with the colonizer till such time the responsibility is transferred to the owner of the dwelling unit under the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983. (i) That the owner shall be responsible for the maintenance and up-keep of all roads, open spaces, public parks, public health services for five years from the date of issue of the completion certificate under rule16 unless earlier relieved of this responsibility, which the owner shall transfer all such roads, open spaces, public parks and public health services free of cost to the Government or the local authority, as the case may be. (j) That the owner shall deposit 30% of the amount realized by him from flat holders from time to time within ten days of its realization in a separate accounts to be maintained in the Scheduled bank and that this amount shall only be utilized by the owner towards meeting the cost of internal development works and the construction works in the colony. (k) That the owner shall permit the Director or any other officer authorized by him in this behalf to inspect the execution of the layout and the development works in the plotted/group housing colony and the colonizer shall carry out all directions issued to him for ensuring due compliance of the execution of the layout plans and the development works in accordance with the licence granted. (l) That the owner shall deposit service charges @ Rs. 10/- square meters of the total flatted area of the flatted area/total covered area of the colony in two equal installments. The first installment of the service charges would be deposited by the owner within sixty days from the date of grant of licence and the second installment within six months from the date of grant of the licence. The unpaid amount of service charges shall carry an interest @ 18% (simple) per annum for the delay in the payment of installments. (m) That the owner shall carry out at his own expenses any other works which the Director may, think necessary and reasonable in the interest of proper development of the colony. The unpaid amount of service charges shall carry an interest @ 18% (simple) per annum for the delay in the payment of installments. (m) That the owner shall carry out at his own expenses any other works which the Director may, think necessary and reasonable in the interest of proper development of the colony. (n) That the owner shall reserve 15% of the total number of flats developed or proposed to be developed for allotment to economically weaker section categories, and the area of such flats shall not be less than 200 square feet. These flats shall be allotted on the basis of the price charged by the Haryana Housing Board for such sizes/flats in that particular area in the following manner:- (i) That for the allotment of the flats the owner shall invite applications for allotment through open press from eligible member of economically weaker section categories, as defined by the State Government/Housing Board Haryana. The owner shall also announce the tentative number of flats, its price along with sizes available for such sale. (ii) That if the number of applications exceeds the number of flats, the allotment shall be made through the method of lottery/draw by the owner after giving due publicity and in the presence of the representative of the State Government. The successful applicants will be allotted flats after complying with the usual business conditions with regard to the payment of the earnest money and acceptance of terms and conditions of the sale within the stipulated time period prescribed by the owner. (iii) That the owner while calling the applications for the allotment of economically weaker section/lower income group categories of flats in the group housing colonies shall charge not more than 10% of the total tentative cost of such flats as registration/earnest money. (o) That the owner shall derive maximum net profit @ 15% of the total project cost of development of a colony after making provisions of statutory taxes. In case the net profit exceeds 15% after completion of the project period, surplus amount shall either be deposited within two months in the State Government Treasury by the owner or he shall spend this money on further amenities/facilities in his colony for the benefit of the residents therein. In case the net profit exceeds 15% after completion of the project period, surplus amount shall either be deposited within two months in the State Government Treasury by the owner or he shall spend this money on further amenities/facilities in his colony for the benefit of the residents therein. Further the owner shall submit the following certificates to the Director within ninety days of the full and final completion of the project from a Chartered Accountant that:- (a) the overall net profits (after making provision for the payment of taxes) have not exceeded 15% of the total project cost of the scheme; (b) a minimum of 15% in case of economically weaker section /lower income group flats as provided in sub clause (n) have been allotted at the prescribed subsidized price; (c) the owner while determining the sale price of the flats in open market shall compute the net profit @ 15% and the details of which including the cost of acquisition of land shall be supplied to the Director as and when demanded by him. The total project shall mean a defined phase or a compact area of the colony, as approved by the Director; (d) after the layout plans and development works or part thereof in respect of the group housing colony or part thereof have been completed and a completion certificate in respect thereof issued, the Director may, on an application in this behalf, from the owner, release the bank guarantee or part thereof , as the case may be, provided that , if the completion of the group housing colony is taken in parts, only the part of the bank guarantee corresponding to the part of the group housing colony completed shall be released and provided further that the bank guarantee equivalent to 1/5th amount thereof shall be kept unreleased to ensure upkeep and maintenance of the group housing colony or part thereof, as the case may be , for a period of 5 years from the date of issue of the completion certificate under rule-16 or earlier in case the owner is relieved of the responsibility in this behalf by the Government. However, the bank guarantee regarding the external development charges shall be released by the Director in proportion to the payment of the external development charges received from the owner; (e) that the bank guarantee of the internal development works has been furnished on the interim rates for development works and construction of the community buildings. The owner shall submit the additional bank guarantee, if any, at the time of approval of service plan/estimates according to the approved layout plan. In case of community buildings, the bank guarantee is based on the interim rate of construction as on 01.01.1995 with an increase in the cost of construction and an increase in the number of facilities in the layout plan, the owner will furnish an additional bank guarantee with in thirty days on demand. 2. Provided always and it is hereby agreed that if the owner commit any breach of the terms and conditions of this agreement or violate any provisions of the Act and rules, then and in any such case and notwithstanding the waiver or any previous clause or right, the Director, may cancel the licence granted to him. 3. Upon cancellation of the licence under clause 2 above, action shall be taken as provided in the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976 and all the subsequent amendments made in the Act and rules. The bank guarantee in that event shall stand forfeited in favour of the Director. 4. The stamp duty and registration charges on this deed shall be borne by the owner. 5. The expression the “owner” hereinbefore used/shall include his heirs, legal representatives, successors and permitted assignees. 6. That any other condition which the Director may think necessary in public interest can be imposed. IN THE DIRECTOR HAVE SIGNED THIS DEED ON THE DATE AND THE YEAR FIRST ABOVE WRITTEN. WITNESSES: WITNESSES: 1. Signature....... Name.......... Date........... Address............ 2. Signature............. Name ................ Date .................. Address................ Signature………………………… Name……………………………….. Date……………………………….. Address of the owner…… 1. Signature....... Name.......... Date........... Designation............ 2. Signature............. Name................ Date .................. Designation................ Signature………………………… Name……………………………….. Date ……………………………….. Designation………………………… DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FOR and on behalf of the Governor of Haryana. ….. ….. ….. ….. FORM LC-V (See Rule 12) HARYANA GOVERNMENT TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Licence No……………………………….. Date .................. Address................ Signature………………………… Name……………………………….. Date……………………………….. Address of the owner…… 1. Signature....... Name.......... Date........... Designation............ 2. Signature............. Name................ Date .................. Designation................ Signature………………………… Name……………………………….. Date ……………………………….. Designation………………………… DIRECTOR TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING HARYANA, CHANDIGARH FOR and on behalf of the Governor of Haryana. ….. ….. ….. ….. FORM LC-V (See Rule 12) HARYANA GOVERNMENT TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING DEPARTMENT Licence No……………………………….. This licence has been granted under the Haryana Development and Regulation of urban Areas Act, 1975 and the rules made thereunder Shri/M/s. ………………….. resident of …………………. Tehsil ……………………… and District ………………………..for setting up a residential/Commercial/Industrial Colony at Tehsil ……………………..and District……………………………….. 2. The particulars of land wherein the aforesaid colony is to be set up are given in the schedule annexed hereto and duly signed by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. 3. The licence has been excepted from providing the following amenity/amenities in the aforesaid colony:- 1. 2. 3. 4. The licence granted is subject to the conditions;- (a) that the colony is laid out to conform to the approved layout plans and development works are executed according to the designs and specifications shown in the approved plan accompanying this licence; (b) that the conditions of the agreement already executed are duly fulfilled and the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and the rules, made thereunder are duly complied with. 5. The licence is valid upto---------------- Director Town and Country Planning Haryana, Chandigarh Sr. No. Date of renewal Date up to which renewed Signature of the Director 1. 2. 3. ….. ….. ….. ….. … THE HARYANA APARTMENT OWNERSHIP ACT, 1983 (Haryana Act No. 10 of 1983) ….. ….. ….. ….. 2. Application of Act.- The provisions of this Act shall apply to every apartment lawfully constructed for residential purposes, integrated commercial complexes, flatted factories, Information Technology Industrial Units, Cyber Park and Cyber City for the purpose of transfer of ownership of an individual apartment in a building whether constructed before or after the commencement of this Act. ….. ….. ….. 2. Application of Act.- The provisions of this Act shall apply to every apartment lawfully constructed for residential purposes, integrated commercial complexes, flatted factories, Information Technology Industrial Units, Cyber Park and Cyber City for the purpose of transfer of ownership of an individual apartment in a building whether constructed before or after the commencement of this Act. In case of licenses issued under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975), the owner of such property/building shall duly execute and get registered a declaration within a period of ninety days after obtaining part completion/completion certificate under the rules framed under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975) or occupation certificate under the rules framed under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (41 of 1963), whichever is earlier, in case of property/building falling in the area developed by the Haryana Urban Development Authority, the owner of such property/building shall duly execute and get registered a declaration within a period of ninety days after obtaining occupation certificate of the building under regulations framed under the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act 1977 (13 of 1977). In case of property/building where the owner has already obtained part completion/completion certificate or occupation certificate under the rules and regulations framed under the said Acts, the period of ninety days shall take effect from the commencement of this Act. Explanation.– For the purpose of this section “Information Technology Industrial Units”, “Cyber Park” and “Cyber City” shall have the same meaning as assigned to them in the Zoning Regulations of Development Plans of various cities published under Section 5 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restrictions of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, (41 of 1963). 3. Explanation.– For the purpose of this section “Information Technology Industrial Units”, “Cyber Park” and “Cyber City” shall have the same meaning as assigned to them in the Zoning Regulations of Development Plans of various cities published under Section 5 of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restrictions of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, (41 of 1963). 3. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,- (a) “apartment” means a part of a property, intended for any type of independent use, including building having one or more rooms with enclosed spaces located on one or more floors or any part or parts thereof, to be used for residence, office or for practicing any profession or for carrying on any occupation, trade, business or manufacturing or other uses relating to Information Technology or for such other type of independent use, as may be prescribed, with a direct exit to a public street, road or highway or to a common area leading to such street, road or highway and includes any garage or room (whether or not adjacent to the building in which such apartment is located) provided by the colonizer/owner of such property for use by the owner of such apartment for parking any vehicle or for the residence of any person employed in such apartment, as the case may be. Explanation.- For the purpose of this clause as “colonizer” shall have the same meaning assigned under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (8 of 1975); (b) “apartment owner” means the person or persons owning an apartment and undivided interest in the common areas and facilities in the percentage specified and established in the declaration; (c) “apartment number” means the number, letter combination thereof designating the apartment in the declaration; (d) “association of apartment owners” means all the apartment owners acting as a group in accordance with the bye-laws and the declarations; (e) “building” means a building containing five or more apartments or two or more buildings, each containing two or more apartments, with a total of five or more apartments for all such buildings and comprising a part of the property; (f) “common areas and facilities” unless otherwise provided in the declaration or lawful amendments thereto, means.- (1) the land on which the building is located; (2) the foundations, columns, girders, beams, supports, main walls, roofs, halls, corridors lobbies, stairs, stair ways, fire escapes and entrances and exits of the building; (3) the basements, cellars, yards, gardens, parking area and storage spaces; (4) the premises for the lodging of janitors or persons employed for management of the property; (5) installation of central services such as power, light, gas, hot and cold water, heating, refrigeration, air conditioning and incinerating; (6) the elevators, tanks, pumps, motors, fans, compressors, ducts and in general all apparatus and installations existing for common use; (7) such community and commercial facilities as may be provided for in the declaration; and (8) all other parts of the property necessary or convenient to its existing maintenance and safety or normally in common use; (g) “Common expenses” means- (1) all sums lawfully assessed against the apartment owners by the association of apartment owners; (2) expenses of administration, maintenance, repair or replacement of the common areas and facilities; (3) expenses agreed upon as common expenses by the association of apartment owners; (4) expenses declared as common expenses by the provisions of this Act, or by the declaration or the bye-laws; ….. ….. ….. ….. (l) “Limited common areas and facilities” means those common areas and facilities designated in the declaration and reserved for use of certain apartment or apartments to the exclusion of other apartments; ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. ….. (l) “Limited common areas and facilities” means those common areas and facilities designated in the declaration and reserved for use of certain apartment or apartments to the exclusion of other apartments; ….. ….. ….. ….. (p) “Property” means the land, the building, all improvements and structures thereon, owned in freehold or held on lease or as occupant under any law relating to land revenue and all easements, rights and appurtenances belonging thereto and all articles of personal property intended for use in connection therewith. 4. Status of apartments.- Each apartment together with its undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, appurtenant to such apartment, shall for all purposes constitute heritable and transferable immovable property within the meaning of any law for the time being in force in the State of Haryana. 5. Ownership of apartments. – (1) Each apartment owner shall be entitled to the exclusive ownership and possession of his apartment in accordance with the declaration. (2) Each apartment owner shall execute a deed of apartment in relation to his apartment in the manner prescribed. 6. Common areas and facilities.- (1) Each apartment owner shall be entitled to an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities in the percentage expressed in the declaration. Such percentage shall be computed by taking as a basis the value of the apartments in relation to the value of the property; and such percentage shall reflect the limited common areas and facilities. (2) The percentage of the undivided interest of each apartment owner in the common areas and facilities as expressed in the declaration shall have a permanent character and shall not be altered without the consent of all of the apartment owners and expressed in an amended declaration duly executed and registered as provided in this Act. The percentage of the undivided interest in the common areas and facilities shall not be separated from the apartment to which it appertains and shall be deemed to be conveyed or encumbered with the apartment even though such interest is not expressly mentioned in the conveyance or other instrument. (3) The common areas and facilities shall remain undivided and no apartment owner or any other person shall bring any action for partition or division or any part thereof unless the property has been removed from the provisions of this Act as provided in sections 14 and 22. (3) The common areas and facilities shall remain undivided and no apartment owner or any other person shall bring any action for partition or division or any part thereof unless the property has been removed from the provisions of this Act as provided in sections 14 and 22. Any covenant to the contrary shall be null and void. (4) Each apartment owner may use the common areas and facilities in accordance with the purpose for which they are intended without hindering or encroaching upon the lawful rights of the other apartment owners. (5) The necessary work of maintenance, repair and replacement of the common areas and facilities and the making of any addition of improvements thereto shall be carried out as provided herein and in the bye-laws. (6) The association of apartment owners shall have the irrevocable right, to be exercised by the Manager or Board of Managers thereof, to have access to each apartment from time to time during reasonable hours as may be necessary for the maintenance, repair and replacement of any of the common areas and facilities therein or accessible therefrom or for making emergency repairs therein necessary to prevent damage to the common areas and facilities or to another apartment or apartments. ….. ….. ….. ….. 11. ….. ….. ….. ….. 11. Contents of declaration.- (1) The declaration shall contain the following particulars, namely:- (a) description of land on which the building and improvements are to be located and whether the land is freehold or leasehold; (b) description of the building stating the number of storey and basement, the number of apartments and the principal materials of which it is or is to be constructed; (c) the apartment number of each apartment and a statement of its location, approximate area, number of rooms and immediate common area to which it has access and any other data necessary for its proper identification; (d) description of the common areas and facilities; (e) description of the limited common area and facilities, if any, stating to which apartments their use is reserved; (f) value of the property and of each apartment and the percentage of undivided interest in the common areas and facilities appertaining to each apartment and its owner for all purposes, including voting, and a statement that the apartment and such percentage of undivided interest are not encumbered in any manner whatsoever or not on the date of the declaration; (g) statement of the purposes for which the building and each of the apartments are intended and restricted as to use; (h) the name of a person to receive service of process in the cases hereinafter provided, together with the residence or place of business of such persons which shall be within the city, town or village in which the building is located; (i) provisions as to the percentage of votes by the apartment owners which shall be determinative of whether to rebuild, repair, restore or sell the property in the event of damage or destruction of all of part of the property; (j) any other details in connection with the property which the person executing the declaration may deem desirable to set forth consistent with this Act; and (k) the method by which the declaration may be amended consistent with the provisions of this Act. (2) A true copy of each of the declaration and bye-laws and all amendments to the declaration or the bye-laws shall be filed in the office of the competent authority. 12. (2) A true copy of each of the declaration and bye-laws and all amendments to the declaration or the bye-laws shall be filed in the office of the competent authority. 12. Contents of deed of apartment.- (1) The deed of apartment shall include the following particulars, namely:- (a) description of the land as provided in section 11 or the postal address of the property, including in either case the number, page and date of executing the declaration, the date and serial number of its registration under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 and the date & other reference, if any, of its filing with the competent authority; (b) the apartment number of the apartment in the declaration and any other data necessary for its proper identification; (c) statement of the use for which the apartment is intended and restrictions on its use , if any; (d) the percentage of undivided interest appertaining to the apartment in the common areas and facilities; and (e) any further details which may be desirable to set forth consistent of the declaration and this Act. (2) A true copy of every deed of apartment shall be filed in the office of the competent authority. 13. Declaration, deed of apartments and copies of floor plans to be registered.- (1) The declaration and all amendments thereto and the deed of apartment in respect of each apartment and the floor plans of the buildings referred to in sub-section (2) shall be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908. (2) Simultaneously with the registration of the declaration, there shall be filed along with it a set of the floor plans of the buildings showing the layout, locations, apartment numbers and dimensions of the apartments, stating the name of the building or that it has no name and bearing the verified statement of an architect certifying that it is an accurate copy of the portions of the plans of the building as filed with and approved by the local authority within whose jurisdiction the building is located. If such plans do not include a verified statement by such architect that such plans fully and accurately depict the layout, location, apartment numbers and dimensions of the apartments as built, there shall be recorded prior to the first conveyance of any apartment, an amendment to the declaration to which shall be attached a verified statement of an architect certifying that the plans therefore filed, or being filed simultaneously with such amendment, fully and accurately, depict the layout, location, apartment number and dimension of the apartment as built. (3) In all registration offices a book called “Register of declarations and deeds of apartments under the Haryana Apartment ownership Act, 1983” and index relating thereto shall be kept. The book and the index shall be kept in such form and shall contain such particulars as may be prescribed. (4) It shall be the duty of every Manager or Board of Managers to sent to the Sub-Registrar of the Sub-District in which the property containing the apartment is situated, or if there is no Sub-Registrar for the area, to the Registrar of the District in which such property is situated, a certified copy of the declaration and deed of apartment made in respect of every apartment contained in the building forming part of the property. (5) The Sub-Registrar or as the case may be, the Registrar shall register the declaration alongwith the floor plans of the building and the deed of apartment in the register and also enter particulars in the index kept under sub-section (3), Any person acquiring an apartment of any apartment owner shall be deemed to have notice of the declaration and deed of apartment. (6) Except as provided in this section, the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1968 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the registration of such declarations and deeds of apartments and the words and expressions, used in this section but not defined in this Act shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Indian Registration Act, 1908. 14. (6) Except as provided in this section, the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1968 shall, mutatis mutandis, apply to the registration of such declarations and deeds of apartments and the words and expressions, used in this section but not defined in this Act shall have the meaning assigned to them in the Indian Registration Act, 1908. 14. Removal from provision of Act.– (1) All the apartment owners may remove a property from the provisions of this Act by any instrument to that effect duly executed: Provided that the holders of all charges and other encumbrances affecting any of the apartments may consent thereto or agree, in either case by instruments duly executed, that their charges or encumbrances be transferred to the percentage of the undivided interest of the apartment owner in the property as hereinafter provided. (2) Upon removal of the property from the provisions of this Act, the property shall be deemed to be owned in common by the apartment owners. The undivided interest in the property owned in common which shall appertain to each apartment owner shall be the percentage of undivided interest previously owned by such owner in the common areas and facilities. 15. Removal no bar to subsequent resubmission of property to Act.- The removal provided for in section 14 shall in no way bar the subsequent resubmission of the property to the provisions of this Act. ….. ….. ….. ….. 22. 15. Removal no bar to subsequent resubmission of property to Act.- The removal provided for in section 14 shall in no way bar the subsequent resubmission of the property to the provisions of this Act. ….. ….. ….. ….. 22. Disposition of property, destruction or damage.– If within sixty days of the date of damage to or destruction of all or part of the property it is not determined by the association of apartment owners to repair, reconstruct or rebuild, in that event:- (a) the property shall be deemed to be owned in common by apartment owner; (b) the undivided interests in the property, owned in common which shall appertain to each apartment owner shall be the percentage of the undivided interest previously owned by such owners in the common areas and facilities; (c) any encumbrances affecting any of the apartments shall be deemed to be transferred in accordance with the existing priority to the percentage of the undivided interest of the apartment owner in the property as provided herein; and (d) the property shall be subject to an action for partition at the suit of any apartment owner in which event the net proceeds of the sale together with the net proceeds of the insurance on the property, if any, shall be considered as one fund and shall be divided among all the apartment owners in percentage equal to the percentage of undivided interest owned by each owner in the property after first paying out, all the respective shares of the apartment owners to the extent sufficient for the purpose and all charges on the undivided interest in the property owned by each apartment owner. ….. ….. ….. ….. … Haryana Apartment Ownership Rules, 1987 Dated 20th November, 1987 ….. ….. ….. ….. 3. Form of declaration [Section 25]- The declaration to be executed and registered under section 2 of the Act by the sole owner or all the owners shall be in form A. 4. ….. ….. ….. ….. … Haryana Apartment Ownership Rules, 1987 Dated 20th November, 1987 ….. ….. ….. ….. 3. Form of declaration [Section 25]- The declaration to be executed and registered under section 2 of the Act by the sole owner or all the owners shall be in form A. 4. Deed of apartment [Section 5 (2)]- (1) The deed of the apartment to be executed by each apartment owner under sub-section (2) of Section 5 shall be in form B. (2) The deed shall be signed by the apartment owner and verified in the presence of a Magistrate or any other person competent to administer oath and shall be filed with the competent authority within thirty days from the date of its execution or within such longer period as that authority may permit. 5. Conveyance by deed of apartments [Section 5(2)]- All transfers of apartment by the sole owner or all the owners of the property (being an owner or owners who has or have executed and registered a declaration in Form A) to an apartment owner and subsequent transfers from an apartment owner to his transferee shall be by a deed of apartment. ….. ….. ….. ….. … The Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 [Haryana Act No.1 of 2012] ….. ….. ….. ….. CHAPTER IV REGISTRATION OF SOCIETY ….. ….. ….. ….. 9. Registration.- (1) to (3) ….. ….. ….. ….. (4) Every existing Society shall apply in the prescribed proforma to the District Registrar for obtaining a new registration number within a period of two years or such further period, hereinafter referred to as extended period, as may be notified by the Government. If the new registration number is not applied within two years as mentioned above, then the application for the new registration number shall be made along with such fee, as may be prescribed, within such extended period, as notified by the Government. If a Society fails to move an application for the new registration number even within such extended period, the registration may be cancelled.” 8. If a Society fails to move an application for the new registration number even within such extended period, the registration may be cancelled.” 8. The first question that arises is whether “Park Place” is a separate group housing scheme independent of the development on the rest of the property or whether it is a part of the development of the entire area of about 500 acres which goes by the name of DLF Phase-V. The consideration of this aspect involves an analysis of the statutory documents filed by the developers, the representation made by the developers to the prospective purchasers as well as to the authorities and the documents entered into between the developers and the purchasers. STATUTORY DOCUMENTS 9. We would first deal with the statutory documents executed by the developers. Application for Licence 10 (A) The developers applied for the grant of a licence to set up a residential colony, namely, DLF Qutab Enclave Complex, Phase-V, at Wazirabad village in Tehsil and District Gurgaon. It is admitted that Phase-V is only the name for the entire area and does not denote that the development was in separate phases. The applications for the licences are in Form LC-I of the 1976 rules. Eighty-two licences were sought for and granted between 16.03.1995 and 23.05.2011. The licences pertain to an aggregate area of 542.6765 hectares of which 66.25 hectares were in respect of plotted area and 476.4265 acres were in respect of group housing areas. The details in this regard are as under:- No. Date of Application Licence Nos. Date of Licences No. of Licences Area 1 16.03.1995 110 to 133 of 1995 29.2.1995 24 385.8800 2 04.09.1995 134 to 146 of 1995 30.12.1995 13 14.4000 3 26.12.1995 38 to 53 of 1996 16.04.1996 16 25.9770 4 08.03.1996 09.04.1996 54 to 59 of 1996 30.04.1996 6 44.2150 5 02.12.1997 29.12.1997 17.06.1998 27.07.1998 8 to 18 of 2000 08.03.2000 11 44.5520 6 01.08.2000 21.07.2000 09.08.2000 1 to 6 of 2002 25.01.2002 6 10.3050 7 22.10.2001 3 of 2003 30.04.2003 1 1.1460 8 29.08.2002 6 of 2003 02.05.2003 1 1.7670 9 29.08.2003 40 & 41 of 2004 31.03.2004 2 0.9325 10 22.01.2007 200 of 2007 16.07.2007 1 1.3330 11 23.05.2001 120 of 2011 29.12.2011 1 13.4000 82 542.6765 The first item in the table shows that 24 licences in respect of 385.88 acres were applied for on 16.03.1995 itself. Further licences were sought from time to time in respect of the same project, namely, DLF Phase-V, requiring an amendment to the original plans which has given rise to considerable controversy. The reason why several applications for licenses were made on a given day is that the applications are to be made by the owners of the land. The large area comprised of several khasra numbers, all of which were not owned by one party. Many were owned by the developers and their associate concerns as also by others from whom they acquired rights from time to time. (B) Each of the licences was applied for in Form LC-I prescribed under Rule 3(1) of the 1976 Rules. The applications were for “grant of the licence to set up a Residential colony as DLF Qutab Enclave Complex, Phase-V” in the areas specified therein. Clause-2 of the licences required the applicant to furnish copies of “title deeds and other documents showing the interest of the applicant in the land under the proposed colonies”. One such LC-I Form filed on 16.03.1995 was in respect of 2.25 acres at Wazirabad Village in Tehsil and District Gurgaon. The applicant also furnished the khasra numbers and the areas of each of the khasra numbers. It is pertinent to note that the applications for licences were expressly made not to set up a residential colony in the land specified in the LC-I Forms but were sought to setup the residential colony, namely, DLF Phase-V. The LC-I Forms attached various plans, such as, shajra plans, guide map to the area and copies of survey plans. It is important to note that the LC-I Form required the applicant to furnish a layout plan of the colony on a specified scale showing the existing and proposed means of access to the colony, the width of the streets, sizes and type of plots, site reserved for open spaces, community buildings and schools with area under each and proposed building lines on the front and sides of the plots. Clause 2(v) of the LC-I Form which we set out even earlier reads as under:- i. to iv. ….. ….. ….. ….. Clause 2(v) of the LC-I Form which we set out even earlier reads as under:- i. to iv. ….. ….. ….. ….. v. A layout plan of the colony on a scale of 1 ctm to 10 mtrs showing the existing and proposed means of access to the colony, the width of street, sizes and type of plots, site reserved for open spaces, community buildings and schools with area under each and proposed building lines on the front and sides of the plot. Copies of Layout plan are attached. v. A layout plan of the colony on a scale of 1 ctm to 10 mtrs showing the existing and proposed means of access to the colony, the width of street, sizes and type of plots, site reserved for open spaces, community buildings and schools with area under each and proposed building lines on the front and sides of the plot. Copies of Layout plan are attached. …… ….. ….. …… …… …… …….” The developers attached the copies of the layout plans to the LC-I Forms submitted by them. 11. It is important to note that the layout plan attached to each of the LC-I Forms was in respect of the entire property in DLF Phase-V and not in respect only of the lands which were the subject matter of each licence. Thus, when 24 applications were made together on 16.03.1995, each of them specified the land in respect whereof the licence was sought but the same layout plan, which was in respect of the entire area of 385.88 acres which at that time the DLF Phase-V was comprised of, was attached along with each of the licences. This indicates that the licences were not sought for the development only in respect of the property that formed the subject matter of each of the applications for the licenses but in respect of the entire DLF Phase-V. The opening part of each of the applications also expressly stated that the licences were sought to set up a residential colony in DLF Phase-V. 12. Mr. Khanna, however, relied upon the opening part of the applications in Form LC-I which stated that the application was for the grant of licence to set up a residential colony as DLF Phase-V at the village specified therein. This, however, does not indicate that the application was to develop only the lands mentioned therein independently. Mr. Khanna, however, relied upon the opening part of the applications in Form LC-I which stated that the application was for the grant of licence to set up a residential colony as DLF Phase-V at the village specified therein. This, however, does not indicate that the application was to develop only the lands mentioned therein independently. The opening part, read in the correct perspective, indicates that the application was in respect of the land which was situated in the village mentioned therein and not that the said lands would be developed only on the basis of that licence. This is clear from the fact that the layout plan attached, as required by Clause 2(v), was not in respect only of the land referred to in each of the LC-I Forms but in respect of the entire area of DLF Phase-V available on the date of the application. Letter of Intent 13. The first respondent thereafter issued Letters of Intent (LOI) in respect of each of the applications for the licences. For instance, in respect of the application dated 16.03.1995, the respondent issued a LOI dated 06.07.1995. The LOIs also indicate that they were granted not merely in respect of the land mentioned in the corresponding applications for licences but in respect of the entire area relating to DLF Phase-V. 14. The subject of the LOI reads as under:- “Subject: Grant of licence to develop a residential/group housing colony namely D.L.F. Qutab Enclave Phase V at village Wazirabad & Chakkarpur, District Gurgaon – M/s D.L.F. Universal Ltd. & its associate companies.” (emphasis supplied) The subject refers to the grant of licences for development not merely to DLF Universal Limited but also to its associate companies. Each of these entities had filed separate LC-I Forms in respect of different parcels of land. The letter being addressed to M/s DLF Universal Limited and its associate companies, indicates a single development and not multiple developments on each of the plots referred to in each of the licences. If it were not so, separate LOIs would have been issued to each of the companies only in respect of the lands held or owned by them. 15. Secondly, the grant of licences was to develop “a residential/group housing colony, namely, DLF Qutab Enclave, Phase-V”. In paragraph-2, it is stated:- “2. If it were not so, separate LOIs would have been issued to each of the companies only in respect of the lands held or owned by them. 15. Secondly, the grant of licences was to develop “a residential/group housing colony, namely, DLF Qutab Enclave, Phase-V”. In paragraph-2, it is stated:- “2. It is proposed to grant licence to you for setting up a residential/group housing colony at village Wazirabad & Chakkarpur, Tehsil & District Gurgaon for an area of 385.88 acres.” The LOI, therefore, was in respect of a residential colony i.e. one residential/group housing colony and not multiple/group housing colonies. 16. Thirdly, the licence was to develop not specific khasra numbers or lands, referred to in the various licences, but to develop the DLF Qutab Enclave, Phase-V. It is not even the petitioners’ case that DLF Qutab Enclave, Phase-V does not include the entire area. 17. Fourthly, the licences were to develop residential/group housing colonies in different villages, namely, Wazirabad and Chakkarpur. Separate licences in LC-I Forms were applied for in respect of the lands at Wazirabad and Chakkarpur. Separate LOIs were, however, not issued in respect of each of the licences. A common LOI was issued in respect of the various licences. The LOI, therefore, was for the development at the said villages “for an area of 385.88 acres”. 18. Separate LOIs were not issued in respect of each of the 24 licences. A combined LOI was issued in respect of the entire area of 385.88 acres which related to DLF Phase-V. The terms and conditions that followed were also obviously, therefore, in respect of all the applications for licences. Each of the sub-clauses (i) to (vii) of Clause-2 of the LOI indicates almost conclusively that the 1st respondent also issued the LOI not in respect of separate parcels of lands but in respect of the entire DLF Phase-V. (a)(i) Sub-clause (i) of the LOI requires the applicant to furnish a bank-guarantee of the estimated cost of external and internal development works. The area mentioned in respect of internal development works is the entire area of 32 acres for the plotted colony and 353.88 acres in respect of the group housing colony. The interim rates and the total costs for each of them are composite figures and not separate figures. The area mentioned in respect of internal development works is the entire area of 32 acres for the plotted colony and 353.88 acres in respect of the group housing colony. The interim rates and the total costs for each of them are composite figures and not separate figures. Similarly, the external development charges are worked out in respect of the entire area of the plotted colony and the entire area of the group housing scheme. (ii) The internal development charges and the external development charges, therefore, have been computed not separately in respect of each plot of land or lands that formed the subject matter of each application in Form LC-I but in respect of the aggregate area of all the licences. This is a clear indication that what was contemplated was the development not of 24 different blocks of land but for the aggregate area comprising DLF Phase-V. (b) Sub-clauses (iv) and (v) of the LOI read as under:- “(iv) The density of population shall not exceed 250 PPA and ground coverage shall be limited to 15% in the group housing area. (v) The commercial area shall be provided upto 6-1/2% of the net planned area in the group housing area. Besides the above, the additional area of 1% of net planned Group Housing area for cultural, recreational and amusement activities, which do not have predominantly commercial content like cultural centre, art museum, ice-skating rink and other such items to be decided by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana shall be allowed in the group housing area. Commercial contents in plotted area shall be governed by existing provisions in this regard.” It must be noted that the PPA and the extent of the commercial area is in respect of the “group housing area”. The group housing areas are referred to in sub-clause (i) while working out the value of the guarantee of the estimated cost of the internal and external development works. As we noted earlier, the group housing area and the plotted area are in respect of the entire area comprised in DLF Phase-V. By a further letter dated 06.11.1995, there were certain amendments to the LOI dated 06.07.1995, which are of no consequence so far as this aspect is concerned. 19. As we noted earlier, the group housing area and the plotted area are in respect of the entire area comprised in DLF Phase-V. By a further letter dated 06.11.1995, there were certain amendments to the LOI dated 06.07.1995, which are of no consequence so far as this aspect is concerned. 19. This position remained the same even in respect of the additional areas, i.e., the areas added to DLF Phase-V from time to time as indicated in the table above. An illustration brings this out. As mentioned in the table, on 04.09.1995, 13 applications were made in Form LC-I for the development in respect of additional 14.40 acres. Separate LOIs were not issued in respect of each of the 13 applications. The importance of this LOI is evident from its subject which reads as under:- “Subject: Application for grant of licence for additional area of 14.40 acres in DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Phase-V for setting up of a group housing colony at villages Wazirabad and Chakkarpur, District Gurgaon.” The first respondent considered the developer’s application for grant of licence not in respect of 14.40 acres independently but as having been made in respect of “additional area of 14.40 acres in DLF Qutab Enclave Complex Phase-V”. In other words, the additional area of 14.40 acres was considered as a part of the entire DLF Phase-V and not independent thereof. Further the layout plan attached with each of the LC-I Forms for the additional area was also in respect of the aggregate area of the DLF Phase-V. In other words, the site plan attached to the LOI Forms for the additional area was not restricted to the additional area – a clear indication that the entire area was considered to be a single indivisible one. That the guarantee to be furnished was worked out on the basis of this additional area of 14.40 acres, is irrelevant. Firstly, the computation for the original area had already been worked out and it was necessary, therefore, to compute the value of the guarantee now only for the additional area. That does not indicate that the additional area was to be treated as a separate development. 20. This was the position every time additional land was acquired by the developers and licences for development were applied for. That does not indicate that the additional area was to be treated as a separate development. 20. This was the position every time additional land was acquired by the developers and licences for development were applied for. Each of the applications in respect of the additional areas acquired from time to time had a site plan for the entire DLF Phase-V. This was also the position in respect of the LOIs granted from time to time. 21. The LOI required the developer to execute two agreements i.e. LC-IV Agreement and the Bilateral Agreement to be submitted separately for group housing and plotted areas. For instance, in the LOI dated 06.07.1995, this condition was stipulated in Clause 2(ii). Agreement by owner of land intending to set up a colony 22. Accordingly, the developers entered into an agreement in Form LC-IV titled “AGREEMENT BY OWNER OF LAND INTENDING TO SET UP A COLONY”. The agreement is between the developer and the Government of Haryana acting through the Director, Town and Country Planning. The first recital stated that the owner is in possession of the land mentioned in the annexure to the agreement for the purpose of converting the same into a residential colony. Mr. Khanna relied upon the fact that the annexure referred only to the land mentioned in the corresponding Form LC-I application for the licence. He submitted that this indicates that the Agreement was only in respect of the specific land mentioned therein and not with regard to the entire land comprised in the DLF Phase-V. The requirement of executing this agreement is, in turn, stipulated in rule 11 of the 1976 Rules. He submitted that if the entire lands are to be considered as one development of one colony, an additional Bilateral Agreement ought to have been executed with regard to the entire land holding. 23. The submission is not well-founded. The error is in reading the agreement in isolation and relying only upon individual sentences. The agreement must be read as a whole and the agreement must also be read together with all other documents and, in particular, the documents that preceded it. In DLF Limited v. Manmohan Lowe and others 2014(12) SCC 231 , the Supreme Court held as under:- “65. The agreement must be read as a whole and the agreement must also be read together with all other documents and, in particular, the documents that preceded it. In DLF Limited v. Manmohan Lowe and others 2014(12) SCC 231 , the Supreme Court held as under:- “65. We are of the view that the High Court has not properly appreciated or applied the various statutory provisions of the Regulation Act and the Rules framed thereunder, the terms of licences issued, agreements executed between the coloniser and DTCP vis-à-vis the various provisions of the Apartment Act, the statutory declaration made by the coloniser and the sale deeds executed between the parties. ….. ….. ….” These observations support the view that apart from the statutory provisions, the various documents entered into between the parties and executed between the parties as well as the licences and permissions ought to be read together for the purpose of interpreting the effect thereof. The documents cannot be considered independent of each other. Moreover, each of the documents must be read as a whole. In this regard, Mr. Mishra’s reliance upon the above observations of the Supreme Court is well founded. We did not hear Mr. Khanna or Mr. Bhan to contend the contrary either. Infact this judgment would support Mr. Khanna’s contention that even other documents such as the brochure ought to be taken into consideration. We agree. It is not necessary to deal with other aspects of the judgment in DLF Limited v. Manmohan Lowe and others (supra). Mr. Mishra submitted that the observations made in paragraph-50 are contrary to the plain language of Section 3(f). Even assuming that it is open to us to consider such an argument in respect of a judgment of the Supreme Court, it is not necessary to do so for the present purpose. 24. Clause-1 of the agreement states that it is in consideration of the Director agreeing to grant the licence to the owner to set up the said colony on the land mentioned in the annexure and the owner covenanted to do the things mentioned therein. 24. Clause-1 of the agreement states that it is in consideration of the Director agreeing to grant the licence to the owner to set up the said colony on the land mentioned in the annexure and the owner covenanted to do the things mentioned therein. As we noted earlier, the LOIs mentioned that it was proposed to grant the owner a licence for setting up a residential/group housing colony for the entire area comprised of DLF Phase-V. As we have already observed, the applications for the licences in Form LC-1 were not for the purpose of development of the lands mentioned in each of the applications separately but for the development of a larger area which was the aggregate of all the licences applied for from time to time. As we also observed, the LOIs were also in respect of the aggregate of the areas comprised in the applications for licences from time to time. The LOIs inter alia required the applicant to enter into an agreement in Form LC-IV. Separate agreements in Form LC-IV were executed in respect of the corresponding applications for licences. However, the development was in respect of a single project, namely, DLF Phase-V. Separate agreements in Form LC-IV were obviously required for administrative purposes alone. It is not even the petitioners’ case that separate layout plans were stipulated in respect of each of the agreements. Had the intention of either the developers or the authorities been the development of group housing colonies or plotted colonies separately and independent of each other, the layout plans in respect of each of the applications and corresponding agreements would have been prepared. Further, the agreement in Form LC-IV referred to the development at the village Wazirabad and Chakkarpur. Some of the lands in these agreements were in Wazirabad and some of them were in Chakkarpur. 25. The Form LC-IV must not, therefore, be seen as an agreement to develop the lands mentioned therein as a separate and independent project but as a part of DLF Phase-V. The prescribed Form LC-IV subsisted prior to the year 2007. Thereafter the form prescribed was Form LC-IVA. Bilateral Agreement 26. The LOIs also required the developer to execute a Bilateral Agreement. Thereafter the form prescribed was Form LC-IVA. Bilateral Agreement 26. The LOIs also required the developer to execute a Bilateral Agreement. Pursuant thereto, the developers entered into agreements titled “Bilateral agreement by owner of land intending to set up a colony with the Governor of Haryana acting through the Director, Town & Country Planning” (hereafter referred to as the ‘Bilateral Agreements’). This agreement also referred to the Director having agreed to grant a licence to set up a colony on the land mentioned in the annexure thereto on the developer fulfilling the terms and conditions stipulated therein. The annexure to this agreement also specified only the land mentioned in the corresponding Form LC-I applications for the licences. This does not indicate that the agreement was for the development of separate and independent group housing colonies on the lands mentioned in each of the bilateral agreements. What we said in respect of the agreement in Form LC-IV/IVA applies equally to the Bilateral Agreement. 27. It is pertinent to note that the Bilateral Agreements require the owner to reserve 20% of the total number of residential plots developed or proposed to be developed for allotment to the EWS/LIG category and to further reserve 25% of the residential plots of no-profit-no-loss category specified in the layout plan by the Director for allotment. These plots were to be allotted at a price determined by the Director and in the manner stipulated therein. There is no reservation on the plots on which ‘Park Place’ is constructed. This would strongly militate against the petitioners’ contention that each development was a separate group housing scheme. If it was a separate group housing colony, a separate reservation for EWS/LIG category would have been made specifically with respect to Park Place within the area/land allotted to it. This itself establishes that the petitioners were not even under the belief that Park Place was a separate group housing complex. Licenses 28. Ultimately, the licences were issued in Form LC-V as required by rule 12 of the 1976 Rules. The fact that separate licences were granted in respect of each of the applications for licences in Form LC-I does not support Mr. Khanna’s submission. What we mentioned in respect of the agreement in Form LC-IV applies equally to the licences. It is not even the petitioners’ case that a separate layout plan was submitted in respect of each of the licences. Khanna’s submission. What we mentioned in respect of the agreement in Form LC-IV applies equally to the licences. It is not even the petitioners’ case that a separate layout plan was submitted in respect of each of the licences. Clause-1 of the licence itself states that it is granted for setting up a group housing colony at villages Wazirabad and Chakkarpur. As we mentioned earlier, separate licences were not applied for in respect of each of these villages. The fact that the licence in Form LC-V referred to both the villages supports Mr. Mishra’s contention that the licence was granted not for the development of the plots, referred to in the application for licences, separately and independently but for the development of DLF Phase-V as a whole. 29. These documents, namely, the application for licence in Form LC-I, the LOIs, the agreements under rule 11 and the Bilateral Agreements, as required by the LOI and the licenses must be read together. So read, it is clear that what the developer sought and the authorities granted were separate licences for the construction upon the lands mentioned therein. However, the licences were neither sought for nor granted for the development of group housing colonies or plotted colonies on the lands corresponding to the applications and the licences independently, but as a composite construction of the entire area that comprised from time to time DLF Phase-V. Ultimately, that area aggregated to about 476 acres. DOCUMENTS RELATING TO PARK PLACE 30. The next set of documents that must be examined are those related to Park Place in particular. Application for building plans and the amended plans 31. The developers also sought approval of their building plan including in respect of Park Place. The developers made an application on 12.07.2007 for approval of the building plan for nineteen floors for the group housing - Park Place. By a letter dated 24.09.2007 (in Form BR-III of Rule 44 of the 1976 Rules), addressed by the first respondent to the developer, the permission was granted subject to the conditions stated therein. For the issue under consideration, the following part of the approval is relevant:- “Subject:- Approval of building plans of Group Housing Scheme namely “The Park Place” in Zone-11&12, DLF City, Phase-V, Gurgaon being developed by M/s DLF Limited. Reference your application dated 12.3. For the issue under consideration, the following part of the approval is relevant:- “Subject:- Approval of building plans of Group Housing Scheme namely “The Park Place” in Zone-11&12, DLF City, Phase-V, Gurgaon being developed by M/s DLF Limited. Reference your application dated 12.3. 2007 and subsequent letter dated 14.6.07 permission to erect buildings in Group Housing Scheme namely “The Park Place” in Zone-11&12, DLF City, Phase-V, Gurgaon in accordance with the plans/submitted with it. Permission is hereby granted for the aforesaid construction subject to the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads & Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, its rules and the zoning plan framed thereunder alongwith special reference to the following conditions:- …. . .” (emphasis supplied) 32. Mr. Khanna placed reliance on the reference to “Group Housing Scheme namely “Park Place” in respect of his contention that Park Place is a separate group housing scheme independent of rest of the development. The sentence, however, ought to be read as a whole and not in part. The reference to the Park Place Group Housing Scheme is “in Zone-11 & 12, DLF City Phase-V, Gurgaon in accordance with the plans submitted with it.” (emphasis supplied). Moreover, it would not be appropriate to read this letter in isolation. It must be read along with all the other documents especially the applications for the licences, the LOIs and the licenses. It is not anybody’s case that separate licences were sought for the development of each of the schemes within DLF Phase-V. As we have mentioned several times, the layout plans submitted with the applications for the licences were the same and the LOIs and the licences were granted on the basis thereof. The layout plan was not in respect of any particular group housing scheme but in respect of the entire DLF Phase-V. The word “in” used in the subject of the letter and the following paragraph suggests, on the one hand, that the group housing scheme “Park Place” is a separate scheme in DLF Phase-V and, on the other, it is also capable of suggesting that the Park Place Group Housing Scheme is a part of DLF Phase-V. The letter, as we said, however, cannot be read in isolation. Moreover, the letter concerns the application for and the grant thereof in respect of Park Place. Moreover, the letter concerns the application for and the grant thereof in respect of Park Place. The letter was not drafted with a view to describing the nature of the title of these buildings and the rights in respect thereof. 33. By a letter dated 24.12.2008, the developers sought permission to make additions/alterations to the building plan. 34. By a letter dated 28.07.2009 (in Form BR-III, Rule 44 of 1976), the first respondent approved the building plans for additional floors and alterations in Park Place. The letter, in so far as it is relevant, reads as under:- “Subject: Approval of building plans for additional and alteration in Group Hosing (sic) Scheme namely “Park Place in Zone-11&12, DLF City, Phase V, Gurgaon being developed by M/s DLF Limited. Reference your application dated nil received in office on date 24.12.2008 for permission to erect the building for additional and alteration in Group Hosing Scheme namely “Park Place” in Zone – 11 & 12, DLF City, Phase V, Gurgaon in accordance with the plans submitted with it. Permission is hereby granted for the aforesaid construction subject to the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads & Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, its rules and the zoning plan framed thereunder alongwith special reference to the following conditions:- … … .” (emphasis supplied) 35. The plans are referred to in the first paragraph. There are two plans. One is in respect of Park Place alone, whereas, the other is a bigger plan of DLF Phase-V. If Park Place was a separate group housing scheme, it would not have been necessary for the developers to enclose a larger plan in respect of Phase-V. What is even more important is the fact that the larger plan in respect of Phase-V states:- “SITE PLAN/LAYOUT PLAN OF GROUP HOUSING SCHEME OF AN AREA OF 461.6935 ACS. IN PHASE – V OF DLF CITY GURGAON.” This makes it clear that the group housing scheme is not in respect of the areas related to each building or group of buildings. The group housing scheme is in respect of the entire area of about 462 acres in DLF Phase-V. The smaller plan does not have such a legend. IN PHASE – V OF DLF CITY GURGAON.” This makes it clear that the group housing scheme is not in respect of the areas related to each building or group of buildings. The group housing scheme is in respect of the entire area of about 462 acres in DLF Phase-V. The smaller plan does not have such a legend. This makes it clear that Park Place and the other related buildings are not individual, independent group housing schemes but a part of the larger group housing scheme comprising of the entire area in DLF Phase-V. Whether the developers were entitled to amend the plans or not is a different matter. Occupation Certificate 36. An Occupation certificate dated 30.12.2011 was issued under Rule 47(1) in Form BR-VI. Condition-2 of the occupation certificate requires the developers to abide by the provisions of the Apartment Ownership Act, 1983, and the rules framed thereunder. All the flats pertaining to an occupation certificate were required to be compulsorily registered and a deed of declaration to be filed within the time stipulated in the 1983 Act. Mr. Khanna relied upon the description of the building in the occupation certificate. It is described as group housing the Park Place in Zone 12, Phase-V. For reasons we have already stated in respect of similar descriptions in other documents, the same can be read both ways. The authorities issuing the occupation certificate quite clearly did not describe the building keeping in mind the issue under consideration. We will deal with a Deed of Declaration filed by the petitioners on 26.03.2012 with respect to Park Place a little later. BROCHURE ISSUED BY THE DEVELOPERS IN RESPECT OF PARK PLACE 37. The developers published a brochure inviting purchasers. It understandably highlights the nature and quality of the development and the promises made by the developers. Mr. Mishra relied upon the first page of the brochure. The first caption is: “DLF City –The Epitome of world class living”. Under this caption, the development is described in glowing terms. What is relied upon by Mr. Mishra is the reference inviting the public to “come to DLF City, Gurgaon” which is, in turn, described as the largest integrated township and states that DLF City is home to world class condominiums, etc. The second caption on the first page is “DLF Phase-V- The address of the future”. What is relied upon by Mr. Mishra is the reference inviting the public to “come to DLF City, Gurgaon” which is, in turn, described as the largest integrated township and states that DLF City is home to world class condominiums, etc. The second caption on the first page is “DLF Phase-V- The address of the future”. He relied upon the sentence under this caption: “Welcome to DLF Phase V, the address that’ll also be home to one of the finest residential options – DLF Park Place”. 38. This description read by itself may be of no assistance in determining the issue. It could be read both ways. It can be read as Park Place being the address within the entire DLF Phase-V. It can equally be construed to mean that the DLF Park Place is an integral part of DLF Phase-V. However, read as a part of the entire document and with the other documents, it ought to be construed as suggested by Mr. Mishra. 39. Mr. Khanna relied upon what follows in the brochure under the caption: “DLF Park Place-A World Within a World”. He also relied upon the last statement under this caption to the effect that the purchasers would also find “a Medical Centre, Shopping Centre and Schools. All within the DLF Park Place complex”. Mr. Khanna also relied upon the reference to “The sprawling 30-acre DLF Park Place” and that everything has been thoughtfully planned to surround the purchasers with excellent amenities. This part of the brochure again read by itself supports Mr. Khanna’s submission as it is stated that the said facilities would be not within DLF Phase-V but within the DLF Park Place complex. The site-map annexed to the brochure also identifies the various buildings including Park Place. The document must, however, be read as a whole. 40. Mr. Mishra relied upon specifications annexed to the brochure relating to the structure design inter alia for Zone-V. Mr. The site-map annexed to the brochure also identifies the various buildings including Park Place. The document must, however, be read as a whole. 40. Mr. Mishra relied upon specifications annexed to the brochure relating to the structure design inter alia for Zone-V. Mr. Mishra relied upon the following legend under the caption “Club Facility”:- “Schools, Dispensary, Shopping Centre and the independent Club mentioned above are part of overall DLF City Phase-V and even though they may be located in DLF Park Place usage, membership and admission to the same is not exclusive to residents of DLF Park Place only but is open to others (including residents of Phase-V) subject to their conforming to the eligibility/entitlement criteria with regard to their membership, payment of charges/fees etc., as per applicable rules and regulations governing them, on an individual basis. The above conditionalities apply to residents of DLF Park Place also with regard to their conforming to applicable criteria for usage, membership and payment of fees/charges etc. of the above.” A similar legend appears in the applications submitted by the prospective purchasers, which we will refer to later. Mr. Mishra’s submission that this clause was precisely to disabuse the purchasers from the notion that they have a separate right is well-founded. The clause indicates that the development of each of the buildings or cluster of buildings by a common name was part of the entire development of Phase-V. It is difficult to imagine a situation where Park Place is an independent development disconnected from the rest of Phase-V and yet the residents thereof would be bound to permit thousands of others to use the club facilities but they, in turn, would not have similar rights in the rest of the properties. Theoretically, it is possible to create such rights. A realistic view would militate against it. There are several other residents of Park Place who understandably do not support the petitioners’ construction of the brochure for if it were to be accepted, the consequences for the residents of Park Place would be disastrous. It would then entitle the thousands of people in Phase-V to use all the club facilities if located within Park Place, on the one hand, and disentitle the residents of Park Place, on the other, from using the facilities in the rest of Phase-V. DOCUMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE DEVELOPERS AND THE PURCHASERS SUCH AS THE PETITIONERS 41. It would then entitle the thousands of people in Phase-V to use all the club facilities if located within Park Place, on the one hand, and disentitle the residents of Park Place, on the other, from using the facilities in the rest of Phase-V. DOCUMENTS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE DEVELOPERS AND THE PURCHASERS SUCH AS THE PETITIONERS 41. This brings us to the documents entered into between the purchasers such as the petitioners’ members on the one hand and the developers on the other. Application for allotment 42. The purchasers were required to file “Application for Allotment by Sale of Residential Apartment”. It stated that the application does not constitute an agreement to sell. The application was, however, relied upon by all the parties in support of their rival contentions. The heading is as follows:- “Application for Allotment by Sale of Residential Apartment in DLF Park Towers/DLF Park Heights at DLF Park Place in Zone 11 & 12 of Phase V of DLF City (Earlier known as DLF Qutab Enclave Complex) Gurgaon (Haryana)” We will presume that this document, read by itself, can be read both ways. It can be read to mean that what was applied for was a residential apartment in DLF Park Towers as a separate group housing scheme and, on the other, it can be read as an application for purchase of an apartment in DLF Park Place which, in turn, was “in Zone 11 & 12 of Phase V of DLF City”, meaning thereby that DLF Park Place was a part of the integrated development of DLF Phase-V as a whole. 43. Mr. Mishra, however, relied upon the sentence” “I/We are making this application with the full knowledge that the building plans for the building in which the apartment applied for is located are sanctioned by the competent authority” in support of his contention that the purchasers were aware of the plan. Faced with this, Mr. Khanna submitted that the building plans were not even ready when some of these applications were made. That, however, would militate against Mr. Faced with this, Mr. Khanna submitted that the building plans were not even ready when some of these applications were made. That, however, would militate against Mr. Khanna’s submission for the layout plan had, in any event, been submitted along with the application for a licence in Form LC-I and, as we mentioned earlier, the layout plan was not in respect of any particular building or building complex but in respect of the entire DLF Phase-V. Therefore, the layout plan was to the knowledge of the applicants. In any event, the applicants ought to be deemed to have knowledge of the same or could have gained such knowledge with the exercise of reasonable care. 44. All the parties also relied upon the indicative terms and conditions which form a part of the application for provisional allotment “IN DLF PARK PLACE IN ZONE 11 & 12 OF PHASE V OF DLF CITY.” This legend, read by itself, however, for the reasons already stated, is of no assistance in answering the question. Clauses 1, 3, 4(a), 4(b) and 11(a) read as under:- “1. The Intending Allottees has applied for provisional allotment of a residential apartment with full knowledge of all the laws/notifications and rules applicable to this area in general and this group housing project in particular which have been explained by the Company and understood by him/her. ……. ……. ……. ……. … 3. The Intending Allottees agrees that he/she shall pay the price of the apartment and other charges calculated on the basis of super area which is understood to include pro rata share of the common areas in DLF Park Place including the club and other common facilities, if any, which may be located any where in the said DLF Park Place Project at the sole discretion of the Company. It is further understood by the Intending Allottees that the calculation of super area of the apartment shall be more clearly defined in the Apartment Buyers Agreement and upon execution of that agreement the method of definition of super area stated therein shall become binding on both the parties. 4(a). The company has calculated the total price payable by the Intending Allottee for the said Apartment on the basis of its super area which comprises of the apartment area and the undivided share in the common areas and facilities within the said Building (DLF Park Place) only. 4(a). The company has calculated the total price payable by the Intending Allottee for the said Apartment on the basis of its super area which comprises of the apartment area and the undivided share in the common areas and facilities within the said Building (DLF Park Place) only. In addition though not forming a part of the computation of super area for which price is charged, the Intending Allottee shall have the ownership of undivided proportionate share of the land beneath the footprint of the said Building only calculated in the ratio of super area of his/her Apartment to the total super area of all the Apartments in the said Building only. The Intending Allottee confirms and represents that he/she has not made any payment to the Company in any manner whatsoever and that the Company has not indicated/promised/represented/given any impression of any kind in an explicit or implicit manner whatsoever, that the Intending Allottee shall have any right, title or interest of any kind whatsoever in any lands, buildings, common areas, facilities and amenities falling outside the land beneath the footprint of the said Building save and except the use of common areas (for the purposes of direct exit to a nearest public street, nearest road only) to be identified by the Company in its sole discretion and such identification by the Company in its plans now or in future shall be final, conclusive and binding on the Intending Allottee. The Company has made clear to the Intending Allottee that it shall be carrying out extensive developmental/construction activities for many decades in future in the entire area falling outside the land beneath the said Building, in which his/her Apartment is located and that the Intending Allottee has confirmed that he/she shall not raise any objections or make any claims or default in any payments as demanded by the company on account of inconvenience, if any, which may be suffered by him/her due to such developmental/construction activities or incidental/related activities. It is made clear by the company and agreed by the Intending Allottee that all rights including the ownership thereof of lands, facilities and amenities (other than those within the said Building and the land beneath the said building only), shall vest solely with the Company and the Company shall have the sole and absolute authority to deal in any manner with such lands, facilities and amenities including but not limited to creation of further rights in favour of any other party by way of sale, transfer, lease, collaboration, joint venture, operation and management or any other mode including transfer to government, semi government, any other authority, body, any person, institution, trust and/or any local bodies which the company may deem fit in its sole discretion. The Company relying on this specific undertaking of the Intending Allottee in the application may provisionally agree to allot the Apartment and this undertaking shall survive throughout the occupancy of the Apartment by the Intending Allottee, his/her legal representatives, successors, administrators, executors, assigns etc. 4(b) The apartment applied for along with the building in which the apartment applied for shall be subject to the provisions of Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 or any statutory enactment or modifications thereof. The common areas and facilities and the undivided interest of each apartment owner in the common areas and facilities as specified by the Company in the declaration which may be filed by the Company in compliance of Haryana Apartment Ownership Act 1983 shall be conclusive and binding upon the apartment owners and the Intending Allottee agrees and confirms that his/her right, title and interest in the said Apartment/said Building shall be limited to and governed by what is specified by the Company in the said declaration. In this regard it is made clear by the Company and fully understood by the Intending Allottee that the declaration to be filed in compliance of Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 shall be in strict consonance with Clause 4(a) above and in no manner shall confer any right, title or interest in any lands, facilities, amenities and buildings outside the land beneath the footprint of the said Building in which the said apartment is located. It is made clear that the Company shall be the sole owner of the said lands, facilities, amenities and buildings outside the land beneath the footprint of the said Building in which the said Apartment is located and the Company shall be entitled to sell, transfer, part with possession thereof or otherwise dispose off the same to any one and in any manner at its sole discretion and the Intending Allottee shall have no claim whatsoever of any sort therein. The Intending Allottee undertakes to join any society/association of the apartment owners and to pay any fees, charges thereof and complete such documentation and formalities as may be deemed necessary by the Company in its sole discretion for this purpose. ……. ……. ……. ……. 11(a) The Intending Allottee has made this application with full knowledge that the building plans, specifications, location of the apartments/building, in which apartment applied for will be located, floor plans and other terms and conditions as stated in this proposal are tentative and are liable to change, alteration, modification, revision, addition, deletion, substitution or recast at the sole discretion of the Company as it may deem fit. The Intending Allotees hereby agrees that the Company is fully entitled to increase the number of floors in the said building and/or the height of the said building and the Intending Allottee has no objection to the same. In case the company is able to obtain the necessary approvals for increasing the number of floors and/or increase of the height of the said building then in such case, the company shall inform the Intending allottee about whether the Intending Allottee wishes to move to a higher floor. If the Intending Allottee conveys his desire to shift to a higher floor, the same may be permitted by the company at its sole discretion. Accordingly, this application and the subsequent Apartment Buyers' Agreement shall stand modified to this effect. The intimation of option to shift to a higher floor will be given to all the Intending Allottees by way of written notice. Accordingly, this application and the subsequent Apartment Buyers' Agreement shall stand modified to this effect. The intimation of option to shift to a higher floor will be given to all the Intending Allottees by way of written notice. The Intending Allottee authorises the company to refund the entire money received from the Intending Allottee with simple interest @ 6 % per annum if the company is not in a position allot the said apartment within twelve (12) months of the date of this application and the Intending Allottee has assured the company that he/she shall not raise any disputes in this regard and that his/her consent and authorisation to the company for refund is irrevocable.” As we mentioned earlier, this document contains the same specifications as were appended to the brochure, a part of which we have quoted while referring to the brochure. For the reasons already stated, this part of the specifications supports the respondents’ contention. 45. Clause-1 is not of any assistance in answering this question for it refers to the area in general and to the Park Place group housing project in particular. There is no indication as to whether Park Place is an independent group housing colony, as contended on behalf of the petitioners. 46. Clause 4(a) confers upon the allottees ownership of an undivided proportionate share of the land beneath the footprint of the said building only calculated in the manner stipulated. This is emphasised in the clause by stipulating further that the allottee has not paid any amount and the developer has not represented in any manner that the intending allottee would have any right, title or interest of any kind whatsoever in any land, building common areas, facilities and amenities falling outside the land beneath the footprint of the building save and except for the use of common areas. This aspect will assume importance later while construing the statutory provisions of law. This is further emphasised in the clause by stating that all rights including ownership of the land other than those within the said building and the land beneath the said building shall vest only with the developer who has the exclusive right to deal with the same at his own discretion. This is further emphasised in the clause by stating that all rights including ownership of the land other than those within the said building and the land beneath the said building shall vest only with the developer who has the exclusive right to deal with the same at his own discretion. Clause 4(a) also clarifies that the allottees were made aware that the development/construction activities would continue for decades in future in the entire area falling outside the land beneath the building. This is of crucial importance while considering the petitioners’ contention of Park Place being a separate independent group housing colony entitled to the land surrounding the building proportionate to the FAR and PPA norms. The clause clearly militates against the submission. In view of this clause, the purchaser could not even have been under such an impression for the clause excluded the ownership rights of the purchasers, individually and collectively, in the land outside the footprint of the building. Their contention is that the group housing colony would be entitled to the ownership right of the land even outside the footprint of the building proportionate to the FAR and PPA norms. In view of clause 4(a), that could never have been so, as the land outside the footprint under this clause is expressly reserved to the developers. 47. We mentioned earlier that the building plans were altered/modified by entitling the developers to develop additional ten floors. The petitioners have not challenged this aspect in this petition. They say that this aspect was challenged before the Competition Commission and that the matter is now pending in the Supreme Court. APARTMENT BUYER’S AGREEMENT 48. Each of the purchasers ultimately entered into an Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. The covering page of the agreement refers to “DLF Park Place and Phase V, DLF City”. One such agreement entered into between the purchasers of the apartments and respondent No.3 i.e. DLF Home Developers Limited, referred to therein as “the Company”, was furnished. The 3rd respondent’s representations in the agreement under the caption “Company’s Representations” read as under:- “A. WHEREAS Nilgiri is the owner of the land in Phase V and pursuant to an arrangement between Nilgiri and Confirming Party, the Confirming Party is carrying out development in Phase-V. ……. ……. ……. ……. The 3rd respondent’s representations in the agreement under the caption “Company’s Representations” read as under:- “A. WHEREAS Nilgiri is the owner of the land in Phase V and pursuant to an arrangement between Nilgiri and Confirming Party, the Confirming Party is carrying out development in Phase-V. ……. ……. ……. ……. C. AND WHERAS DLF is constructing a multi-storeyed apartment complex known as DLF Park Place comprising of DLF Park Heights and DLF Park/Towers in accordance with the building plans approved by the Director, Town & Country Planning, Chandigarh. ……. ……. ……. ……. F. AND WHEREAS it is clarified that the Company has given description and reference of the entire Phase-V and DLF Park Place only to acquaint the Apartment Allottee with regard to the location of the Said Building and the Said Complex in Phase V and Company has not given any kind of representation or warranty and nor has intended to convey any kind of impression or right or interest in any of the land falling outside the Said Building in the Said Complex in Phase V. G. AND WHEREAS the Company has further clarified to the Apartment Allottee that the proposed tentative layout plan of Phase V as given in Annexure-I of this Agreement may have plotted areas, commercial areas and residential projects areas as may be earmarked in different zones, but however, this Agreement is confined and limited in its scope only to the sale of residential apartments in the said Complex to be constructed on the Said Portion of Land earmarked and delineated in, Zone 11 & 12, Phase-V in accordance with the building plans approved by the Director Town & Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh. The proposed tentative layout plan is given in Annexure IA of this Agreement. The area of the Said Portion of Land 12.67 Acres or thereabout may stand modified in future to the extent as may be required/desired pursuant/consequent to any directions/approvals by the Director, Town & Country Planning Haryana, Chandigarh.” (emphasis supplied) 49. The apartments’ buyers, therefore, were aware of the existence of the plans. Nothing prevented them from studying them. Firstly, the plans including the tentative layout plan were not only referred to but were annexed to the agreement. This is the same layout plan as was annexed to the application for the licence in Form LC-I, which we have already referred to in detail. Nothing prevented them from studying them. Firstly, the plans including the tentative layout plan were not only referred to but were annexed to the agreement. This is the same layout plan as was annexed to the application for the licence in Form LC-I, which we have already referred to in detail. As we mentioned earlier, the layout plan is not in respect of any particular building but in respect of Phase- V as a whole. Thus, at the time of purchasing the property, the apartment purchasers could not have been under the impression that the building in which they were purchasing the apartments would be a separate group housing colony and entitled to land surrounding the building in proportion to the FAR and PPA norms. Further, the Representation ‘F’ gives the description of the entire Phase-V. If Park Place was not a part of Phase-V, it would not have been necessary to make any reference to Phase-V. Here again, it is expressly stated that the developer had not conveyed any interest in any of the lands falling outside the building. 50. The last sentence in Representation ‘G’ states that the area of about 12.67 acres is allotted to Park Place and that the same may stand modified in future to the extent as may be required/desired pursuant/consequent to any directions/approvals by the first respondent. Thus, the area mentioned in the brochure of 30 acres stood reduced to 12.67 acres. Prior thereto, in the Deed of Declaration, the area was 19 acres. Whether the developers were entitled to change the area unilaterally is a different matter which we will deal with later. However, the fact that the developer kept changing the area and the first respondent granted the permission in respect thereof militates against each of the buildings or cluster of buildings forming a separate group housing colony each entitled to the area of land surrounding it/them in proportion to the FAR and PPA norms. This also indicates that the first respondent itself did not process the applications from time to time on such a basis. Each of the respondents certainly considered their project as being an integrated one in respect of the entire land falling in DLF Phase-V. That the apartment purchasers did not at the time of entering into the agreement protest in this regard also militates against their contentions now raised in this petition. Each of the respondents certainly considered their project as being an integrated one in respect of the entire land falling in DLF Phase-V. That the apartment purchasers did not at the time of entering into the agreement protest in this regard also militates against their contentions now raised in this petition. We reiterate that whether the developers were entitled to do so and the effect of the petitioners not having objected to the same is another matter. 51. Mr. Mishra relied upon the “Apartment Allottee’s Representations” in the Apartment Buyers Agreements. Clause B mentions that the purchasers had demanded and the developers had allowed in respect of Phase-V including Zones 11 and 12, the building plans, the location plans and the ownership record of Phase-V. He rightly relied upon the fact that the developers were permitted to inspect the ownership record of Phase-V and not merely Park Place to contend that Park Place was not an independent development but a part of the composite development of Phase-V. He also relied upon Representation ‘C’, which stipulates that the purchaser had not relied upon and is not influenced inter alia by the sales brochure, advertisements, representations, warranties, statements or estimates of any nature whatsoever except as specifically represented in the agreement and in the application. This issue, however, is relevant to the contractual rights between the purchaser and the developer and not to the question under consideration. 52. However, Mr. Mishra’s reliance upon Clause-D of the Allottee’s Representation is well-founded for the clause records that the purchaser had entered into an agreement with full knowledge of all laws, etc. applicable to DLF City and Phase-V in general and not just DLF Park Place. If the petitioners’ case is correct, there was no requirement of their having satisfied themselves regarding the laws applicable to the portion in Phase-V comprising of 476 acres other than the area which, according to them, Park Place would be entitled to outside the footprint of the building. 53. The following definitions in the agreement were relied upon by the parties:- “Common Areas And Facilities” means such common areas and facilities within the Said Complex and Said Building earmarked for common use of all the apartment allottees, limited to and precisely listed in Part A, Part B and Part C of Annexure-IV. …… ……. ……. ……. ……. 53. The following definitions in the agreement were relied upon by the parties:- “Common Areas And Facilities” means such common areas and facilities within the Said Complex and Said Building earmarked for common use of all the apartment allottees, limited to and precisely listed in Part A, Part B and Part C of Annexure-IV. …… ……. ……. ……. ……. “DLF Park Heights” means the group housing complex consisting of 8 multistoreyed residential apartment buildings being constructed on a land admeasuring 6.35 acres or thereabout earmarked and delineated in zone 11 & 12 of Phase V. “DLF Park Place” means the multistoried residential complex comprising of DLF Park Heights and DLF Park Towers both being constructed on a land admeasuring 12.67 acres in Phase V as per the building plans approved by the Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana, Chandigarh. …… ……. ……. ……. ……. “DLF Park Towers” means the group housing complex consisting of 5 multistoreyed residential apartment buildings being constructed on a land admeasuring 6.32 acres or thereabout earmarked and delineated in zone 11 & 12 of Phase V. …… ……. ……. ……. “Phase V” means a land admeasuring approximately 527.95 acres of land situated in DLF City (earlier known as DLF Qutab Enclave Complex in Tehsil and District Gurgaon, Haryana on which several zones are being earmarked for residential (group housing and plotted), commercial and/or other usages. …… ……. ……. ……. ……. “Said Complex” means the DLF Park Towers or DLF Park Heights (strikeout which is not relevant) “Said Portion of Land” means the area of land on which the DLF Park Heights/DLF Park Towers (whichever is applicable is being constructed.” 54. Mr. Khanna relied upon Clauses 1.9 (i), (ii), (iii), 1.10 (iii) and 26, which read as under:- “1.9 The Apartment Allottee shall have the right to or with regard to the Said Apartment as mentioned below: i. The Apartment Allottee shall have exclusive ownership of the Apartment Area only which forms part of Super Area. ii. The Apartment Allottee shall have undivided proportionate share/interest in the Common Areas and Facilities. Since the share/interest of Apartment Allottee in the Common Areas and Facilities is undivided and cannot be divided or separated, the Apartment Allottee shall use the Common Areas and Facilities within the Said Building/Said Complex only harmoniously along with other occupants, maintenance staff etc., without causing any inconvenience or hindrance to them . Since the share/interest of Apartment Allottee in the Common Areas and Facilities is undivided and cannot be divided or separated, the Apartment Allottee shall use the Common Areas and Facilities within the Said Building/Said Complex only harmoniously along with other occupants, maintenance staff etc., without causing any inconvenience or hindrance to them . Further, it is clearly understood and agreed by the Apartment Allottee that even if the Common Areas and Facilities within the Said Complex only is included in the computation of Super Area, the right of the Apartment Allottee to use the Common Areas and Facilities shall be within the Said Complex only (as listed in Part A& B of Annexure IV.) and shall always be subject to the timely payment of Maintenance Charges. It is further agreed by the Apartment Allottee that he/she shall be entitled to undivided proportionate share/interest in no other common areas and facilities except the Common Areas and Facilities within the Said Building/Said Complex only as listed in Part A & B of Annexure IV. iii. The Apartment Allottee shall have the ownership of undivided proportionate share/interest in the Foot Print of the Said Building. The undivided proportionate share/interest in the Foot Print of the Said Building shall be calculated in the ratio of Super Area of the Said Apartment to the total super area of all the apartments within the Said Building only. It is agreed by the Apartment Allottee that no other lands is/are forming part of this Agreement and the Apartment Allottee shall not have any right, title or interest of any kind whatsoever on any other lands except to the extent of using only such general Common Areas and Facilities within the Said Complex to and precisely listed in Part-C of Annexure IV subject, however, to the timely payment of Maintenance Charges by the Apartment Allottee. It is understood by the Apartment Allottee that the Company may for the purpose of complying with the provisions of Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 or any other applicable laws substitute the method of calculating the proportionate share in the ownership of the Foot Print of the Said Building and/or Common Areas and Facilities as may be described by the Company in its sole discretion in any declaration by calculating the same in the ratio of his/her apartment’s value to the total value of the Said Buildings/project/scheme, as the case may be, and that the Apartment Allottee shall not have a right to raise any objection in this regard. …… ……. ……. ……. ……. 1.10 All other lands, areas, facilities and amenities including those listed below are specifically excluded from the scope of this Agreement and the Apartment Allottee shall not be entitled to any ownership rights, rights of usage, title or interest etc. in any form or manner whatsoever in such lands, areas, facilities and amenities. Such lands, areas, facilities and amenities have not been included in the computation of Super Area for calculating the Total Price and, therefore, the Apartment Allottee has not paid any price for use or ownership in respect of such lands, areas, facilities and amenities. The Apartment Allottee agrees and understands that the ownership of such lands, areas, facilities and amenities vests solely with the Company/Confirming Party its associate/subsidiary companies and their usage and manner/method of use, disposal etc. shall be at the sole discretion of the Company/Confirming Party, its associates and subsidiaries. …… ……. ……. ……. ……. iii. The Apartment Allottee understands that he/she has not made any payment to the Company in any manner whatsoever with respect to any lands, buildings, common areas, facilities and amenities falling outside the Foot Print of the Said Building save and except the use of general common areas (for the purpose of direct exit to a nearest public street, nearest road only) to be identified by the Company in its sole discretion and the Apartment Allottee hereby agrees that the Company has not indicated/promised/represented/given any impression of any kind in an explicit or implicit manner whatsoever, that the Apartment Allottee shall have any right, title or interest of any kind whatsoever therein. The Apartment Allottee further agrees that any such identification with respect to general common areas by the Company in its plans now or in future shall be final, conclusive and binding on the Apartment Allottee. Further the Company has made clear to the Apartment Allottee that it (the Company or any of its affiliates, group companies) shall be carrying out extensive developmental/construction activities now and for many decades in future in the entire area falling outside the Foot Print of the Said Building and that the Apartment Allottee shall not have a right to raise any objection or make any claims or not to make payments in time as stipulated in schedule of payments in Annexure III on account of inconvenience, if any, which may alleged to have been caused to the Apartment Allottee due to such developmental/construction activities or activities incidental/related to it. It is made clear by the Company and agreed by the Apartment Allottee that all rights including the rights of ownership of lands, facilities and amenities (other than those within the Said Building and the Foot Print thereof) shall vest solely with the Company, its associate companies, its subsidiary companies who shall alone have the sole and absolute authority to deal in any manner with such lands, facilities and amenities. This clause shall survive throughout the ownership of the Said Apartment by the Apartment Allottee, his/her legal representatives, successors, administrators, executors, assigns etc. …… ……. ……. ……. ……. 26. Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 The Apartment Allottee has confirmed and assured the Company that prior to entering into this Agreement he/she has read and understood the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 and its implications thereof in relation to the various provisions of this Agreement and the Apartment Allottee has further confirmed that he/she shall be bound by the same or any statutory amendments or modifications thereof or the provisions of any other laws dealing with the matter. The Said Apartment and the Said Building being subject to Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 or any statutory enactments or modifications thereof, the Common Areas and Facilities and the undivided interest of each apartment owner in the Common Areas and Facilities as specified by the Confirming Party/Company in the declaration which may be filed by the Confirming Party/Company in compliance of Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 shall be conclusive and binding upon the Apartment Allottee and the Apartment Allottee agrees and confirms that his/her right, title and interest in the Said Apartment/Said Building/Said Complex shall be limited to and governed by what is specified by the Confirming Party/Company in the said declaration, which shall be in strict consonance with this Agreement and in no manner shall confer any right, title or interest in any lands, facilities, amenities and buildings outside the Foot Print of the said Building in which the Said Apartment is located. It is made clear that the Apartment Allottee shall not claim any interest or right in Phase V, facilities, amenities and buildings outside the Foot Print of the Said Building and the Company/Confirming Party shall be entitled to sell, transfer, part with possession thereof or otherwise deal or dispose of the same in any manner at its sole discretion and the Apartment Allottee shall have no right or claim whatsoever of any sort therein. The Apartment Allottee undertakes to join society/association of the apartment owners and to pay any fees, charges thereof and complete such documentation and formalities as may be deemed necessary.” 55. Mr. Khanna relied upon the provisions in clause 1.9(ii) to the effect that the right to use the common areas and facilities shall be within the said complex only and that the purchaser shall be entitled to an undivided proportionate share/interest in no other common areas and facilities except the common areas and facilities within the said building/said complex only as listed in Part A & B of Annexure IV. In other words, according to him, the purchasers were by the agreement itself not entitled to and not concerned with anything outside the complex indicated thereby. He submitted, therefore, that as per the agreement the building or the complex concerned was independent of and not connected to the rest of Phase-V. The submission is not well-founded for the clause deals with the apartment-owners’ rights to use the common areas and facilities. He submitted, therefore, that as per the agreement the building or the complex concerned was independent of and not connected to the rest of Phase-V. The submission is not well-founded for the clause deals with the apartment-owners’ rights to use the common areas and facilities. As far as the common areas and facilities within the complex are concerned, the right is conferred upon the purchaser by the agreement itself. That, however, does not indicate that Park Place is segregated from and is not a part of Phase-V. 56. Similarly, clause 1.9(iii) deals with the purchaser’s ownership rights. It restricts the same to the proportionate share/interest in the footprint of the building and provides that no other land or lands form part of the agreement and that the purchaser cannot have any right, title or interest of any kind whatsoever on any other land except to the extent of using only such general common areas and facilities within the complex. The provision regarding the ownership rights of a purchaser is of no assistance in the determination of the issue as to whether the building is a separate group housing colony. The specification regarding ownership rights is compatible with both cases, namely Park Place being a separate group housing colony as well as being an integral part of Phase-V. 57. Mr. Khanna then relied upon Clause 1.11 which reads as under:- “1.11 It is agreed by the Apartment Allottee that the Said Apartment along with Parking Spaces will be treated as a single indivisible unit for all purposes including but not limited to Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 and any amendments thereto. The Apartment Allottee further agrees that the Common Areas and Facilities are for common use of all the occupants of the Said Building and that the general common areas facilities within the Said Complex that fall outside the foot print of the Said Building (excluding reserved parking areas) as listed in Part B of Annexure IV are for the common use of occupants of all the buildings to be constructed on the Said Portion of Land. However, it is specifically made clear to the Apartment Allottee that his/her right to use such Common Areas and Facilities within the Said Building (as listed in Part A of Annexure IV) and general Common Areas and Facilities (as listed in Part B of Annexure IV) falling outside the foot Print of the Said Building (excluding car parking spaces specifically allotted and assigned to the Apartment Allottees but within the Said Complex shall be limited to the areas within the Said Complex that may be included in the Declaration to be filed by the Confirming Party/Company in terms of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 or any other amendments or statutory modifications or re-enactments thereof or under the provisions of any other applicable laws and the Apartment Allottee hereby agrees that such declaration shall be binding upon the Apartment Allottee.” The second sub-paragraph of the clause does not support Mr. Khanna’s submission that Park Place is a separate group housing colony. It gives the developer the option to make Park Place a part of the other adjacent project or to keep it as a separate independent estate. The clause itself contemplates the declaration which is bound to be made by the developer. It provides that depending upon the decision, the necessary provision shall be made in the declaration to be filed by the developers as required by the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983. We will be dealing with the declaration shortly. As at this stage the statutory documents executed thus far and the documents executed between the parties inter se do not indicate that Park Place is a separate group housing colony. 58. Clauses 9.1 and 21 entitle the developer to carry out additions, alterations, etc. in the plans including the number of apartments/floors at the time of sanctioning the building/layout plan or at any time thereafter till the grant of the occupation certificate. For the purpose of this petition i.e. CWP No.12210 of 2013, it is not necessary to consider the validity of this clause. Before us, there was no challenge to the additional ten floors. The parties stated that they have challenged the agreements entered into between the flat purchasers and the developers before the Supreme Court and that the challenge is pending. Before us, there was no challenge to the additional ten floors. The parties stated that they have challenged the agreements entered into between the flat purchasers and the developers before the Supreme Court and that the challenge is pending. However, for the purpose of this judgment, they invited us to proceed on the basis that the agreements for the purchase of the apartments are valid. The only issue is whether Park Place is a separate group housing colony or not. Clause 13.1 provides for the maintenance of the building/complex/apartment in DLF Park Place. Clause 13.1 provides that upon completion of the building the maintenance of the building/complex/Park Place may be handed over to the association of apartment’s allottees or such other agency/body/company/association/condominium. The formation of an association of the owners of apartments in a building or in a complex does not furnish an answer to the question as to whether Park Place is a separate group housing colony. The agreement confers upon the owners of the apartments a right to constitute an association of apartments’ allottees or such other agency/body/company/association. Mr. Mishra clarified that Part-E of Annexure-IV of the agreement only excludes the ownership right of the owners of apartments outside the apartments, areas, amenities and facilities as described in Parts ‘A’ to ‘D’ of the agreement and footprint of the building. The other areas are excluded from the scope of the agreement and vest only in the developer. He, however, clarified that the apartments’ owners would be entitled to the use of the community facilities in the entire Phase-V subject, of course, to their paying the requisite fees and costs. DEED OF DECLARATION 59. This brings us to the Deed of Declaration, which has also been challenged in the petition. The deeds of declaration were filed with respect to 19 buildings. On 26.03.2012, the developers filed a Deed of Declaration as required by section 2 and section 22 of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983. The Deed of Declaration was forwarded under cover of the developers’ letter dated 26.03.2012. The subject of the letter reads as under:- “Sub: Deed of Declaration in respect of Group Housing namely “Park Place” having an area of 19.333 Acres, falling in Zone-11 & 12, DLF City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana, as per the provisions of Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983.” 60. Mr. The subject of the letter reads as under:- “Sub: Deed of Declaration in respect of Group Housing namely “Park Place” having an area of 19.333 Acres, falling in Zone-11 & 12, DLF City, Phase-V, Gurgaon, Haryana, as per the provisions of Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983.” 60. Mr. Khanna commented that there was no basis on which different areas have been shown in the three documents viz. the Brochure, the Apartment Buyers Agreement and the Deed of Declaration. This is an aspect which we will deal with later. 61. The reference is to the Park Place group housing having an area of 19.333 acres. Mr. Khanna contended that this was a false and incorrect declaration as the Park Place Group Housing Scheme ought to have an area of about 46 acres. This, of course, would depend upon our answer to the main question, namely, whether Park Place is a group housing scheme independent of the rest of DLF Phase-V or whether it is an integral part of the entire area comprised in DLF Phase-V. The challenge is on the basis of the main submission that Park Place is an independent group housing colony entitled to the proportionate land surrounding it commensurate to the FAR and PPA norms. We have rejected this contention. That the deed of declaration was filed is, however, not in dispute. The terms of declaration are relevant to this issue itself. The Deed of Declaration was filed with the first respondent under cover of the developer’s letter dated 26.03.2012 as per the provisions of section 2 read with section 11 of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983. It stated that the Deed of Declaration was in respect of group housing Park Place with an area of 19.3333 acres falling in Zones 11 and 12 of Phase-V. The Deed of Declaration is filed as per the provisions of the Act of 1983. To recollect, the brochure referred to an area of 30 acres, the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement stated an area of 12 acres and the Deed of Declaration mentioned 19.3333 acres. The variation in the area does not support the main contention. Indeed, it militates against it for, if Park Place was a separate group housing colony, the total area of the land ought to be in proportion to the built up area as per the FAR and PPA norms. The variation in the area does not support the main contention. Indeed, it militates against it for, if Park Place was a separate group housing colony, the total area of the land ought to be in proportion to the built up area as per the FAR and PPA norms. The fact that the area varied at different stages indicates that neither the respondents nor the flat purchasers proceeded on the basis that Park Place is a group housing colony entitled to such area. We hasten to add that we do not, at this stage, deal with the developer’s right to change the area and the correctness of the first respondent’s decision to accept the same. This is even assuming to be well-founded Mr. Mishra’s contention that the developers were not bound to allot any area outside the footprint of the building and that the developer did so as a matter of contract with a view to enhance the value of its properties. 62. Assumptions for the declaration are also filed. Clause-1 of the assumptions states that the Park Place condominium comprises of 13 apartment building blocks with alphabets ‘A’ to ‘H’ and ‘J’ to ‘N’. The clause also suggests that the condominium comprises of a site reserved for a club, which was under consideration, a crèche and basement for car parking and service. The Deed of Declaration also refers to an area of 19.3333 acres and the khasra numbers. A note at the end states that a part of the land under certain khasra numbers falls outside the boundary of Park Place. This makes it clear that the authorities and the developers at least proceeded on the basis that the licence could be used for the composite development of DLF Phase-V. If it were not so, there would be no question of a part of the area of the land under khasra number being used for the development of the rest of DLF Phase-V. 63. Mr. Khanna rightly did not contend that the mere filing of the Deed of Declaration as required by section 2(5) of the 1963 Act amounts to a sub-division of the land. The Deed of Declaration is to be filed within 90 days of obtaining an occupancy certificate or completion certificate. Section 2(5) does not deal with the issue of sub-division. Mr. Khanna rightly did not contend that the mere filing of the Deed of Declaration as required by section 2(5) of the 1963 Act amounts to a sub-division of the land. The Deed of Declaration is to be filed within 90 days of obtaining an occupancy certificate or completion certificate. Section 2(5) does not deal with the issue of sub-division. The contention that the developers having obtained completion certificate and occupation certificates and then having filed the Deeds of Declaration suggests that the developers had sub-divided the property is not well-founded. The developers were not expected to complete the construction in respect of the entire 476 acres and only thereafter seek an occupation certificate or completion certificate for the entire construction in DLF Phase-V. The suggestion is clearly untenable. This could never even have been the impression of the petitioners for they took the benefit of the occupation certificate and completion certificate obtained in respect of the buildings in which their apartments are located. They did not accept possession under protest. Nor did they express surprise at having been given possession before the construction of the entire DLF Phase-V. 64. Mr. Sinhal, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, submitted that the statutory forms do not require the khasra numbers to be mentioned and that there was no real purpose in mentioning the khasra Numbers in the Deed of Declaration. The khasra numbers were probably mentioned to identify the land upon which the buildings were to be located and the 19 acres referred to in the Deed of Declaration which were allotted by the developer. In this regard, he invited our attention to a separate form. The form does not even refer to the licence or to the FAR. The Deed of Declaration, by itself, therefore, does not carry the petitioners’ case any further. Conveyance between Developers/Owners of land and purchasers of premises 65. Ultimately, a conveyance was executed on 18.09.2015 between the developers and the other owners of the land who were part of the DLF Group on the one hand and the purchasers on the other. The first recital states that the developers, referred to therein as vendors, are the owners of land admeasuring 542.87 acres in Phase-V. The recital thereafter referred to the application for allotment of an apartment and the agreement to sell which we have referred to earlier. The first recital states that the developers, referred to therein as vendors, are the owners of land admeasuring 542.87 acres in Phase-V. The recital thereafter referred to the application for allotment of an apartment and the agreement to sell which we have referred to earlier. The third recital states that the purchasers had inspected the layout/revised layout plans of Phase-V including Zones 11 and 12 and all other relevant documents. Mr. Mishra placed considerable reliance on clauses 5 and 6 of the agreement which read as under:- “5. The Vendee confirms that subject to the terms and conditions of this Conveyance Deed, the Vendors have conveyed to the Vendee only the following rights with regard to the Said Apartment. i. Ownership of the Apartment as mentioned in Schedule-I. ii. Ownership of the undivided proportionate share in the Foot Print. The undivided proportionate share in the Footprint shall be calculated in the ratio of Super Area of the Said Apartment to the total super area of all apartments in the Said Building. It is made abundantly clear and agreed by the Vendee that no other lands is/are forming a part of this conveyance deed, and the Vendee shall have no title on any other lands. iii. Exclusive right to use the Parking Spaces (without any ownership right) for parking of vehicles only. The Vendee hereby acknowledges that the Said Apartment along with parking Spaces will be treated as a single indivisible unit for all purposes including the Act and, as such, cannot be transferred separately. iv. Undivided interest in the general and/or limited common areas and facilities within the Said Building/Said Complex as set out in the Declaration. The Vendee agrees that the interest of Vendee in the general and/or limited common areas and facilities is undivided and cannot be separated and is subject to timely payment of Maintenance Charges. The Vendee shall use the general and/or limited common areas and facilities within the Said Complex, harmoniously along with other apartment owners, maintenance staff etc., without causing any inconvenience or hindrance/annoyance to them. v. The general and/or limited common areas and facilities shall not include the exclusive reserved car parking spaces in basements individually allotted to the respective apartment owners for their use. v. The general and/or limited common areas and facilities shall not include the exclusive reserved car parking spaces in basements individually allotted to the respective apartment owners for their use. The Vendee acknowledges that the general common areas and facilities as listed in Part-C of Annexure IV of the Agreement have not been included in the computation of Super Area of the Said Apartment. 6(a) The Vendee acknowledges and confirms that the Vendee has not paid any amount towards any other lands, facilities and amenities including but not limited to those listed below and as such, the Vendee shall have no right or interest in the same and the same are specifically excluded from the scope of this Conveyance Deed. Accordingly, the Vendors has made it clear and the Vendee has understood and agrees that the Vendee shall have no ownership thereof and the ownership of such land, areas, facilities and amenities shall vest solely with the Vendors, its associate companies, its subsidiaries and they shall have sole right and absolute authority to deal with the same in any manner including creation of rights in favour of any other party by way of sale, transfer, lease, joint venture, collaboration or any other mode including transfer to government semi-government, any other authority, body, Person, institution, trust and/or any local bodies. i. All land, areas, facilities and amenities (except the undivided interest in general and/or limited common areas and facilities within the Said Complex only listed in the Declaration) falling outside the Footprint including but not limited to those as listed in Part E of Annexure IV annexed with the Agreement, are specifically excluded from the scope of this Conveyance Deed. ii. All lands (other than usage of lands earmarked as public roads only for use of general public in Phase-V and in DLF City) falling outside the periphery/boundary of the Said portion of Land are clearly outside the scope of this Conveyance Deed and the Vendee shall have no right of any nature whatsoever in such lands. b. The Vendee acknowledges that the Vendors shall be carrying out developmental/ construction activities now and for many years in future in the entire area falling outside the Said Complex and that the Vendee shall not raise any objection or make any claims on account of inconvenience, which may be suffered by the Vendee due to such developmental/construction or its incidental/related activities.” 66. The apartment purchaser’s ownership right in the land has, therefore, been repeatedly emphasised not merely in the conveyance but also in the document that preceded it to be limited to a proportionate share in the footprint of the building. The word “footprint”, obviously, refers to the land itself. This is also clear from Clause-5 which proceeds to state that no other lands form a part of the conveyance deed and that the purchaser shall have no title to any other land. The petitioners not having title in the land outside the footprint of the building does not support the petitioners’ contention and, in fact, militates against it. The undivided interest referred to inter alia in clause 5(iv) is in addition thereto. 67. It would be convenient, at this stage, to record a statement made by Mr. Mishra. Firstly, he contended that the apartment owner is in law not entitled to any ownership rights in the land upon which the building is constructed. It is only the contract, i.e., the agreement between the parties that confers a right in the apartment purchaser. It creates an ownership right in the footprint of the building in favour of the purchaser proportionate to the area of the apartment. We have set out earlier clause 19.1 in this regard. He contended that the allocation of 19.3333 acres to Park Place was on a purely ad hoc basis pursuant to a commercial decision taken by the developers to enhance the value of their properties including the apartments. He stated that although the developer was not required to allot any land outside the footprint of the buildings including the 13 buildings that comprise Park Place, having agreed to allot 19 acres for the exclusive use of the residents of Park Place, the developers cannot and, in any event, would not interfere with the possession of these 19.3333 acres. The statement is accepted. We will deal with the question as to whether the developers are bound by the representation to allot 30 acres contained in the brochure or not later even assuming to be well founded Mr. Mishra’s contention that developers are not bound to allocate any area outside the footprint of the buildings. 68. Mr. The statement is accepted. We will deal with the question as to whether the developers are bound by the representation to allot 30 acres contained in the brochure or not later even assuming to be well founded Mr. Mishra’s contention that developers are not bound to allocate any area outside the footprint of the buildings. 68. Mr. Mishra relied upon the fact that the developers continue to pay the licence fee even for Park Place, Magnolias and Belaire as they consider these buildings to be a part of the DLF Phase-V group housing scheme and not separate group housing schemes. The petitioners have not denied that the developers continue to pay the licence fee even in respect of their buildings. Licence No.117/15, for instance is used in Belaire, Park Place, Pinnacle, Icon and Carlton (Page 23 in CWP/16742/2015 – MAGNOLIA’S CASE was referred to in this regard). 69. Mr. Khanna submitted that a licence can be used only with respect to the lands mentioned therein. He submitted that the licences have, however, been used for constructing structures even upon other lands. 70. If Mr. Khanna’s contention that the licence can be used only in respect of the khasra numbers, referred to therein, is accepted, most of these buildings would have to be demolished. As Mr. Mishra rightly pointed out, when the application in Form LC-I was made for the licence and the same was granted in Form LC-V, the location of the building was not even mentioned. That is mentioned only in the zoning plan. This fact along with all the other facts indicates that when the licence is granted it is for construction in the entire DLF Phase-V Group Housing Colony and not in any particular part thereof. The location of the construction is to be within this larger area. We were furnished with a table indicating how the licences have been used. It is evident from the table that several, if not each of the licences, were used in different parts of the larger colony. They were not used only upon the land represented by the khasra numbers mentioned in the licences. In several cases, the development pursuant to a particular licence was even in disjointed areas. 71. In support of this contention, Mr. Khanna relied upon section 3(5) of the 1975 Act prior to its amendment in the year 2009. They were not used only upon the land represented by the khasra numbers mentioned in the licences. In several cases, the development pursuant to a particular licence was even in disjointed areas. 71. In support of this contention, Mr. Khanna relied upon section 3(5) of the 1975 Act prior to its amendment in the year 2009. Section 3(5) of the 1975 Act reads as under:- “3. Application for licence – …… ….. ….. …… …… …… ……. (5) A separate licence shall be required for each colony.” Mr. Khanna submitted that it was only by an amendment that a colony may comprise of one or more licenses. By the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas (Amendment) Act, 2009, for sub-section (5), the following subsection was substituted:- “(5) Each colony may comprise of one or more licences with contiguous land pockets.” 72. The submission is not well founded. The statement of objects and reasons of the Amending Act, in so far as it is relevant, reads as under:- “The sub-section (5) of section 3 of the Act, ibid, stipulates for a separate licence for each colony. In the interest of integrated and planned development, it is imperative to allow a colony to expand on acquisition of pockets adjoining the earlier licensed area which may be subsequently applied for grant of licence. The grant of licences for such adjoining pockets has been a prudent practice for the last several decades. The subsection (5) of section 3, however, is not in congruence with such principle, and is accordingly sought to be amended.” Mr. Mishra rightly submitted that the amendment is clarificatory and retrospective. The statement of objects and reasons indicates the same. Although the last sentence is not appropriately worded, the intention is clear. The Legislature felt that sub-section (5), as it originally stood, did not properly convey its true import and, therefore, sought to amend it. The amendment was, therefore, clarificatory and retrospective. 73. It is not that sub-section (5), as it originally stood, conveyed the contrary. In fact, it did not. Sub-section (5) even before it was amended cannot be construed as contended by Mr. Khanna. The Act and the other relevant legislations contemplated the development of large colonies. As we will demonstrate while dealing with Mr. Bhan’s contention, it is permissible to expand the colony by adding lands to it. In fact, it did not. Sub-section (5) even before it was amended cannot be construed as contended by Mr. Khanna. The Act and the other relevant legislations contemplated the development of large colonies. As we will demonstrate while dealing with Mr. Bhan’s contention, it is permissible to expand the colony by adding lands to it. In that event, it would follow that a colony could have more than one licence. The use of the singular “licence” in sub-section (5), as it originally stood, does not indicate that several licences could not be combined while developing a colony. There could be joint ventures. Owners could get together and develop a colony. Each of the owners could apply for a licence in respect of his lands. Together they could then seek the development of a single colony. In fact, Mr. Bhan, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in CWP No.4764 of 2015, did not support Mr. Khanna’s contention in this regard. 74. While dealing with the question of delay, this fact along with the issue of delay, which we will shortly deal with, establishes that the purchasers of premises in DLF Phase-V were neither given to believe nor believed that the licences were to be utilized only in respect of the khasra numbers mentioned therein. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN THE PARTIES AND REPRESENTATIONS OF THE DEVELOPERS 75. Mr. Khanna relied upon a promotional letter dated 01.12.2006 sent by respondent No.3 to the apartment allottees inviting them to be a part of DLF Park Place stating that the same is located in Phase V spread on a 30 acre site. There is a further promotional letter dated 29.10.2009 to the same effect. He contended that this indicated the DLF Park Place to be a separate and independent group housing colony. The issue before us, however, cannot be decided on the basis of this communication alone. Each of the documents must be read as a whole and all the documents must be read together. So read, we are unable to accept the petitioners’ contention based solely on the letter dated 01.12.2006. The effect of the representation that Park Place would be entitled to 30 acres will be dealt with later. 76. Mr. Khanna relied upon a Red Herring Prospectus dated 25.05.2007 issued by the developers in accordance with section 60B of the Companies Act, 1956. The effect of the representation that Park Place would be entitled to 30 acres will be dealt with later. 76. Mr. Khanna relied upon a Red Herring Prospectus dated 25.05.2007 issued by the developers in accordance with section 60B of the Companies Act, 1956. It was in respect of a public issue of 175 million equity shares of Rs.2 each. To support his contention that Park Place is a separate group housing complex, Mr. Khanna relied upon the following part of the prospectus:- “Our current residential real estate projects We are currently constructing approximately 7 million square feet of residential developments. The table below provides certain information as of April 30, 2007 relating to some of our current residential real estate projects:- Project Name Area (million sq. ft.) No of Units Started (Fiscal) Scheduled Completion (Fiscal) Sale Value (Rs. Crore) Avg. Sale Value (Rs./Sq. ft.) DLF Park Place 2.2 988 2007 2010 873.8 7,088* The Belaire 1.3 364 2007 2010 744.1 7,412* The Magnolias 2.5 402 2006 2009 1159.2 5,982* The Summit 0.7 228 2003 2008 319.8 4,506 *Sales in progress, Sales for all the other projects listed have been completed. Examples of our current residential real estate projects include DLF Park Place. The Belaire and the Magnolias. DLF Park Place. DLF Park Place is expected to be completed in fiscal 2010 and consists of 988 residential units with approximately 2.2 million square feet of saleable area in 13 blocks of 19 to 20 floors each. The total area of the development is 30 acre with apartments ranging from 1,875 square feet to 2,550 square feet. 300 units of DLF Park Place were booked/sold on the first day that units became available for booking/sale.” Mr. Khanna submitted that the developers had, therefore, themselves represented that each of these developments including DLF Park Place was a separate group housing scheme. 77. The prospectus does not support Mr. Khanna’s contention. Indeed each of the buildings or cluster of buildings is a project. Each of them, however, is part of a larger project. It would not be correct to construe the declaration in the prospectus as indicating that each of the projects is independent of the other. The declaration does not even suggest that each is a separate group housing scheme under the 1975 Act. Each of them, however, is part of a larger project. It would not be correct to construe the declaration in the prospectus as indicating that each of the projects is independent of the other. The declaration does not even suggest that each is a separate group housing scheme under the 1975 Act. It is, however, of vital importance to note that the declaration expressly states that the total area of DLF Park Place is 30 acres. It is a fact which would be relevant while dealing with Mr. Khanna’s alternate submission that the owners of premises in Park Place are entitled to the ownership and, in any event, the exclusive use and possession of 30 acres and not 19 acres as contended by Mr. Mishra. 78. Mr. Khanna relied upon the following statements in the synopsis to the S.L.P. filed by the developers against the DLF Park Place Residents’ Welfare Association and others:- “2. The ex-parte impugned order dated 29.5.2013, passed on the first listing of the Writ Petition, has the effect of permitting a self styled Residents Welfare Association (Respondent No.1 herein) – who allegedly represents the interest of few of the allottees of “DLF Park Place” group housing complex developed by the Petitioners to impede the development of an independent and separate group housing project called “The Crest” which has just been launched by the Petitioner No.1 on a separate non-contiguous land. All the rights of the allottees of “DLF Park Place” are defined in the Apartment Buyers Agreement executed between each allottee and the Petitioner No.2 as well as in the statutory Declaration filed by the Petitioner No.2 under the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983. Admittedly in neither of these documents is any right whatsoever conferred upon the allottees of “DLF Park Place” beyond the 19.33 acres (including 2 acres for the Club) declared in the aforesaid Declaration. The Crest has been launched on an entirely separate non-contiguous 8.82 acres land, over which any claim of Respondent No.1 or any allottee is completely absurd, perverse and totally untenable in law.” This is not a clear admission of the Crest being a separate group housing scheme in the sense in which it is contended that Park Place is a separate group housing scheme. The Crest is, as indeed Belaire and Magnolias are, separate buildings or cluster of buildings and even projects. The Crest is, as indeed Belaire and Magnolias are, separate buildings or cluster of buildings and even projects. The statement is not an admission to the effect that each of these projects is a stand alone project entitled to an FAR commensurate to the construction in respect of the project. In fact, the second sub-paragraph clarifies that the rights of the residents of each of these projects are as defined in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement which, as we have already held, do not confer any such rights. This is clearer still from the last sentence quoted above where it is averred that the residents of Park Place do not have any claim to crest. We do not express any opinion regarding the status of the buildings other than ‘Park Place’ generally for each case must be decided on its own facts event as regards whether they are separate group housing schemes. 79. Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1, supported Mr. Mishra’s contentions. In particular, he supported the contention that the developer sought permission for the development of DLF Phase-V as one composite integrated colony and that the permission granted was for the same and not separate group housing schemes. He, in fact, contended that this was the practice followed by the State of Haryana in all such large developments. He further contended that Mr. Khanna did not specify the conditions of the licences that were violated by the developers. He clarified that the violations were on the basis of his aforesaid submission that the construction was put up even on areas which were not included in the licence. We have already dealt with this submission of Mr. Khanna and rejected it. SUBMISSIONS BASED ON THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS 80. Mr. Khanna also relied upon the provisions of the said Acts and Rules in support of his main contention. Firstly, we have dealt with various licences and permissions sought by the developers and granted by the first respondent. We have also referred to the documents between the developers and the flat purchasers including the petitioners. These documents were themselves pursuant to the various statutory provisions. For instance, the licences were applied for under the provisions of the 1975 Act and as per the forms set out in the 1976 rules. We have rejected the main contention based on these documents. These documents were themselves pursuant to the various statutory provisions. For instance, the licences were applied for under the provisions of the 1975 Act and as per the forms set out in the 1976 rules. We have rejected the main contention based on these documents. It would follow then that the statutory provisions and the rules also do not support Mr. Khanna’s main submission. 81. Even otherwise, the submission is not supported by the statutes and the rules and the procedure prescribed thereunder. Relying upon sub-sections (2)(b) to (f) and (hh) and section 3 of the 1975 Act and rule 3 of the 1976 Rules, Mr. Khanna submitted that the developer must identify exactly and with great particularity the colony proposed to be developed. That we will presume is correct. The inference based on this that the buildings on the land comprised in the licenses constitute separate group housing complexes is not well founded. 82. The colony, however, has been identified. It comprises of the land in respect whereof licences had been sought and granted. There is no dispute that the developers are entitled to develop the said property. There is no dispute regarding their title to the lands comprised in the various licences admeasuring about 476 acres in respect of group housing schemes. It is true that rule 3(c) requires the applicant for a licence to furnish details of title deeds and other documents showing the interest of the applicant in the land under the colony along with the list of such deeds and documents. The rule also requires other documents, such as, a copy of the shajra plan showing the location of the colony along with the names of the revenue estates, khasra numbers and area of each field, a guide map, a survey plan, a layout plan of the colony and several other details. It is not anybody’s case that these details have not been furnished. Even Mr. Khanna did not contend that that the details of the land in respect whereof licences were sought have not been furnished. When a licence is sought, it is obviously in respect of a particular piece of land. That, however, does not necessarily indicate that the licence cannot be used on other portions of a colony. There is nothing in the Act that prohibits a party from developing a colony by using multiple licences. When a licence is sought, it is obviously in respect of a particular piece of land. That, however, does not necessarily indicate that the licence cannot be used on other portions of a colony. There is nothing in the Act that prohibits a party from developing a colony by using multiple licences. Nor is there anything in the enactments that restricts the constructions only upon lands mentioned in each licence. As we stated earlier, the layout plan itself was in respect of the entire DLF Phase-V colony. This layout plan was annexed to all the documents including the licenses. The permissions were granted in relation to and in connection with the overall layout plan. Rule 3(e)(iv) requires the survey plan to show the boundaries and dimensions of the land as well as location of the streets, buildings and premises within a distance of at least 30 meters of the said land and existing means of access to it from the existing road. That, however, is obviously for the purpose of enabling the first respondent to consider the application for development. It does not support the contention that the construction must be only in respect of the lands mentioned in the licence and that the land mentioned in one licence cannot be utilized for the construction pursuant to another licence. For the same reason, the contention based on rule 3(e)(v) is also not well-founded. 83. Rule 11(h) requires the execution of the Bilateral Agreement. We referred to the Bilateral Agreement earlier. The Bilateral Agreement itself has not been challenged and indeed cannot be challenged on the grounds raised. Rule 11(h) does not in terms support Mr. Khanna’s contention either. Mr. Khanna also relied upon the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled areas Restriction of unregulated Development Rules, 1965 and, in particular, rule 39(1)(A)(ii)(a) and rule 40(2)(a) and (g) again to contend that the property sought to be developed has to be identified with great particularity. The rules that follow refer to the site, meaning thereby, according to him, the site indicated in the site plan. Rule 39(1)(a) provides that any person intending to erect or re-erect a building in a controlled area shall make an application in writing accompanied inter alia by a site plan as required under rule 40. The rules that follow refer to the site, meaning thereby, according to him, the site indicated in the site plan. Rule 39(1)(a) provides that any person intending to erect or re-erect a building in a controlled area shall make an application in writing accompanied inter alia by a site plan as required under rule 40. Rule 40(2)(g) requires a site plan to be prepared with sufficient accuracy to enable the site to be identified and the site plan is required inter alia to show the area and proportion of the site to be covered by the building. Mr. Khanna submitted that there cannot be any licence or building approval unless and until the site is identified. 84. The identification of a site is one thing. To contend that the licence issued in relation to a particular plot of land cannot be utilized upon another plot of land within the same integrated composite development is another thing altogether. These rules do not support Mr. Khanna’s contention. 85. The Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983, does not support Mr. Khanna’s main contention either. We have dealt with the Deed of Declaration and the effect thereof on this contention. The Statement of Objects and Reasons is of no assistance on the question as to whether Park Place can be considered to be a separate group housing scheme. Our attention was not invited to any aspect of the Statement of Objects and Reasons which substantiates the petitioners’ contention. Section 2 itself states that the provisions of the Act shall apply to every apartment lawfully constructed for residential purposes, integrated commercial complexes, etc. for the purpose of transfer of ownership of an individual apartment in a building whether constructed before or after the commencement of this Act. It also provides that in case of a licence issued under the 1975 Act, the owner of the property/building shall duly execute and get registered a declaration after obtaining a part completion/completion certificate under the 1963 Act. These obligations, however, do not reflect upon or of necessity support the case of separate group housing schemes to be constituted within a larger development. 86. The definitions in section 3 of “apartment”, “apartment owner”, “apartment number”, “association of apartment owners, “Limited common areas and facilities” and “Property” do not reflect upon this issue either. 87. Section 3(f) defines “common areas and facilities”. 86. The definitions in section 3 of “apartment”, “apartment owner”, “apartment number”, “association of apartment owners, “Limited common areas and facilities” and “Property” do not reflect upon this issue either. 87. Section 3(f) defines “common areas and facilities”. Sub-clause (8) thereof refers to “all other parts of the property necessary or convenient to its existing maintenance and safety or normally in common use”. Had we come to the conclusion that Park Place or any other such development was a separate group housing society, it may well have been a different matter. In that event, it may well have been necessary to locate the land appurtenant to the building commensurate to the required FAR for otherwise the building would have been illegal. If the land adjoining the construction was not commensurate to the FAR and PPA norms, it would have been illegal for it would have amounted to excessive construction upon the property. Land necessary to have a legal construction would have come within the meaning of section 3(f)(8) for it would have been common areas necessary to the existence of the building. Sub-clause (8) obviously refers to the legal existence of the building. We have, however, come to the conclusion that these constructions including Park Place are a part of the larger colony. It is not even suggested that the construction put up thus far has exceeded the permissible FAR qua the entire DLF Phase-V. 88. Section 4 deals with the status of the apartments including as to the heritable and transferable nature thereof. Section 5 deals with the ownership rights in respect of each apartment. Section 6 refers to the entitlement of the apartment owners to the common areas and facilities in the percentage expressed in the declaration. Sections 11 and 12 stipulate the contents of the declaration and the contents of the Deed of Declaration. Apart from referring to these sections, Mr. Khanna did not indicate how they support his main contention. Their relevance to the rights of the apartment owners including the property rights are a different matter. We have analyzed the Deed of Declaration and the Deed of Apartment and rejected the contention that they indicate that Park Place is a separate group housing scheme. Sections 14 and 15 are of no assistance whatsoever on this point for they merely deal with the removal of a property from the provisions of the Act. We have analyzed the Deed of Declaration and the Deed of Apartment and rejected the contention that they indicate that Park Place is a separate group housing scheme. Sections 14 and 15 are of no assistance whatsoever on this point for they merely deal with the removal of a property from the provisions of the Act. Nor is section 22 relevant for it deals with the apartment owners rights and the consequences if within sixty days of the date of damage to or destruction of all or part of the property there is no determination by the association of apartment owners to repair, reconstruct or rebuild the same. 89. Rules 3, 4 and 5 of the Haryana Apartment ownership Rules, 1987, do not support the contention that Park Place is a separate group housing scheme. They prescribe the form of declaration, the Deed of Apartment and the conveyance by the Deed of Apartment. STATUTORY PLANS 90. It would be convenient here to deal some of the statutory plans. 91. The Gurgaon Master Plan of 2001 was first notified on 08.01.1996. It was for a period of five years from 1996 to 2001. We are concerned here with sectors 42, 43, 53 and 54. The Master Plan merely states that these sectors are for group housing. The legend, inter alia, states that a part of the area indicated therein is for “residential/(GH/P)/Group Housing/ Plotted”. This does not support Mr. Khanna’s contention that each of the group housing schemes in the present case is a separate scheme independent of the larger group housing scheme, namely, DLF Phase-V. The Master Plan does not deal with this aspect at all. It stipulates a density of 250 PPA (Persons Per Acre) for group housing schemes. The demarcated areas were carried forward in the subsequent Master Plans of 2021 and 2025. 92. The zoning plan is dated 06.05.1996. A developer/colonizer in possession of a licence and an approved layout is required to obtain a zoning of the site prior to applying for the site plans/building plans. Rule 38 (xlii) of the 1976 Rules provides for the same. It is important to note that the first zoning plan was based on the approved layout of 404.3220 acres for a group housing area. Rule 38 (xlii) of the 1976 Rules provides for the same. It is important to note that the first zoning plan was based on the approved layout of 404.3220 acres for a group housing area. Clause-1 states that the shape and size of the group housing site is in accordance with the approved layout plan and demarcation plan as depicted therein. It is in respect of the entire land and not merely the land upon which Park Place or any other buildings are constructed. This militates against Park Place being a separate group housing complex. Clause-2, inter alia, enumerates the types of uses permitted in buildings. They include commercial offices, cinemas, hotels, motels and other places of public assembly and public utility buildings. Motels certainly are not necessary for the residents of the group housing scheme. This indicates that the zoning plan does not create independent group housing schemes within the larger development. The following clauses in the first approved zoning plan of 06.05.1996 are relevant:- “3. SITE COVERAGE AND FAR:- 3.1 Building shall only be permitted within the portion of the site marked as buildable zone and no where else. 3.2 The maximum coverage on ground and subsequent floors shall be 25% of the net planned area of Group Housing scheme after excluding the area permitted for Shopping/Commercial alongwith the area permitted for cultural, recreational and amusement activities. However, it shall not include buildings meant for community facility, public amenity and public utility which shall be as per prescribed norms given in clause 25.0 (Net planned area – Total licensed area of the Group Housing –undetermined use, if any). 3.3 The maximum FAR shall not exceed 175 of the net planned area of Group Housing Scheme excluding the area permitted for Shopping/Commercial along with the area permitted for cultural, recreational and amusement activities. However, it shall not include buildings meant for community facility, public amenity and public utility which shall be as per prescribed norms, given in clause 25.0.” …… ….. ….. …… …… …… 5. SUB-DIVISION OF SITE:- 5.1 The site of the Group Housing marked as A1 to A205 shall be governed by Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, if applicable. 5.2 The site shall not be sub-divided or fragmented in any manner, whatsoever. 6. GATE POST & BOUNDARY WALL:- Boundary walls within and around the site shall be permitted as per the layout plan approved by DTCP. 7. 5.2 The site shall not be sub-divided or fragmented in any manner, whatsoever. 6. GATE POST & BOUNDARY WALL:- Boundary walls within and around the site shall be permitted as per the layout plan approved by DTCP. 7. DENSITY:- The minimum density of population provided in the Group Housing scheme of Phase V shall be 100 PPA and the maximum be 250 PPA. …… ….. ….. …… …… …… 13. PROVISION OF COMMUNITY FACILITY/PUBLIC AMENITY BUILDINGS:- 13.1 The community facility/public amenity to be provided in the entire Phase-V comprising of Group Housing and plotted colony, shall be computed by applying composite norms, as given below in 13.4. While calculating the required numbers of facilities to be provided the figure shall be rounded to the nearest whole number, in cases where the lower limit has not been specified (like Nursery school, Primary School, Health Centre, Police post, Electric substation). ….. ….. …… …… …… ……. 24. SHOPPING/COMMERCIAL:- 24.1(a) The Shopping/Commercial space shall not exceed 6.5% of the net planned area of the Group Housing Scheme. The FAR for Shopping/Commercial space will not exceed 150. The Shopping/Commercial space will be achieved on FAR basis, which will not exceed 1.5 times of 6.5% of the net planned area of the Group Housing scheme. These areas shall include retail shops and restaurants, professional establishments and banks, cinemas, hotels, motels etc. This may also include the uses approved as a part of light service industry i.e. Laundry, Dry cleaning, Bakery and Atta Chakki with power. In addition to the above, an additional FAR of 150 of 1% of the net planned area of the Group Housing scheme shall be allowed for Cultural recreational and amusement activities which do not have predominantly commercial content. The cultural and amusement activities may include Auditorium, Cultural Centre, Exhibition Center, Museum and Arts Gallery, Ice skating rink or any such facility as may be approved by the Director, Town & Country Planning, Haryana. The recreational activities may include a Resort which may consist of facilities such as Recreational Club, Country Club inclusive of facilities such as water sports, indoor sports hall, Bowling alley, Fitness spas, Squash, Tennis, Golf etc. or any other usage as may be approved by the Director, Town & Country planning, Haryana. …… ….. ….. The recreational activities may include a Resort which may consist of facilities such as Recreational Club, Country Club inclusive of facilities such as water sports, indoor sports hall, Bowling alley, Fitness spas, Squash, Tennis, Golf etc. or any other usage as may be approved by the Director, Town & Country planning, Haryana. …… ….. ….. …… …… …… 24.2(b) The ground covered by independent building for shopping/commercial and the various residential buildings put together will not exceed 25% of the total licenced area of the Group Housing scheme.” 93. Mr. Mishra rightly relied upon clause 5 to contend that the plots cannot be sub-divided or fragmented in any manner. To accept Mr. Khanna’s contention that Park Place is a separate group housing colony, would ultimately require a subdivision of the property which would be against the zoning plan. Clause-6 permits a boundary wall within and around the site as permitted as per the layout plan as per the DTCP. That, however, is only for convenience and does not lead to a sub-division of the property. Thus, the area around Park Place whether it is 12 acres, 19 acres or 30 acres can be surrounded by a boundary wall or demarcated in any legally permissible manner to ensure the exclusive use thereof by Park Place without the same resulting in a sub-division of the property. 94. Mr. Mishra relied upon clause 5.2 of the Zoning Plan which states that the site shall not be sub-divided or fragmented in any manner whatsoever. The site, in turn, is referred to in clause 5.1 of the Zoning Plan which states that the site of the group housing is marked as A1 to A025 which, admittedly, includes the entire DLF Phase-V group housing of about 476 acres. Mr. Mishra contended that to accept the petitioners’ contention and to carve out separate group housing schemes would amount to fragmentation and sub-division which would be contrary to the Zoning Plan. These clauses indeed militate against the petitioners’ contention that Park Place is a separate group housing scheme. 95. It is not necessary to consider clause 3.3. It is with respect to the issue as to whether the FAR for the roads can be allowed or not. The official respondents support the developers contention that it can be allowed. These clauses indeed militate against the petitioners’ contention that Park Place is a separate group housing scheme. 95. It is not necessary to consider clause 3.3. It is with respect to the issue as to whether the FAR for the roads can be allowed or not. The official respondents support the developers contention that it can be allowed. Nor is it necessary to consider whether the developer is entitled to use the FAR with respect to the rights and/or other common facilities. 96. What is important to note, however, is that the FAR is stipulated in respect of the entire area of the group housing scheme and not with respect to a particular group housing scheme within the larger area. The restrictions in clause 3.2 regarding the maximum coverage on ground and subsequent floors are also in respect of the entire area and not limited to pockets within that area. This would also indicate that the approvals were granted for the entire colony as a composite whole. More important, the restrictions and stipulations in the permissions, which include the plan, were also on the basis of the entire area being developed as a colony. It is possible that these parameters would have been entirely different if permissions were sought in respect of smaller portions within this entire area as separate independent group housing colonies. 97. Clause 13 also refers to the community facilities/public amenities to be provided in the entire Phase-V comprising of the group housing and plotted colonies. It does not refer to separate group housing or even separate plotted colonies. Further, clause 13.1 provides that these facilities shall be computed by applying composite norms as given in the table furnished in clause 13.4. The table indicates the facilities, the number of each of these facilities, the population and the area. These are worked out on the basis of the entire area taken as a whole. 98. Clause 24.2(b) provides that the ground covered by independent buildings put together will not exceed 25 per cent of the total licenced area of the group housing scheme. The expression is in the singular “group housing scheme” and not in the plural “group housing schemes”. Ultimately, these restrictions as to the buildable area and open areas were worked out keeping in mind the entire DLF Phase-V as a whole. 99. The first zoning plan, as we stated, is of 06.05.1996. The expression is in the singular “group housing scheme” and not in the plural “group housing schemes”. Ultimately, these restrictions as to the buildable area and open areas were worked out keeping in mind the entire DLF Phase-V as a whole. 99. The first zoning plan, as we stated, is of 06.05.1996. There were several revisions thereto including of 27.01.2003, 10.07.2003, 01.06.2004, 17.04.2006 and 31.10.2007. The Zoning Plan (Revised) of 31.10.2007 is challenged. The other zoning plans, however, are not challenged. Even assuming that there is an indirect challenge to the clauses of the original zoning plan of 6th May, 1996, on the basis that the clauses remain the same in the subsequent/revised zoning plans, the challenge is after over 15 years. 100. The site/layout plan for the said sectors is dated 16.07.2007. The same is under rule 39 of the 1965 Rules. Rule 39 stipulates that any person intending to erect or re-erect any building in a controlled area shall make an application in writing to the Director in Form BR-I accompanied, inter alia, by a site plan as required under rule 40. Rule 40, in turn, stipulates the details required to be furnished in the site plan which include the boundaries of the site and the area and proportion of the site to be covered by buildings. The developers had submitted the site plans in respect of Park Place. The site plan is only in respect of the building Park Place which does not by itself indicate that Park Place is a separate group housing scheme. The application for additions/alterations is stated to be in respect of a group housing scheme known as Park Place in Phase-V. We have already dealt with such descriptions earlier. Further, as rightly pointed out by Mr. Mishra, there is also a composite site plan. 101. From these plans and the zoning clauses, it is apparent that the scheme had several components of which Park Place was one. Park Place, therefore, is but a part of the composite scheme of DLF Phase-V. The zoning clauses require several common amenities, roads, etc. Only 25% of the area is allowed to be constructed upon for the schemes. Large green areas are also to be left open. If Mr. Khanna’s submission is accepted, these common amenities would have to be provided in each of the schemes. Only 25% of the area is allowed to be constructed upon for the schemes. Large green areas are also to be left open. If Mr. Khanna’s submission is accepted, these common amenities would have to be provided in each of the schemes. This, in turn, could well require a demolition of the existing structures and the submission of independent schemes. This was never contemplated. 102. Mr. Mishra tendered a chart showing the permissible FAR, FAR utilized to date and balance FAR as per the Zoning Plan. The statement is in respect of an area of 476.4265 acres in DLF Phase-V group housing. Attached to the statement are the details of calculations for the net FAR for DLF Phase-V. The table contains the areas required for community site, sector roads, drainage belt, EWS building, area under internal roads, area for future roads and area for sewerage treatment plant aggregating to about 190.48 acres. What is important is that these areas are in respect of the entire Phase-V. The benefit, therefore, of these common amenities and areas is for all the occupants and residents of Phase-V. Admittedly, such facilities and requirements have not been allocated in respect of individual buildings or group/cluster of buildings. It is not even the petitioner’s case that they entered into the transactions with the developers believing otherwise. Considerable work in respect of these common facilities and amenities has already been done. The developers’ case is that they have already spent about Rs.400 crores in respect of this work. If the petitioners’ contention is accepted, not only would all the buildings have to be demolished, but all these facilities would have to be dismantled and relocated. It is impossible to unscramble the situation. 103. We have seen thus far, therefore, that the intention of the official respondents and the private respondents/developers was to develop the entire DLF Phase-V, comprising about 476 acres, as one composite integrated indivisible group housing colony. Since inception, it was never their intention to create separate group housing colonies within this area. There is nothing in any of the Acts or the rules that prohibited such a development. Since inception, it was never their intention to create separate group housing colonies within this area. There is nothing in any of the Acts or the rules that prohibited such a development. Nor is there any law or agreement preventing the developers from utilizing a licence issued in respect of certain parcels of land identified by khasra numbers in respect of other lands bearing different khasra numbers, so long as the licence was utilised in respect of the plans referred to therein, in this case the entire DLF Phase-V. Further, the petitioners never understood the case to be otherwise either. Neither the petitioners nor the persons that they claim to represent purchased the apartments under the belief that Park Place was to be a separate group housing colony independent of the rest of DLF Phase-V. CONSEQUENCES OF ACCEPTING THE PETITIONERS CASE THUS FAR 104. In Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat, Ahmedabad vs. Surat Art Silk Cloth Manufacturers’ Association, Surat, (1980) 2 SCC 31 , a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court held:- “11. It is true that the consequences of a suggested construction cannot alter the meaning of a statutory provision where such meaning is plain and unambiguous, but they can certainly help to fix its meaning in case of doubt or ambiguity. …. …. …” Even assuming that the consequence of an action cannot be the basis of statutory interpretation, we cannot help but refer to the disastrous consequences that will ensue in the event of Mr. Khanna’s submission being accepted. The consequences would be disastrous not for the developers who have already put up the constructions but for each and every purchaser of premises in the property. If Mr. Khanna’s submission is accepted it could well result in rendering a construction illegal and requiring the same to be demolished resulting in dis-housing about fifty-thousand families. This would be the consequence only in respect of this development. Similar consequences would ensue in respect of all the other colonies put up in the entire State of Haryana. Mr. Sinhal stated that a similar process has been followed in respect of all the colonies involving the development of a large area. The construction is not necessarily put up only on the khasra numbers referred to in the respective licences. If that is an illegality which cannot be rectified, the consequence would be the removal of the buildings. Mr. Sinhal stated that a similar process has been followed in respect of all the colonies involving the development of a large area. The construction is not necessarily put up only on the khasra numbers referred to in the respective licences. If that is an illegality which cannot be rectified, the consequence would be the removal of the buildings. We are relieved to have found the submission to be not well-founded. 105. This disastrous consequence would be visited even upon the petitioners. Mr. Khanna claims to represent a few hundred flat purchasers at least. When faced with this situation Mr. Khanna’s response was: “Then so be it.” Even these flat purchasers must face the consequence of having their apartments demolished, he said. Apart from this statement across the Bar, we are not at all sure that the petitioners’ and those they claim to represent would themselves accept this contention. In any event, their willingness to face such consequences cannot be foisted upon thousands of others. 106. Mr. Khanna submitted that khasra numbers mentioned in the Deed of Declaration must be the land that the apartment building is on as otherwise the property cannot be identified. In other words, according to him, the 19.33 acres mentioned in the Deed of Declaration must be with respect to or from the said khasra numbers. If a khasra numbers falls outside the 19.33 acres, the share attributable to 19.33 acres must be identified. As we will shortly demonstrate, the 19.33 acres mentioned in the Deed of Declaration as well as the 30 acres mentioned in the brochure and the Red Herring Prospectus and the 12 acres mentioned in the agreements are not pursuant to or as per any statute or rules or policies or circulars. For reasons we have already stated in detail, the land adjoining the building commensurate to the FAR and PP norms are not to be allocated to the 13 buildings that constitute Park Place. That would have been the case only if Park Place was held by us to be a separate group housing society. The land adjoining Park Place whether it be 12 acres, 19.33 acres or 30 acres is an issue we will deal with later. In view of what we have already held, it is not necessary that khasra numbers, which correspond to the licences and the letter of intent, are relatable to the Deed of Declaration. The land adjoining Park Place whether it be 12 acres, 19.33 acres or 30 acres is an issue we will deal with later. In view of what we have already held, it is not necessary that khasra numbers, which correspond to the licences and the letter of intent, are relatable to the Deed of Declaration. Once it is held that a licence can be utilized not merely in respect of the khasra numbers referred to therein, this submission on behalf of the petitioner also cannot be accepted. 107. If this contention of Mr. Khanna’s is accepted, large parts of the constructions all over the State of Haryana would have to be demolished. As mentioned earlier, the licences have been issued to develop portions of the larger area generally and not merely the lands mentioned in the licences and the applications for the same. PETITIONERS’ LOCUS STANDI 108. The contention on behalf of the respondents that the petitioners do not have locus standi in view of the 2012 Act is not well founded. The contention was based on the provisions of the Haryana Registration and Regulation of Societies Act, 2012 and the rules framed thereunder. It was contended that once a Deed of Declaration is filed, all the flat purchasers must join in any action to be filed. 109. Section 6 was relied upon in support of this submission. Section 6 provides for the entitlement of an apartment owner in the common areas and facilities. It specifies that each apartment owner shall be entitled to an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities in the percentage expressed in the declaration. It further provides for the manner in which the percentage is to be computed and the permanent character and nature of such interest. It prohibits an apartment owner or any other person from bringing any action for partition or sub-division of any part of the building. It also provides for the manner and nature of the use of the common area and facilities that apartment owners are entitled to. Section 6, however, does not prohibit individual apartment owners from seeking to enforce their rights. Nor does it mandate the enforcement of such rights by individual apartment owners only with the consent of all other apartment owners. Such a provision would indeed be undesirable. Section 6, however, does not prohibit individual apartment owners from seeking to enforce their rights. Nor does it mandate the enforcement of such rights by individual apartment owners only with the consent of all other apartment owners. Such a provision would indeed be undesirable. If that was so, the developer could, by the simple expedient of retaining one flat itself or in the name of its nominee, defeat the rights of all the other apartment owners. 110. An FAR of 7721.22 acres has been computed in the present case on the basis that the developer can utilize the FAR on the roads. This aspect has not been challenged in the present petition. DELAY & LACHES & THIRD PARTY RIGHTS 111. We would, in any event, not permit the petitioners to raise a contention to the effect that the respondents had represented that Park Place would be a separate group housing colony on the ground of delay. Had the development been illegal ab initio and incapable of being regularized, it may have been a different matter. Even then in the facts and circumstances of the case, we may not have exercised jurisdiction under Article 226. This is not a matter of mere delay. The delay and laches on the petitioners’ part has prejudiced the other purchasers of premises enormously. If the relief claimed is granted, the other flat purchasers and the petitioners themselves would be caused irreparable harm and injury. The particulars of delay are as follows:- In the present petition, the Zoning Plan has not even been challenged. It has been challenged in the connected writ petitions. Even in those petitions, Zoning Plans dated 31.10.2007 and 30.12.2011 have been challenged. Those writ petitions, we are informed, do not even challenge the original Zoning Plan pursuant to which the entire development has taken place. The new Zoning Plans are only with respect to the additional areas which were acquired. The two Zoning Plans challenged dealt with an additional area of only 15 acres. Some of the 24 licences which were obtained in 1995 were used in respect of Park Place. This writ petition was filed only in the year 2013. The apartment owners’ agreements were entered into during the year 2006 and 2007. There was, therefore, a delay of at least six years. During these six years, 13 towers of 29 storeys each of Park Place were constructed. This writ petition was filed only in the year 2013. The apartment owners’ agreements were entered into during the year 2006 and 2007. There was, therefore, a delay of at least six years. During these six years, 13 towers of 29 storeys each of Park Place were constructed. Three of these constructions by the name of Park Place, Magnolia and Belaire have adjacent to them land commensurate to the construction put up. There are other such developments which do not have lands abutting them. If the petitioners’ contention is accepted, all these buildings would have to be demolished. Nine out of 13 buildings do not even have 10 acres and a colony can be put up only in the event of there being not less than 10 acres. As we mentioned earlier, the entire layout would have to be amended in the event of each of these developments being considered a separate group housing scheme. Agreements were entered into from the year 1997. Constructions started around that time. The developers started handing over possession from the year 2002/2003. The petitioners came into the picture around the year 2008. By then, nine such constructions were already completed comprising about 6000 flats. The petitioners nevertheless entered into their agreements. This would firstly show that they never expected each of these constructions to be a separate group housing scheme. Their conduct would further indicate delay and laches on their part. 112. We mentioned even earlier that the rights of third parties would be affected on account of the buildings, in which their apartments are located, being demolished. Added to this is the fact that the disastrous consequences would be visited upon the persons who are not even parties to these proceedings. They have not been impleaded, although the reliefs claimed, if granted, would severely prejudice their rights. We are informed that there are about 30,000 persons who would be affected. 113. There is yet another manner in which their rights could be prejudiced. If the entire layout is to be changed, it would affect the rights of persons who purchased their apartments keeping in mind the layout plan. For instance, some of them may have paid a premium on account of a better view such as that overlooking a golf course. Others may have purchased apartments keeping in mind the proximities of the common facilities. For instance, some of them may have paid a premium on account of a better view such as that overlooking a golf course. Others may have purchased apartments keeping in mind the proximities of the common facilities. An order of the nature sought by the petitioners would affect the rights of such parties without affording them an opportunity of being heard. This submission is, therefore, liable to be rejected even for this reason. 114. Faced with this, Mr. Khanna submitted that the petitioners were in Mumbai and did not know what was happening at site. This is not a satisfactory answer to the contention of delay and laches. Nor is it an excuse for not impleading third parties who would be affected by any order passed in this petition. OWNERSHIP RIGHTS OF PURCHASERS 115. This brings us to the question of ownership of the flat purchasers of premises in Park Place. Had we accepted Mr. Khanna’s contention that Park Place is a separate group housing complex, it would have been necessary to consider the rights of the purchasers of the apartments in the buildings comprising Park Place in the area of the land commensurate to the FAR of the buildings. As we have held that Park Place is not a separate group housing complex, the question of the purchasers’ of the apartments in the building comprising Park Place having ownership rights in the land commensurate to the FAR consumed by these buildings does not and cannot arise. The question then is the nature of the rights of the purchasers of premises in Park Place. 116. Mr. Khanna relied upon the provisions of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983, and the Haryana Apartment Ownership Rules, 1987, to contend that Park Place is a separate group housing complex and that the purchasers of the premises therein are entitled to ownership right not merely of their respective apartments but of the common areas therein proportionate to the size of their apartments/premises. He submitted that the provisions of the 1983 Act and the 1987 rules even independently establish the rights of the owners of the premises in Park Place to the extent of the land necessary to support the FAR consumed in respect of Park Place. The submission is not well founded. He submitted that the provisions of the 1983 Act and the 1987 rules even independently establish the rights of the owners of the premises in Park Place to the extent of the land necessary to support the FAR consumed in respect of Park Place. The submission is not well founded. 117 (A) Section 2 of the 1983 Act provides that the provisions of the Act shall apply to every apartment lawfully constructed, inter alia, for residential purposes and that, in case of licences issued under the 1975 Act, the owner of such property/building shall duly execute and get registered a declaration within a period of 90 days after obtaining part completion/completion certificate under the 1975 Rules or occupancy certificate under the 1965 Rules framed under the 1963 Act. The section does not itself deal with the nature or extent of ownership of the apartment and common area connected thereto. Section 3(a) defines an apartment to mean a property intended for any type of independent use including for residence. Section 3(b) defines an apartment owner to mean a person or persons owning an apartment or undivided interest in the common areas and facilities. Section 3(f) defines common areas and facilities to mean, inter alia, the land on which the building is located, the foundation, columns, girders, main walls, stairways, etc. and basement, cellar and yards to include it. Section 3(f)(8) was noted earlier which provides that the common areas and facilities means all other parts of the property necessary or convenient to its existence, maintenance and safety or normally in common use. Sub-section (8) would entitle the apartment owner to a right in the entire area of land necessary to support the FAR consumed in Park Place. Had we come to the conclusion that Park Place is a separate group housing complex, the entire area would have been necessary for the legal existence of Park Place. However, as according to us, Park Place is not a separate group housing complex, there can be no question of the owners of the premises therein being entitled to such a right. Section 4 provides that each apartment together with its undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, appurtenant to such apartment shall, for all purposes, constitute a heritable and transferable immovable property. Section 4 provides that each apartment together with its undivided interest in the common areas and facilities, appurtenant to such apartment shall, for all purposes, constitute a heritable and transferable immovable property. Section 5 of the 1983 Act provides that each apartment owner shall be entitled to the exclusive ownership and possession of his apartment in accordance with the declaration. Section 6 provides that each apartment owner shall be entitled to an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities in the percentage expressed in the declaration. The computation of the percentage is also specified. Sub-section (2) of section 6 provides that this percentage of the undivided interest shall have a permanent character and shall not be altered without the consent of all the apartment owners. Sub-section (2) further provides that this percentage shall not be separated from the apartment and shall be deemed to be conveyed or encumbered with the apartment even though such interest is not expressly mentioned in the conveyance or other instrument. 118. Thus, by virtue of sections 3 to 6 of the 1983 Act, the purchaser acquires the ownership of the apartment and an undivided interest in the common areas and facilities appurtenant thereto. 119. The other provisions of the 1983 Act do not indicate that Park Place is a separate group housing complex. Nor do they support the contention that the owners of the premises therein are entitled to any right in a larger plot of land necessary to support the FAR in respect of the construction. Section 11 provides the particulars of the declaration required to be furnished, such as, the description of the land on which the building and improvements are located and the tenure of the land, the structural details thereof and the description of the facilities therein. Section 12 specifies the contents of the deed of apartment, such as, the description of the land, data necessary for the identification of the buildings, the use of the apartment, the restrictions on its use and the percentage of undivided interest appertaining to the apartment. Section 13 requires the declaration and amendments thereto to be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The section does not contain any provision relevant to Mr. Khanna’s contentions. Section 13 requires the declaration and amendments thereto to be registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908. The section does not contain any provision relevant to Mr. Khanna’s contentions. Section 14 entitles the apartment owner to remove a property from the provisions of the Act and section 15 provides that removal shall nowhere bar the subsequent resubmission of the property to the provisions of the Act. Section 22 deals with the rights of the parties upon the disposition of the property or the destruction or damage thereto. It provides that the property, in that event, shall be deemed to be owned in common by the apartment owners. It provides the manner in which the undivided interest is to be computed. We do not see how these provisions support Mr. Khanna’s contention regarding the extent of the land in respect whereof the apartment owners of Park Place have a right. 120. The Haryana Apartment Ownership Rules, 1987, do not carry the matter further in this regard either. Rule 4 provides for a Deed of Apartment and the manner in which it is to be signed. Rule 5 provides that all the transfers of the apartment by a sole owner or all the owners shall be by the deed of apartment. These provisions also do not deal with the extent of the ownership rights of the owners of the apartments. 121. In this view of the matter, it is not necessary for us to deal with various other contentions raised by Mr. Mishra in support of his contention that Park Place is not a separate group housing complex. His submission in this regard is well founded. JAI PARKASH GUPTA VS. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS, CWP NO. 4764 OF 2015 122. Before we deal with the submissions in the connected matter, Jai Parkash Gupta vs. State of Haryana and others, CWP No.4764 of 2015, it is necessary to mention the circumstances in which it was heard. We reserved the judgment in CWP No.12210 of 2013. CWP No.4764 of 2015 was listed before us even prior to 28.03.2016. Mr. Mishra, who appeared for the developers in CWP No.12210 of 2013, sought to intervene in CWP No.4764 of 2015 stating that some of the important issues raised in CWP No.4764 of 2015 affect the petitioners in CWP No.12210 of 2013. CWP No.4764 of 2015 was listed before us even prior to 28.03.2016. Mr. Mishra, who appeared for the developers in CWP No.12210 of 2013, sought to intervene in CWP No.4764 of 2015 stating that some of the important issues raised in CWP No.4764 of 2015 affect the petitioners in CWP No.12210 of 2013. He stated that the judgment in CWP No.4764 of 2015 may adversely affect the developers in CWP No.12210 of 2013. It was suggested even prior to 28.03.2016 that the judgment in CWP No.12210 of 2013 ought to await the final judgment of CWP No.4764 of 2015. By our order dated 28.03.2016 in CWP No.4764 of 2015 and other connected matters, we noted the above request and issued notice on the intervention application. We observed that prima facie there ought to be no difficulty in at least hearing the developers who were parties to CWP No.12210 of 2013. The hearing in CWP No.4764 of 2015 thereafter commenced. On 27.04.2016, we accepted the submission on behalf of the counsel for all the parties that it was possible that some of the issues in CWP No.12210 of 2013 would arise in CWP No.4764 of 2015 also and that the same ought to be heard by the same Bench that heard CWP No.12210 of 2013. To the previous orders, one of us [(S.J. Vazifdar, Acting Chief Justice (as he then was)] was a party who on the administrative side directed CWP No.4764 of 2015 and the other connected matters to be also heard by this Bench. It is in these circumstances that the petition was heard before pronouncing the judgment in CWP No.12210 of 2013. 123. Before dealing with CWP No.4764 of 2015 and the other connected petitions, it is necessary also to note that applications were made for intervention by Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate in CWP No.12210 of 2013 on behalf of 38 applicants/flat purchasers by filing C.M. No.8323 of 2016. This application, however, was made much after we reserved the judgment in CWP No.12210 of 2013. Mr. Atma Ram appeared for 38 flat purchasers. He contended that if Mr. Khanna’s submissions were accepted, his clients would suffer grave harm and injury. Mr. Atma Ram submitted that Park Place comprises 1508 flats. We informed him that in the event of our being inclined to accept Mr. Mr. Atma Ram appeared for 38 flat purchasers. He contended that if Mr. Khanna’s submissions were accepted, his clients would suffer grave harm and injury. Mr. Atma Ram submitted that Park Place comprises 1508 flats. We informed him that in the event of our being inclined to accept Mr. Khanna’s submissions, we would definitely hear him for such a judgment would undoubtedly affect every person interested in Park Place who is not a party to the petition. As we have rejected Mr. Khanna’s contentions, it is not necessary to consider any further Mr. Atma Ram’s application for intervention. We may only note one of his contentions to the effect that every purchaser of every part of the property of 476 acres only can file a writ petition of this nature. He submitted that even if there is any infraction of the law, only such an association can file a petition or any proceedings. He submitted, therefore, that CWP No.12210 of 2013 is not maintainable. 124. We thereafter heard the parties in CWP No.4764 of 2015. Having done so, we proceeded to deliver this judgment in the above matters. In CWP No.4764 of 2015, the petitioners have sought a writ of certiorari to quash a revised layout plan dated 15.11.2013 sanctioned by respondent No.2 in pursuance to a licence dated 03.12.2013 in favour of respondent Nos.4 and 5, contending that it was issued without following the due process of law i.e. holding an enquiry under rule 8 of the 1976 rules as well as in violation of section 6 of the 1975 Act. The petitioners have also sought a writ of mandamus declaring the action of respondent Nos.2 and 3 in sanctioning the impugned revised layout plan null and void. Respondent No.2, in this petition, is the Director General of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, respondent No.3 is the District Town Planner, Jhajjar, respondent No.4 is M/s Omaxe Limited - the developer and respondent No.5 is the General Manager of respondent No.4. We will refer to respondent Nos.4 and 5 as the developers. 125. Mr. Bhan’s main contention was that once a layout plan is approved based on the licence granted and the conveyance-deed is executed, it cannot be revised in any manner whatsoever. We will refer to respondent Nos.4 and 5 as the developers. 125. Mr. Bhan’s main contention was that once a layout plan is approved based on the licence granted and the conveyance-deed is executed, it cannot be revised in any manner whatsoever. He stated that this submission would also be relevant in Writ Petition No. 12210 of 2013 and therefore ought to be considered before we deliver the judgment in that writ petition. The other parties also agreed to the same. We, therefore, proceeded to deal with this contention. 126. As in Civil Writ Petition No. 4764 of 2015 we have decided essentially only the legal issues, it would be sufficient to state the facts therein only briefly. 127. The developers obtained a licence under the 1975 Act on 02.09.2007. On 30.03.2008, a layout plan was sanctioned. Mr. Bhan contended that the layout plan had depicted inter-alia the green areas in addition to the residential plots. In particular he contended that the green area was indicated on the plots close to the petitioner’s plot. However, ultimately it was agreed that this area was indicated with the letters ‘UD’ i.e. ‘undetermined’. It is not necessary, therefore, to establish that the area was not shown as a green area but was marked ‘UD’. The developers issued a brochure in the year 2009-10 in respect of the colony to be developed by them. On 05.01.2010, the petitioner opted for a plot at a preferential location on a wide road which partly faces the park. An agreement dated 31.03.2011 was ultimately entered into. On 11.08.2011 and 04.01.2012 the petitioner paid the preferential location charges (PLC) of Rs.1,71,000/- and Rs.85,000/- respectively. The Principal Secretary to the Government of Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department, issued a memo dated 28.01.2013 to the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, which dealt with the subject matter of revision of layout plan in respect of a residential plotted colony and building plans of Group Housing Colony. Paragraphs-3 and 4 thereof read as under:- “3. In order to avoid inconvenience to the allottees as well as to avoid litigation, Department had framed the policy in respect of revision of layout plan in case of Residential Plotted Colony and following the same since 13.05.2011, even Department is not allowing shifting of Open Space/Green belt/Park in case of Residential Plotted Colony. In order to avoid inconvenience to the allottees as well as to avoid litigation, Department had framed the policy in respect of revision of layout plan in case of Residential Plotted Colony and following the same since 13.05.2011, even Department is not allowing shifting of Open Space/Green belt/Park in case of Residential Plotted Colony. In order to consolidate the policy at one place following procedure to be followed by the Colonizer and the Department while approving revision in the layout plan:- i. Colonizer shall inform all the existing plot holders about the proposed Layout Plan being revised through public notice in the newspaper (proforma enclosed) with a request to submit in writing objection, if any, within a period of 30 days from the date of intimation by Competent Authority. A copy of earlier approved layout plan and the proposed layout plan made available on the website of Colonizer, at the office of Developer/Colonizer as well as in the office of DTP (Planning). The Colonizer shall submit report clearly indicating the petition, if any, received by him from allottee and action taken thereof alongwith an undertaking to the effect that the rights of the existing plot holders have not been infringed. Any allottee having any objection on revised layout plan, may file his/her objection in the office of concerned District Town Planner. The public notice may be published in atleast three National newspapers widely circulated in District, of which one should be in Hindu language. 4. It has been decided that henceforth, the policy mentioned above is to be followed in case of Group Housing Colony also. The allottees of the dwelling units shall submit the objections, if any, on revision of Building Plans including Site plan. Further, shifting of Open Space/Park/Play area/Tot-Lots/Green Belt, if any, earmarked within approved Site Plan of Group Housing Colony shall not be allowed in any circumstance.” On 05.07.2013, a conveyance deed was executed. The same refers to the said layout plan. 128. This brings us to the point of controversy in this writ petition. In 2013, the developer applied for the grant of a licence in respect of an additional area of 6.125 acres. On 08.01.2013, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. We mentioned earlier that the area in the original layout plan alleged by the petitioner to be the green area is admittedly marked as ‘UD’ i.e. ‘undetermined’. On 08.01.2013, the petitioner filed a complaint before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum. We mentioned earlier that the area in the original layout plan alleged by the petitioner to be the green area is admittedly marked as ‘UD’ i.e. ‘undetermined’. With this admission, the contention that the revised layout plan converted the green area and the areas opposite the plot allotted to the petitioner into booths does not survive. In that view of the matter, the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court dated 30.01.2015 in Army Welfare Housing Corporation v. Punjab Urban Planning & Development Authority and another passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 2489 of 2001 is relevant. In that case the petitioners contended that on a strip of land between their boundary wall and Radio Station road, a commercial complex was being developed. The petitioners contended that under the original master plan the land was to be kept as green belt as per the town planning norms. The respondents contended that in the original layout plan the area in question was left as ‘undetermined use’ and was not reserved for the purpose of green belt. The Division Bench held as under:- “A perusal of the Lay Out Plan (Annexure R-1) shows that the land in question was shown as ‘undetermined use’. Annexure R-1 is said to be tracing of drawing No. DTP (P) 564 dated 20.8.1970. The petitioner has purchased the land in the area in question in the year 1983 i.e. much after the preparation of the lay out plan. Therefore, the argument that the land is reserved for green belt area is not made out from the lay out plan produced on record. Since the use was undetermined, the respondent, the authority competent to develop the area has the jurisdiction and authority to determine the use thereof. It has been decided to raise a commercial complex, the drawing of which has been placed on record as Annexure R- 2. Such proposal cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified in any manner. It does not violate any law or even the master plan. Therefore, the use of such land for commercial purposes cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this court.” The judgment supports Mr. Behl’s contention that in the present case, the authority concerned could determine the use of the area marked as ‘UD’ i.e. undetermined 129. It does not violate any law or even the master plan. Therefore, the use of such land for commercial purposes cannot be interfered with in exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this court.” The judgment supports Mr. Behl’s contention that in the present case, the authority concerned could determine the use of the area marked as ‘UD’ i.e. undetermined 129. As we mentioned earlier the petitioner had filed a complaint on 08.10.2013 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Jhajjar, Haryana under section 12-A of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986. On 25.10.2013, the application for stay in this complaint was dismissed. We will shortly deal with the maintainability of this petition in view of those proceedings. 130. On 15.11.2013, the developers applied for a licence in respect of an additional area of 6.125 acres. On 03.12.2013, the Director Town & Country Planning granted in favour of the respondents a licence under the 1975 Act and the 1976 Rules for development of a residential plotted colony on the additional area measuring 6.125 acres. Clause 2(v) thereof reads as under:- “2(v) That the layout plan being issued with the license is provisional and for finalization of the same, you have to follow the Departmental procedure as per policy parameters dated 28.01.2013”. We have already referred to the policy dated 28.01.2013. 131. On 11.02.2014, the petitioner filed a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Jhajjar and the District Town & Country Planning Officer in which grievances were raised inter-alia regarding the development of the property in front of the petitioner’s plot. There were several other grievances as well. The petitioner requested the official respondents to restrain the developers from raising commercial construction on the park area in front of the villas. The petitioner also requested the official respondents to prohibit the developers from converting the park area to that of commercial area by constructing the commercial complex. The petitioner further sought an order restraining any commercial activities thereon. 132. On 27.05.2014, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum recorded the petitioner’s statement that he wanted to withdraw the complaint with permission to file “afresh”. By the said order, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh complaint before the competent Court of law. It is clear, therefore, that the use of word ‘complaint’ in the order did not restrict the liberty to file a fresh complaint. By the said order, the complaint was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh complaint before the competent Court of law. It is clear, therefore, that the use of word ‘complaint’ in the order did not restrict the liberty to file a fresh complaint. This is clear from the fact that the order refers to the liberty to file a complaint ‘before competent court of law’. The liberty obviously was to file the proceedings before any competent forum. The contention that the petition is not maintainable in view of the proceedings and order in the complaint is, therefore, rejected. The petition is maintainable. 133. On 12.09.2014, the public notices were allegedly issued by the developers in accordance with and pursuant to the guidelines dated 28.01.2013. The petitioner, however, alleges that he was not issued any notice and that he was not afforded an opportunity of being heard. 134. On 25.05.2015, a public notice was issued by the developers regarding the change in the layout plan. Mr. Bhan admitted that there were no written objections by the petitioner in response to this public notice. The Directorate of Town and Country Planning by a communication dated 27.01.2016 issued final approval of the revised layout-cum-demarcation plan of the colony. Mr. Behl submitted that there was no challenge to this final revised plan. 135. Mr. Bhan did not agree with Mr. Khanna’s submission that the licence given in respect of the plots specified therein cannot be used on any other plot. We have also rejected that submission. Mr. Bhan, however, went a step further in submitting that once a layout plan is sanctioned and a conveyance deed is executed, the layout plan cannot be altered in any manner whatsoever. He submitted that the grant of licence for the additional 6.125 acres and the sanction of the revised layout plan are, therefore, void ab initio. He further submitted that the layout plan cannot be amended to the prejudice of the parties who had already been allotted the plots especially where conveyance deeds have been executed with reference to a particular layout plan. 136. In support of this contention Mr. Bhan relied upon various provisions of the Acts, Rules and Regulations which we have already referred to. In addition to the provisions that we have already set out, he referred to certain other provisions as well. 137. Before dealing with Mr. 136. In support of this contention Mr. Bhan relied upon various provisions of the Acts, Rules and Regulations which we have already referred to. In addition to the provisions that we have already set out, he referred to certain other provisions as well. 137. Before dealing with Mr. Bhan’s contention based on the provisions of various statutory provisions it is necessary to refer to the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court in Paramjit Singh v. Haryana Urban Development Authority 2002(4) RCR (Civil) 25, relied upon by Mr. Behl, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the developers. The judgment in our view covers the case against Mr. Bhan. The same contention was raised in that case as well. The Division Bench rejected it with the following observations:- “6. It was then contended by the counsel for the petitioners that there is no provision in the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (for short the 1975 Act) and the rules framed thereunder for a colonizer to submit revised plans and, therefore, the action of HUDA in sanctioning the revised plans submitted by respondent No. 3 is illegal. Reference in this regard was made to Rules 3(e)(v), 8 to 10 and 11(a) of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Rules). This argument is being noticed only to be rejected. The 1976 Rules have been framed under Section 24 of the 1975 Act. Rule 3 provides that an owner of land desirous of setting up a colony, has to make an application in writing to the Director in the prescribed form for the grant of a licence and furnish therewith amongst others a layout plan of the colony 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 building and schools with area under each and proposed building lines on the front and sides of plots. Rule 8 requires that on receipt of such an application, the Director is to enquire into the matters mentioned therein and if the application does not conform to the requirements of the Rules the same shall be rejected. Rule 8 requires that on receipt of such an application, the Director is to enquire into the matters mentioned therein and if the application does not conform to the requirements of the Rules the same shall be rejected. Rules 10 and 11 require the applicant to fulfil certain conditions before the grant of a licence which is eventually granted under Rule 12 provided the applicant fulfills all the conditions laid down in Rule 11. It is not in dispute before us that respondent No. 3 had been granted a licence and since that is not under challenge it has to be presumed that all the conditions prescribed by the 1976 Rules had been complied with. There is no provision in the 1976 Rules which could even remotely suggest that having once submitted the plans the colonizer cannot submit revised plans for its sanction or that the plans once sanctioned cannot be revised. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, referred to the provisions of Regulations 3 and 8 of the Haryana Urban Development Authority (Erection of Buildings) Regulations, 1979 (hereinafter called the Regulations) to contend that HUDA has the power to sanction revised plans. We find merit in this contention. The Regulations have been framed under Section 54(d) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. Regulation 3 clearly stipulates that any person intending to erect or re-erect any building, shall make an application in writing to the Estate Officer in the prescribed form accompanied by a site plan, a building plan and details of specifications of the work to be executed. If the application conforms to the requirements of the Regulations, the Estate Officer grants the necessary permission to erect or re-erect the building. A reading of these Regulations leaves no room for doubt that the buildings are not only erected but can also be re-erected which would obviously imply that original plans once submitted can be got revised and if the revised plans conform to the norms laid down by HUDA there is absolutely no illegality committed in sanctioning those plans. Even otherwise, it is axiomatic that the power to sanction building plans would include the power to sanction revised plans also. Even otherwise, it is axiomatic that the power to sanction building plans would include the power to sanction revised plans also. We, therefore, hold that HUDA has the power to revise sanctioned plans and if they are sanctioned the builder or the colonizer has the right to carry out the construction in accordance with the revised plans.” 138. Even assuming that some of the provisions relied upon by Mr. Bhan were not expressly referred to by the Division Bench in Paramjit Singh’s case (supra), it would make no difference. We find ourselves bound by the judgment. In any event, none of the provisions relied upon by Mr. Bhan would persuade us to take a view that the judgment is per incurium on account of the Division Bench not having considered them. The provisions inter-alia of the 1975 Act and the 1976 Rules other than those referred to by the Division Bench relied upon by Mr. Bhan in any event do not support the contention that a layout plan once sanctioned can never be amended whether on account of the addition of lands or otherwise. 139. The provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 and the Rules of 1965 made thereunder contemplate the preparation of a development plan and provide any development in the area to be done in accordance with the development plan. The provisions also provide that the layout plans approved by the Director must conform to the development plan where an application has been made by the colonizer for change of land use. Rule 8 provides for the contents of the plans for controlled areas and contemplates the preparation of sector plans as a part of the development plan. We will assume as suggested by Mr. Bhan that the 1963 Act and the 1965 Rules contemplate micro planning of the sectors and that all the information required under Rule 11 is to be mandatorily provided in compliance of Rule 16 before any plan is approved. Mr. We will assume as suggested by Mr. Bhan that the 1963 Act and the 1965 Rules contemplate micro planning of the sectors and that all the information required under Rule 11 is to be mandatorily provided in compliance of Rule 16 before any plan is approved. Mr. Bhan also invited our attention to Section 23 to contend that the Act has an overriding effect on all other laws and to Section 7(1A) of the 1963 Act which provides an exemption to the colonizers from making an application under section 8 of the 1963 Act but with an obligation upon the authority under the 1963 Act to ensure conformity with the plans prepared under the 1963 Act before granting a licence for development of a colony. As Mr. Behl pointed out the present development is under the 1975 Rules. 140. None of these provisions, however, prohibit the authorities from considering an application for amendment of the plans including the layout plans. It is true that the applications are to be considered carefully, indeed minutely, as suggested by Mr. Bhan. That does not lead to the inference that the authorities are not entitled to consider an amendment to the plans. They would, of course, scrutinize the applications for amendment equally carefully, minutely. 141. Mr. Bhan also relied upon the provisions of the 1975 Act and the 1976 Rules. He contended that they contain an elaborate code which details the kind of enquiry to be conducted, the conditions to be fulfilled and the duties of the Director while granting the licence. He submitted that under these enactments there is no provision for amending the licence already granted. 142. The absence of an express provision authorizing the authorities to amend a licence makes no difference. There is no provision that prohibits them from doing so. Considering the provisions of the Act as a whole and the nature of the development that it contemplates, we would readily infer the power to amend the licence and sanction an amended plan. The Act does not contemplate the development of small plots of land. It contemplates the development of vast colonies often comprising even hundreds of acres. There would invariably be numerous circumstances necessitating amendments to the plans and licences. It may be towards better planning. It may be to correct an error. It may even be to carry out unforeseen but necessary developments. It contemplates the development of vast colonies often comprising even hundreds of acres. There would invariably be numerous circumstances necessitating amendments to the plans and licences. It may be towards better planning. It may be to correct an error. It may even be to carry out unforeseen but necessary developments. It can hardly be suggested that something for the benefit of the over all development of a colony cannot be provided merely because it was not there in the original plan. The authorities under the Act have vast powers to ensure proper development of a colony. 143. It is necessary, however, to add an important caveat. The authority considering an application for amendment must ensure that the amendment is in accordance with the provisions of all the relevant Acts, Rules, Regulations and policies. Further, the authorities must also ensure that the amendment is not prejudicial to the persons in whose favour rights have been created under the original plans. The power of the authorities to grant the amendment must be circumscribed to this extent for otherwise the rights of the purchasers/allottees can be severely prejudiced especially by the developers unilaterally. We appreciate that in developments such as these it is possible that a modification which is desirable may affect the rights of a few. If the modification is absolutely necessary it may nevertheless be permitted but only after ensuring that the rights of the parties affected are safeguarded and they are adequately compensated. 144. The provisions of the 1975 Act and the 1976 Rules also do not contain any provision specifically authorizing the authorities to allow a modification of the licence and the layout plan. However, they do not prohibit the authorities from doing so either. What we have said in this regard in respect of the 1963 Act and the 1965 Rules would apply equally to the 1975 Act and the 1976 Rules. The modified plans must conform to all the Acts, Rules, Regulations, policies/circulars and ought not to prejudice the rights of the purchasers/allottees of premises except to the limited extent indicated earlier. 145. Mr. Bhan contended that once a layout plan has been considered to be in conformity with the development plan, it is assumed that the area earmarked for open spaces etc. 145. Mr. Bhan contended that once a layout plan has been considered to be in conformity with the development plan, it is assumed that the area earmarked for open spaces etc. is also as per the development plan and any change in the layout plan and especially change in the position of commercial areas and open spaces would render it to be non-conforming to the development plan and hence illegal. It was further contended that a change in the layout plan by the authorities reflects non-application of mind on their part and therefore, is unsustainable in the eyes of law. 146. The submission proceeds on the erroneous premise that the layout plans as sanctioned are the only possible, permissible layout plans. A layout plan can be prepared in several ways. The provisions of law do not indicate that there can be only one type of layout plan. The locations of various structures, facilities, roads, amenities etc. may be different, amenable to different combinations in a layout plan. Each can be a perfectly legal layout plan. There is no mechanism by which the location of the structures, amenities etc. in a colony are fixed. If there was such a mechanism it would not have been necessary to submit the plans for sanction. The formula provided for the mechanism would have to be followed. There indeed cannot be such a mechanism for plots are of various sizes, dimensions, shapes, each with its own peculiar nature. The sanctioning authority would have to take into account several factors and sanction the most suitable layout plan. 147. Mr. Bhan then submitted as follows:- It cannot be a piecemeal exercise where a layout plan is approved and subsequently is amended to include other licences and then calling it a colony of multiple licences; that the object of the 1975 Act is to further planed development; the Act does not contemplate the setting up of a colony without first determining its extent and layout. It is not in the interest of planned development that more land is added to licences and the layout is amended. The mandated preparation of the sector plan which forms a part of the development plan under the 1963 Act and the duty upon the Director to ensure conformity of a layout plan with the Development Plan ensures that the entire development process is preconceived/pre-planned. 148. The mandated preparation of the sector plan which forms a part of the development plan under the 1963 Act and the duty upon the Director to ensure conformity of a layout plan with the Development Plan ensures that the entire development process is preconceived/pre-planned. 148. The entire development process at any given stage is preconceived/pre-planned. We would assume that it cannot be done piecemeal in respect of the same colony. That would not lead to the conclusion that what was preconceived and preplanned cannot be amended. There is no legal bar to it. Take for instance a case where all the parties concerned agree to the amendment. There is no reason why then an amendment ought not to be permitted provided it meets all the requirements and is not contrary to the development plan. 149. Having said, however, if the amendments are objected to, the authorities would have to consider several issues such as whether the agreement with the third party permitted it. Further, if it did not permit the same, whether the third party can object to the same. This will in turn depend upon the nature of the objection, the time when the objection was taken, the effect of the delay in raising the objection upon the rights of third parties. All these factors would have to be considered by the authorities before sanctioning the modification. 150. Mr. Bhan’s contention that a layout plan once sanctioned cannot be amended in any manner whatsoever is, therefore, rejected. 151. We do not propose to deal with Mr. Bhan’s further contention that in any event the proposed modification was without the petitioner’s consent and therefore, illegal. It cannot be suggested that a person who has acquired an interest in any part of the colony, is not entitled to protect it. He certainly can. The nature of the interest would, however, have to be determined in each case. For instance it would be necessary to determine whether the person has acquired a title to any part of the land and if so the nature of the title qua the owners of the rest of the land. It would also be necessary to determine whether even if a person has acquired a title to the land he is entitled to object to the development of the rest of the land in the colony. It would also be necessary to determine whether even if a person has acquired a title to the land he is entitled to object to the development of the rest of the land in the colony. Another question that may arise is whether the persons’ rights are actually affected and if so whether the same can be adequately compensated. Mr. Bhan contended, for instance, that under the 1975 Act and the 1976 Rules, once any land forming a part of the licence is transferred to the buyer, he gains title in the land and hence an amendment in the licence is impermissible. Indeed, in view of the policy dated 28.01.2013, the notices were to be issued inviting the objections. These are the facts which must be determined in each case. The petitioner is at liberty to raise this contention in appropriate proceedings including in appeal under the Act. These questions do not fall within the ambit of this petition and in any event the material is not sufficient to determine the same. 152. We are, however, unable to agree with Mr. Behl’s contention that when additional area is acquired and the same is sought to be developed as a part of the existing colony, it is only the wishes of the owner of the additional land that are entitled to be considered. Section 3 requires any owner desiring to convert his land into a colony to make an application for grant of a licence to develop a colony. It cannot possibly be contended that the owners of the existing colony can be ignored while considering whether their licence should be modified by including the additional area by including the same in the existing colony. This would lead to the unimaginable consequence of a party foisting his wishes for the development of his land upon another namely the owners or the persons interested in the land that forms a part of the colony already under development. Even under the general principles of contract such a case would be unimaginable. 153. Nor are we inclined to accept Mr. Behl’s contention that the petitioner having failed to file any objection to the revision of the layout plan cannot be permitted to challenge the same in this writ petition. 154. Mr. Even under the general principles of contract such a case would be unimaginable. 153. Nor are we inclined to accept Mr. Behl’s contention that the petitioner having failed to file any objection to the revision of the layout plan cannot be permitted to challenge the same in this writ petition. 154. Mr. Amandeep Singh Talwar, learned counsel, who addressed us in rejoinder, on this point on behalf of the petitioners, furnished a complete answer to Mr. Behl’s argument. He relied upon the following facts in this regard. The construction had started in the year 2013. On 08.10.2013 the petitioner filed a consumer complaint. At that time the petitioner was not aware of the revised layout plan. The respondents referred to the same only in those proceedings. On 11.02.2014 the petitioners filed a representation against the same. On 27.05.2014 the consumer complaint was withdrawn with liberty to file appropriate proceedings. To date there is no decision on the petitioner’s representation containing their objections. On 25.05.2015, the revised layout plan was approved in principle and subject to further development. In fact the construction commenced even before the finalization of the plan. The revised plan was finalized on 27.01.2016. The petitioner’s objection has not even been decided. The contention that the petitioners are not entitled to raise their objections in this petition is, therefore, rejected. 155. In this view of the matter it is not necessary to consider Mr. Behl’s other arguments in support of his contention that the layout plan can be amended. ALTERNATIVE CLAIM IN CWP NO.12210 OF 2013 156. This brings us to a crucial part in Writ Petition No. 12210 of 2013. Mr. Khanna submitted that the developers had in collusion with the authorities/official respondents defrauded the flat purchasers by failing to adhere to their representations. The representation made in the brochure was that Park Place would comprise of 30 acres. The agreement with the flat purchasers refers to about 12.67 acres. The deeds of declaration referred to 19 acres. 157. As we mentioned earlier the 1983 Act does not specify that the title to the land outside the footprint of the building would belong to the purchasers of the premises in the building to any extent. The agreement with the flat purchasers refers to about 12.67 acres. The deeds of declaration referred to 19 acres. 157. As we mentioned earlier the 1983 Act does not specify that the title to the land outside the footprint of the building would belong to the purchasers of the premises in the building to any extent. In other words, the various statutory enactments, rules and regulations do not confer any title on the purchasers of the premises in Park Place to any extent outside the footprint of the building. They indeed have a right of user of the common areas and facilities. They, however, do not have title thereto. Mr. Mishra contended that the developers were not bound to confer a special right upon the purchasers in certain constructions/buildings. At the same time, there is nothing that prevents the developers from conferring additional benefits upon the purchasers including as to the extent and nature thereof. Mr. Mishra relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in DLF Limited v. Manmohan Lowe and others (2014) 12 SCC 231 , (paragraphs 45 and 53) to contend that the agreement between the developers and the purchasers is one between willing vendors and willing vendees and the Director is not empowered to meddle with the transactions and put any restriction on the rights of owners/colonizers in the matter of purchase of plots/flats. This, therefore, also suggests that the provisions of law do not prevent the developers from conferring additional benefits upon the purchasers. The Supreme Court held that the Director is not authorized to interfere with the agreement entered into voluntarily between the colonizers and the purchasers and that the terms and conditions of the agreement between them do not require approval or rectification by the Director. It does not, however, follow that the mere existence of the agreement between the colonizers and the purchasers precludes the purchasers from relying upon any other representation or promise that the colonizers may have made to the purchasers. If the representations or promises are enforceable in law the agreement between the parties does not prevent the purchasers from seeking to enforce the same. 158. For instance in Park Place the developers have allocated an area of 19 acres for the exclusive benefit and enjoyment of the occupants of the premises in Park Place. He rightly does not contend that this was a matter of grace. 158. For instance in Park Place the developers have allocated an area of 19 acres for the exclusive benefit and enjoyment of the occupants of the premises in Park Place. He rightly does not contend that this was a matter of grace. He admits that this was a commercial decision for in view of the additional facility of the larger area the developers would also benefit on account of the value of the premises being enhanced thereby. He made a statement that the developers would not interfere with the use of the area of 19 acres by the occupants of the Park Place in any manner whatsoever. He, however, contended that the developers retain the title to the said 19 acres outside the footprint of Park Place and would, therefore, be entitled to FAR in respect thereof as well. In view of the statements, the owners of the Park Place would undoubtedly have the exclusive right to use and enjoy the said 19 acres. That, however, would be the minimum that they would be entitled to. 159. The question is whether the owners of premises in Park Place are entitled to more. Mr. Khanna’s alternative argument is that they are entitled at least to 30 acres. We have accepted this submission in view of the representations in the brochure and reiterated in subsequent documents with certain crucial modifications. The modifications do not relate to the area. The additional question is whether they become the owners of this land or whether they are merely entitled to the exclusive use and enjoyment thereof. We have held that the owners of premises in Park Place are entitled to the exclusive use of 30 acres but have kept the question of title thereto open. This submission requires our revisiting some of the documents. 160. We proceed now on the basis that under the various statutory provisions the purchasers of premises in buildings such as Park Place do not acquire ownership rights of any land outside the footprint of the building and that the statutory provisions do not confer upon the purchasers individually or collectively the exclusive rights to premises beyond the footprint of the building as well as in respect of identified common facilities, car parking spaces, etc. These provisions, however, do not prevent the owners of the land/developers from conferring upon any person any right in respect of the land including ownership rights or the exclusive right to enjoy such property. Mr. Mishra fairly and, in our view, rightly did not contend that the developers were not entitled to confer such rights upon the purchasers of premises in Park Place. 161. The developers had issued a brochure titled “DLF Park Place – a world beyond compare”. Prominent in it is the following page:- “DLF Park Place A world within a world The sprawling 30-acre DLF Park Place has been planned keeping some very important people in mind. You and your loved ones. Here everything has been thoughtfully planned to surround you and your family with not just an inspiring ambience but top-notch amenities as well. Live amidst landscapes with lavish vegetation and well-maintained greens. Water conservation with environment-friendly Rain Water-Harvesting. You can look forward to a club, where besides dining, you can also beef up your muscles with swimming pools, tennis courts, spas, saunas and well-equipped gyms. There’s more to life than just luxury. So, you will also find a medical Centre, Shopping Centre and Schools. All within the DLF Park Place complex. All within easy reach.” 162. It is not merely the prominence of the page that is significant. The very first sentence refers to “The sprawling 30-acre DLF Park Place”. The representation is that the various facilities mentioned therein, which are extensive, are “all within the DLF Park Place complex”. The nature of the facilities would warrant the same being located in a large area. A purchaser would undoubtedly factor this area in the price that he is willing to pay for the apartment. The additional area for the owners of Park Place is a value addition to the apartments they purchase. To recollect, Mr. Mishra had stated that although the developers were not bound to allot any area of land outside the footprint of the building to the purchasers of the premises within the building, a developer may do so as a value addition to his property. The area of the land surrounding the building would bear a co-relation to the price of the premises in the building. The larger the area of land surrounding the building the higher the price of the premises within. The area of the land surrounding the building would bear a co-relation to the price of the premises in the building. The larger the area of land surrounding the building the higher the price of the premises within. Thus, the price of premises within Park Place would be higher if it is 30 acres than it would be if the surrounding area is less. Nineteen acres is substantially less than 30 acres. The applications for allotment by sale are obviously made on the basis inter alia of the representations contained in the brochure and other documents. 163. The indicative terms and conditions which form a part of the application for provisional allotment were relied on by Mr. Mishra to contend that the owners of premises in Park Place were not entitled to any right outside the footprint of the building [clause 4(a)]. Clause 4(a) is of no assistance to the developers to go back on their representation in the brochure and other documents. Firstly, clause 4(a) essentially deals with ownership rights. Secondly, it does not refer to any area outside the footprint of the building that the developer was willing to grant in respect of Park Place. The third sentence in clause 4(a) in which the intending allottee confirms that he has not made any payment to the developer and that the developer has not indicated/promised/represented/given any impression of any kind in an explicit or implicit manner that the allottee would have any right, title or interest of any kind whatsoever in any land falling outside the land beneath the footprint of the said building save and except the use of common areas (for the purpose of direct exit to a nearest public street, nearest road only) to be identified by the developer in its sole discretion also does not militate against the representation in the brochure and other documents. What is dealt with in this sentence is the right of the applicant for the allotment in his individual capacity and not in his capacity together with all the other purchasers of premises in the building. The representation in the brochure and the other documents, on the other hand, is not that the individual to whom the representation is made would be entitled to the 30 acres but that the building in which he proposes purchasing the property would be entitled to the 30 acres. The representation in the brochure and the other documents, on the other hand, is not that the individual to whom the representation is made would be entitled to the 30 acres but that the building in which he proposes purchasing the property would be entitled to the 30 acres. If it were otherwise, the third sentence in clause 4(a) would be ex facie incorrect for a representation had been made in the brochure that 30 acres would be available to Park Place. 164. Clause (G) of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement does refer to a tentative layout plan of Phase-V but clarifies that the agreement is confined and limited in its scope only to the sale of residential apartments in the complex to be constructed on the said portion of land. Clause (G) of the company’s representation refers to the layout plan of Phase-V. It clarifies that the agreement is confined and limited in its scope only to the sale of residential apartments in the said complex to be constructed on the said portion of land earmarked and delineated in Zone 11 & 12, Phase-V, in accordance with the building plan approved by respondent No.1. That plan is Annexure IA. Annexure IA itself does not indicate the area. Clause (G), however, refers to the said portion of land as 12.67 acres or thereabout. This, however, does not alter the representation in the brochure for more than one reason. Firstly, clause (G), in this regard, is not very clear. More important, however, is the last sentence in clause (G) which reads as under:- “The area of the Said Portion of Land 12.67 Acres or thereabout may stand modified in future to the extent as may be required/desired pursuant/consequent to any directions/approvals by the Director, Town & Country Planning Haryana, Chandigarh.” This sentence indicates that the area of 12.67 acres is only approximate as is clear from the words “or thereabout”. Further, it is clarified that the area may stand modified as directed by the first respondent. This is not an absolute representation contrary to the one contained in the brochure. There is no indication that there is a deliberate departure from the brochure or that the representation in the brochure stands revoked. That this figure was only tentative is, in any event, evident from the subsequent documents. The figure of the area of 12.67 acres, therefore, was not sacrosanct. There is no indication that there is a deliberate departure from the brochure or that the representation in the brochure stands revoked. That this figure was only tentative is, in any event, evident from the subsequent documents. The figure of the area of 12.67 acres, therefore, was not sacrosanct. The developers prepared the documents. Absent anything else, the confusion must stand resolved in favour of the other parties, namely, the purchasers from the developers. 165. Clause 1.9 of the Apartment Owners Agreement does state that the allottee shall have the ownership of the undivided proportionate share/interest in the footprint of the said building and that it is agreed by the allottee that no other land forms a part of the agreement and that the allottee shall not have any right, title or interest of any kind whatsoever on any other land except to the extent of using only such common areas and facilities within the complex. What we said in respect of clause 4(a) of the indicated terms and conditions, which form a part of the application for provisional allotment, applies equally to this clause. Clause 1.9 pertains to the rights conferred upon the individual purchasers of the apartments and not to the collective rights of the purchasers of the premises in Park Place. In any event, as we will shortly indicate, a different area was mentioned in the subsequent documents. 166. The promotional letter dated 01.12.2006 issued by the developers expressly stated that DLF Park Place “is spread on a 30 acre site with lot of structural landscape and open spaces”. Three years later, a further promotional letter dated 29.10.2009 stated that DLF Park Place “is spread on a 30 acre site with lot of structural landscape and open spaces”. An identical representation was made by yet another promotional letter dated 07.05.2010. 167. These three promotional letters dated 01.12.2006, 29.10.2009 and 07.05.2010 are part of a compilation tendered by Mr. Mishra himself. There can be no doubt, therefore, that the reference to 12.67 acres in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement was not sacrosanct, was only tentative and did not by any stretch of imagination alter the representation made in the brochure. The representation made in the brochure that Park Place was to be on a site of 30 acres was repeated, reiterated and re-enforced from year to year as is evident from these promotional letters. 168. The representation made in the brochure that Park Place was to be on a site of 30 acres was repeated, reiterated and re-enforced from year to year as is evident from these promotional letters. 168. The doubt, if any, in this regard is set at rest by a document of vital importance. It is the Red Herring Prospectus issued by the developers on 25.05.2007. This prospectus, as we mentioned earlier, was in respect of a public issue of 1.75 million equity shares of Rs.2 each. We quoted the relevant portion of the prospectus earlier. This prospectus, inter alia, stated: “the total area of the development is 30 acres ….. …”. The development referred to was of DLF Park Place. This was further to the representations to the prospective purchasers as well as to others reiterated from time to time. The issuance of the Red Herring Prospectus was under Section 60B of the Companies Act, 1956. The company sought to raise money from the public based on the representations contained therein. It is of utmost importance to examine the provisions of Part-III of the Companies Act, 1956, which relates to “Prospectus and allotment, and other matters relating to issue of Shares and Debentures”. Section 55A provides that the provisions inter alia of section 60B shall in the case of listed public companies and those public companies, which intend to get their securities listed on any recognized stock exchange of India, be administered by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and, in any other case, be administered by the Central Government. Section 56 relates to matters to be stated and reports to be set out in the prospectus. Sub-section (3) of section 56 provides that no one shall issue any form of application for shares of a company unless the form is accompanied by a memorandum containing such salient features of a prospectus as may be prescribed which complies with the requirements of this section. Sub-section (3) of section 56 also provides that if any person acts in contravention of the provisions thereof he shall be punishable with fine which may extend to Rs.50,000/-. Sections 60B, 63, 64, 68 read as under:- “PART III PROSPECTUS AND ALLOTMENT, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO ISSUE OF SHARES OR DEBENTURES …. ….. ….… .…..… …..…… ..….. .…..… …..…. ..….. .….. ….. Sections 60B, 63, 64, 68 read as under:- “PART III PROSPECTUS AND ALLOTMENT, AND OTHER MATTERS RELATING TO ISSUE OF SHARES OR DEBENTURES …. ….. ….… .…..… …..…… ..….. .…..… …..…. ..….. .….. ….. .…… 60-B. Information memorandum.- (1) A public company making an issue of securities may circulate information memorandum to the public prior to filing of a prospectus. (2) A company inviting subscription by an information memorandum shall be bound to file a prospectus prior to the opening of the subscription lists and the offer as a red-herring prospectus, at least three days before the opening of the offer. (3) The information memorandum and red-herring prospectus shall carry same obligations as are applicable in the case of a prospectus. (4) Any variation between the information memorandum and the red-herring prospectus shall be highlighted as variations by the issuing company. Explanation.-For the purposes of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4), “red-herring prospectus” means a prospectus which does not have complete particulars on the price of the securities offered and the quantum of securities offered. (5) Every variation as made and highlighted in accordance with sub-section (4) above shall be individually intimated to the persons invited to subscribe to the issue of securities. (6) In the event of the issuing company or the underwriters to the issue have invited or received advance subscription by way of cash or post-dated cheques or stock-invest, the company or such underwriters or bankers to the issue shall not encash such subscription moneys or post-dated cheques or stock-invest before the date of opening of the issue, without having individually intimated the prospective subscribers of the variation and without having offered an opportunity to such prospective subscribers to withdraw their application and cancel their postdated cheques or stock-invest or return of subscription paid. (7) The applicant or proposed subscriber shall exercise his right to withdraw from the application on any intimation of variation within seven days from the date of such intimation and shall indicate such withdrawal in writing to the company and the underwriters. (7) The applicant or proposed subscriber shall exercise his right to withdraw from the application on any intimation of variation within seven days from the date of such intimation and shall indicate such withdrawal in writing to the company and the underwriters. (8) Any application for subscription which is acted upon by the company or underwriters or bankers to the issue without having given enough information of any variations, or the particulars of withdrawing the offer or opportunity for cancelling the post-dated cheques or stock-invest or stop payments for such payments shall be void and the applicants shall be entitled to receive a refund or return of its postdated cheques or stock-invest or subscription moneys or cancellation of its application, as if the said application had never been made and the applicants are entitled to receive back their original application and interest at the rate of fifteen per cent from the date of encashment till payment of realisation. (9) Upon the closing of the offer of securities, a final prospectus stating therein the total capital raised, whether by way of debt or share capital and the closing price of the securities and any other details as were not complete in the red-herring prospectus shall be filed in a case of a listed public company with the Securities and Exchange Board of India and Registrar, and in any other case with the Registrar only. …. ….. ….… .…..… …..…… ..….. .…..… …..…. ..….. .….. ….. .…… 63. Criminal liability for misstatements in prospectus.- (1) Where a prospectus issued after the commencement of this Act includes any untrue statement, every person who authorised the issue of the prospectus, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to two years, or with fine which may extend to fifty thousand rupees, or with both, unless he proves either that the statement was immaterial or that he had reasonable ground to believe, and did, up to the time of the issue of the prospectus, believe, that the statement was true. (2) A person shall not be deemed for the purposes of this section to have authorised the issue of a prospectus, by reason only of his having given- (a) the consent required by Section 58 to the inclusion therein of a statement purporting to be made by him as an expert, or (b) the consent required by sub-section (3) of Section 60. …. ….. ….… .…..… …..…… ..….. .…..… …..…. ..….. .….. ….. .…… 68. Penalty for fraudulently inducing persons to invest money.- Any person who, either by knowingly or recklessly making any statement, promise or forecast which is false, deceptive or misleading, or by any dishonest concealment of material facts, induces or attempts to induce another person to enter into, or to offer to enter into- (a) any agreement for, or with a view to, acquiring, disposing of, subscribing for, or underwriting shares or debentures; or (b) any agreement the purpose or pretended purpose of which is to secure a profit to any of the parties from the yield of shares or debentures, or by reference to fluctuations in the value of shares or debentures; shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine which may extend to one lakh rupees, or with both.” It is not the developers’ case that they knowingly or otherwise made a false statement in the Red Herring Prospectus. They must, therefore, be bound by the representations contained therein including the representation that total area of development of DLF Park Place is 30 acres. Further, the extent of construction and the nature and number of the buildings within the 30 acres is also specified therein. 169. Faced with this, Mr. Mishra relied upon the Deed of Declaration in respect of Park Place. He firstly relied upon the covering letter dated 26.03.2012, the subject of which was the Deed of Declaration in respect of group housing, namely, Park Place having an area of 19.333 acres. The declaration is under section 2 read with section 11 of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983. The declaration mentions the area in respect of Park Place to be 19.333 acres. 170. The declaration is a unilateral act. It is filed solely by the developers. The apartment purchasers are not involved with the filing of the declaration. Section 11 requires the declaration to contain inter alia the description of land on which the buildings and improvements are to be located. The developers were bound to mention the area to be 30 acres. They were not entitled to unilaterally reduce the area from 30 acres to 19.33 acres. Their unilateral act cannot prejudice the purchasers. Section 11 requires the declaration to contain inter alia the description of land on which the buildings and improvements are to be located. The developers were bound to mention the area to be 30 acres. They were not entitled to unilaterally reduce the area from 30 acres to 19.33 acres. Their unilateral act cannot prejudice the purchasers. We did not receive a satisfactory reply to our repeated query as to the basis on which the declaration mentioned only 19.333 acres. It is not as if the developers had altered the representations that they had been making over the years to the world at large including to the statutory authorities that DLF Park Place would be on a site of 30 acres. 171. It appears that the first respondent did not take this aspect of the matter seriously either. The Developers probably did not disclose these facts to respondent No.1. The first respondent did not enquire of the developers as to the basis on which they stipulated the area to be 19.33 acres for DLF Park Place. 172. Mr. Mishra then relied upon the conveyance executed between the developers and the purchasers. The conveyance does not mention the area of the land adjoining/surrounding Park Place. Even assuming it did, it would make no difference. Clause 5 of the conveyance is similar to clause 1.9 of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. Clause 5 of the conveyance contains the purchasers’ confirmation that the developers had conveyed to them only the rights specified therein. Sub-clause (i) refers to ownership of the apartment. Sub-clause (ii) refers to the ownership of the undivided proportionate share in the footprint. It is clarified and the purchasers agreed therein that no other lands form part of the conveyance deed and the purchaser shall have no title on any other lands. This clause does not militate against the claim of 30 acres based on the aforesaid representations on behalf of all the occupants of the constructions known as Park Place. What we said about the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement applies equally to the conveyance. Although no other land forms a part of each individual conveyance deed, the same would not apply to a demand by the purchasers collectively based on the aforesaid promises and representations. 173. Clause 6(a) of the conveyance is similar to clause 1.10(iii) of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. What we said about the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement applies equally to the conveyance. Although no other land forms a part of each individual conveyance deed, the same would not apply to a demand by the purchasers collectively based on the aforesaid promises and representations. 173. Clause 6(a) of the conveyance is similar to clause 1.10(iii) of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement. Again what we said in respect of the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement would equally apply to clause 6(a) of the conveyance. The purchasers may not have paid any amounts towards any other lands specifically. However, Mr. Mishra himself rightly submitted that on account of the developers’ allotting additional area outside the footprint of the building, the value of the apartments also increases. These clauses in the conveyance and in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement cannot possibly be construed as depriving the owners of the enjoyment of the additional area promised to them in the brochure and reiterated over the years in the correspondence and in the statutory declaration - the Red Herring Prospectus. 174. If the purpose of the clauses in the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement and the conveyance was to deprive the purchasers of such a right, the developers would be guilty of deceit and fraud. They cannot at their whim and fancy keep altering the area. They are not entitled unilaterally to decide from time to time to reduce the area to be allotted to a building or a group of buildings for the exclusive use by the purchasers of premises in such buildings. In any event, if the developers’ intention was to go back on their word to the apartment buyers, they ought to have stated so specifically and clearly. The purchasers cannot be left in a state of “wonderment”. 175. Had we come to the conclusion that the Apartment Buyer’s Agreement and/or the conveyance and/or any other document reduced the said area of 30 acres, we would have ourselves forwarded a copy of the judgment to the authorities concerned under the Companies Act/Securities and Exchange Board of India Act, 1992, for necessary action for having made a false representation in the prospectus and/or not having complied with the representations contained therein. In that event, the developers, their directors, officers and executives concerned would all have been guilty of offence under the Companies Act and possibly under the SEBI Act making them liable for prosecution and penalty under the relevant provisions. Further, in that event, even the first respondent ought to take action against the developers and the officers. 176. Any apprehension or notion that this finding would result in affecting the rights of third parties must be dispelled. The conclusion that based on representations and promises of the developers the purchasers of premises in Park Place would be entitled to 30 acres is entirely different from Park Place being held to be a separate group housing complex. The latter conclusion would affect third parties for the various reasons already indicated. The former conclusion, however, would not affect third party rights. In the case of Park Place, in any event, it would not affect the third parties for, admittedly, there is available 30 acres adjoining/contiguous to Park Place. If, however, such land is not available for any reason, the petitioners would be entitled to adopt appropriate proceedings whether in a suit or before the authorities under the Act or otherwise either for specific performance and/or for damages/compensation in lieu thereof. It would also be open to the petitioners and other similarly situated persons to raise any other demand in lieu of the 30 acres before the authorities. Such proceedings or applications would be decided on their own merits and in accordance with law. If 30 acres was not available on account of any third party rights having been created thereon and the petitioners insist upon these lands also, such third parties would also be entitled to be heard in such applications or proceedings. 177. At the time of pronouncement of this order and judgment, Mr. Rai, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the developers in CWP No.12210 of 2013, submitted that if it is held that the owners of premises in Park Place are entitled to the use of 30 acres of land on the basis of the brochure, the developers ought to be entitled/permitted to reintroduce the school which, under the brochure was to be constructed within these 30 acres. He submitted that the proposal to construct the school within the 30 acres was abandoned so that the owners of Park Place would be entitled to a lawn in lieu thereof. He further submitted that the plans themselves demarcated in zigzag lines an “Area for Future Building” and that this area for the future building was a part of the 30 acres. He also submitted that this area now stands utilized by the construction of a building/group of buildings by the name of ‘Crest’ and that third party rights have been created therein which would be affected. 178. Firstly, we wish to make it clear that while demarcating the 30 acres pursuant to this judgment, third party rights shall not be affected by the first respondent unless the petitioners or others similarly situated are found to be entitled to do so by any competent authority, Forum, Tribunal or Court. That indeed would entail the parties affected thereby to be noticed and heard. 179. Secondly, we are entirely in agreement with the submissions of Mr. G.S. Sullar, the learned counsel, who appeared on behalf of the petitioners in CWP-12210-2013, at the time of the pronouncement. He submitted that the documents that Mr. Rai relied upon do not establish that the portion demarcated in these plans/maps as an area for future building, forms part of the said 30 acres. The representation and indication therein is, in fact, to the contrary. The brochure itself contains a “Site Map”. A portion in black is indicated as “DLF Park Place”. A portion demarcated with zigzag lines has the caption “Area for Future Building”. Thus, each of these areas is depicted separately, to wit Park Place is separate from the “Area for Future Building”. The brochure states that Park Place is within an area of 30 acres. As Mr. Sullar rightly submitted, a joint reading of the description in the brochure and the site map attached thereto establishes that DLF Park Place comprises of 30 acres which does not include the portion captioned “Area for Future Building”. That the petition may have proceeded on the basis that the area for the additional building is a part of the 30 acres is not relevant for the petitioners understanding cannot affect others similarly situated. 180. Having said that, we must enter an important caveat. That the petition may have proceeded on the basis that the area for the additional building is a part of the 30 acres is not relevant for the petitioners understanding cannot affect others similarly situated. 180. Having said that, we must enter an important caveat. If, in fact, it is found that the portion marked “Area for Future Building” is a part of the 30 acres of DLF Park Place, the same shall not be included by the authorities and allotted to DLF Park Place unless the petitioners or other similarly situated succeed in obtaining orders from a competent Court, Forum, authority or Tribunal for the same affecting the rights of the third parties. In that event, the additional 11 acres adjoining the 19 acres shall be made available by the first respondent to Park Place. The same shall be done after hearing the parties concerned. If even this is not possible for any valid reason, the petitioners would be entitled to any alternate relief compensating them and the other owners of Park Place for the same. They are at liberty to adopt appropriate proceedings in that regard, if necessary. 181. The representations contained in the promotional letter dated 01.12.2006 again referred to DLF Park Place as being “area of 30 acres site”. The proposed tentative layout plan enclosed therewith is similar to the plan in the brochure, as it indicates Park Place and the “Area for Future Building” separately. The plan, read with the covering letter, gives a clear indication that Park Place comprises of 30 acres and the area for the future building is outside the same. 182. The doubt, if any, in this regard, is set at rest by the Red Herring Prospectus, the relevant part of which has already been quoted. The same refers to DLF Park Place as consisting of 988 residential units with approximately 2.2 millions square feet of saleable area in 13 blocks of 19 to 20 floors each. It once again referred to the total area of development to be 30 acres with apartments. There is no mention of any other construction within that area. There is no mention, for instance, of a school within this area of 30 acres. Even in the table, the area and the number of units are specified as are the starting and completion dates, namely, 2007 and 2010, respectively. 183. Mr. There is no mention of any other construction within that area. There is no mention, for instance, of a school within this area of 30 acres. Even in the table, the area and the number of units are specified as are the starting and completion dates, namely, 2007 and 2010, respectively. 183. Mr. Rai submitted that this was only an indication of what was proposed as on the date of the prospectus and did not prevent the developers from putting up further construction on the 30 acres. If that was the intention, it certainly was not conveyed to the authorities and to the purchasers of premises in Park Place. The contention is belied by the fact that in December, 2008, a revised site plan was submitted which excluded the school. The combined result, therefore, is that Park Place is on an area of 30 acres and the school is not included therein. The agreements for the sale of the apartments in Park Place commenced in the year 2006 and continued much thereafter. For instance, the sanction for the additional 10 floors was obtained in the year 2011. The Deed of Declaration was filed only on 26.03.2012. Thus, hundreds, if not thousands of persons, have purchased the premises on the basis that DLF Park Place comprises of 30 acres and without any construction thereon other than that which is mentioned in the above promotional letters and the Red Herring Prospectus. The inclusion of the other constructions, such as the school, in the brochure, therefore, loses significance altogether. 184. In the circumstances, Park Place would be entitled to the exclusive use of 30 acres of land adjoining the 19 acres. We, however, leave the question of ownership with respect to these 30 acres other than the area of the footprint of the building open. The question of the ownership in respect of these 30 acres outside the footprint of the buildings would require adjudication after affording the parties an opportunity of leading evidence. The issue is not clear enough to be adjudicated upon in favour of the petitioners in a writ petition. The petitioners are at liberty to raise this issue before the authorities under the Act or before any other Court or Tribunal. The issue is not clear enough to be adjudicated upon in favour of the petitioners in a writ petition. The petitioners are at liberty to raise this issue before the authorities under the Act or before any other Court or Tribunal. It is, therefore, not necessary to deal with the judgment of the Full Bench of the Madras High Court in the case of Tamil Nadu Housing Board vs. Mary Rani Immanual and others, 2013 (3) CTC 129 or with the provisions of section 11 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. 185. The petitioner in CWP No.4764 of 2015 would be entitled to get his rights adjudicated on merits by availing any alternate remedy. 186. C.M. No.8323 of 2016 for intervention/impleadment is disposed of in the terms stated in this judgment. One of the issues raised by the applicants has been dealt with. As the rights of the applicants are not adversely affected, no orders are passed thereon. Nor is it necessary to pass any orders in C.M. No.8322 of 2016 for recalling our order dated 19.12.2015 reserving the judgment in CWP No.12210 of 2013. 187. The developers and the applicants for impleadment/intervention submitted that some of the petitioners no longer had any rights in respect of any premises in Park Place. Even assuming that to be so, it would not affect the rights of the other petitioners to maintain the petition. We have not, by virtue of this judgment, dealt with the merits of the entitlement of the individual petitioners in respect of the agreements/transactions that they had entered into with the developers. Nor have we adjudicated their respective rights qua any society or association in respect of Park Place. 188. The writ petitions are accordingly disposed of as follows:- i. DLF Park Place shall be entitled to the exclusive use of 30 acres of land inclusive of and adjoining the 19 acres mentioned in the Deed of Declaration with the clarification that the same does not constitute DLF Park Place into a separate group housing complex/scheme. The Deed of Declaration shall stand altered accordingly. ii. The first respondent or any other appropriate authority concerned shall demarcate the area of 30 acres. The demarcation shall not affect third party rights unless the same are affected by the order or judgment of any competent authority, Tribunal or Court. The Deed of Declaration shall stand altered accordingly. ii. The first respondent or any other appropriate authority concerned shall demarcate the area of 30 acres. The demarcation shall not affect third party rights unless the same are affected by the order or judgment of any competent authority, Tribunal or Court. If the issue is to be decided by the first respondent, he shall obviously do so only after hearing all the parties concerned. iii. The issue as to whether or not the owners of premises within DLF Park Place are entitled to ownership rights in respect of these 30 acres outside the footprint of the buildings is kept open. iv. If the additional 11 acres or any part thereof are not available contiguous to the 19 acres, the petitioners shall be entitled to seek any alternative relief before the first respondent or any other competent Court, Tribunal or authority in accordance with law. v. The petitioner in CWP No.4764 of 2015 shall be entitled to have his rights on merits adjudicated in accordance with law before any appropriate authority/Forum/Tribunal or Court.