JUDGMENT : SURYA KANT, J. 1. The petitioner is a Welfare Association formed by the residents of Group Housing Scheme known as Sushant Apartments at Sushant Lok, Gurgaon. It seeks quashing of the revised layout Plan (Annexure P-2) whereby location of multi-storeyed apartments to be constructed for Economically Weaker Sections of the Society, i.e. EWS apartments has been shifted from the originally approved site near to the Towers where members of the petitioner-Association own their apartments. 2. Sushant Apartments have been constructed by respondent No. 2-builder, i.e. the Ansal Properties and Industries Limited (for brevity, Ansal). The project was floated by Ansal after obtaining licence under Section 3 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (for brevity, the 1975 Act). Section 3 of the Act enables an owner of the land which is within the limit of Municipal Area, to convert it to a colony after obtaining licence to develop it and the Director, Town and Country Planning Department is authorized to grant such licence subject to fulfillment of conditions prescribed under Section 3 read with other provisions of the 1975 Act. 3. After getting the licence, respondent No. 2-Ansal applied for sanctioning of the building plans which were duly sanctioned on 09.08.1990. Section 3B of the 1975 Act mandates that no building can be erected or re-erected in a colony save in accordance with approved plans and subject to such restrictions and conditions as are contained in the licence. 4. State of Haryana has formulated the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976 (For brevity, the 1976 Rules) in exercise of the powers conferred by Section 24 of the 1975 Act. Rule 2(e) of the 1976 Rules defines layout plan to mean 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. Rule 4 provides that in the layout plan of a colony, the land reserved for roads, open spaces, schools, public and community buildings and other common uses shall not be less than forty five per cent of the gross area of the land under the colony. and other details as may be necessary. Rule 4 provides that in the layout plan of a colony, the land reserved for roads, open spaces, schools, public and community buildings and other common uses shall not be less than forty five per cent of the gross area of the land under the colony. Rule 8 further provides that as soon as an application for grant of a licence is received, the Director, Town and Country Planning shall hold an enquiry in respect of title to land; extent and situation of the land; capacity to develop the colony; layout plan of the colony etc. Thereafter the applicant can be asked to fulfill the requisite conditions and upon satisfaction of the Director, such a licence shall be granted under Rule 12 of the 1976 Rules. 5. Rule 17 of the 1976 Rules further mandates that the colonizer can transfer the licence granted to him under Rule 12 to any other person with the approval of the Director for which an application in the prescribed format alongwith requisite charges is required to be submitted. 6. There is another set of legislation known as the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (for brevity, the 1963 Act) as applicable to State of Haryana. Section 4 of this Act empowers the State Government to declare an area outside the limits of municipal town or any other area which has the potential for building activities, to be a controlled area. Section 5 of the 1963 Act provides that the Director, Town and Country Planning shall not later than one year from the declaration of controlled area under Section 4, prepare the plans in the prescribed manner showing the controlled area and signifying therein the nature of restrictions and conditions proposed to be made applicable to the controlled area and submit the plans to the State Government. These plans broadly provide the lands for construction of roads, open spaces, gardens, recreation grounds, schools, markets, commercial and residential zone as also prohibition and restrictions regarding erection or re-erection of shops/workshops, where- houses or factories or buildings. In view of the bar created under Section 6, no building can be erected or re-erected in a controlled area save where permission has been granted by the Director. The permission is granted under Section 8 of the 1963 Act. 7. In view of the bar created under Section 6, no building can be erected or re-erected in a controlled area save where permission has been granted by the Director. The permission is granted under Section 8 of the 1963 Act. 7. The State Government has further notified the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Rules, 1965 (for brevity, the 1965 Rules) in purported exercise of its powers under Section 25 of the 1963 Act. Rule 8 of the 1965 Rules enlists the contents of Plans of Controlled Area whereas Rule 12 gives details of the land to be kept earmarked for roads and open spaces in the layout plans. Rule 13 gives list of development works which are required to be provided in the colony and Rule 14 mandates that the layout plan should be in conformity with the Development Plan. 8. Rule 39 of the 1965 Rules lays down the procedure for submission of Building Plans which are sanctioned under Rule 44 of the Rules ibid. 9. When the 1963 Act read with 1965 Rules are juxtaposed to 1975 Act read with 1976 Rules, it stands crystalised that though both the Statutes deal with same subject but the 1963 Act applies to the land which is located outside the Municipal area whereas the 1975 Act applies to the land situated within the Municipal limits. Most of the provisions of both the Act or the Rules framed thereunder are either pari-materia or similar worded except that unlike Part XII of 1965 Rules, there is no corresponding provision in the 1976 Rules for preparation or sanctioning of Building Plans. Thus, the Building Plans even in respect of the land which falls within the ambit of 1975 Act/1976 Rules, are sanctioned under the 1965 Rules only. The Layout Plans or Building Plans are required to be sanctioned under different provisions of these Rules subject to their conformity with the parameters prescribed thereunder. These parameters include open space, roads, development works and other amenities which a builder-cum-licence holder is obliged to provide in the licenced area. 10. There is yet another Act enacted by State of Haryana which too requires a special mention at this stage, i.e. the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 (For brevity, the 1983 Act). These parameters include open space, roads, development works and other amenities which a builder-cum-licence holder is obliged to provide in the licenced area. 10. There is yet another Act enacted by State of Haryana which too requires a special mention at this stage, i.e. the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 (For brevity, the 1983 Act). The legislative object behind this Act is to promote ownership of an individual apartment in a building and to make such apartment heritable and a transferable property. The other object of the Act is to promote group housing. Section 2 of the Act provides that the provisions of this Act shall apply to every apartment lawfully constructed for residential purposes.......... The expression Apartment has been defined in Section 3(a) to mean “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..........” 11. Section 5 of the 1983 Act provides that each apartment owner shall be entitled to exclusive ownership and possession of his apartment in accordance with the declaration. As regard to "common areas and facilities" Section 6 of the Act provides as follows:- “(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 area 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. The percentage of the undivided interest in the common area 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. 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.” (Emphasis applied) 12. Adverting to the facts of the case in hand, the petitioner-association represents the interest of apartment owners in whom the right, title and interest of their individual apartments has been vested under the provisions of 1983 Act. The petitioner is the statutorily recognized association referred to in Section 6(6) above, to whom the responsibility of maintenance, repair and replacement of the common areas and facilities has been entrusted in accordance with the Byelaws framed under the 1983 Act. 13. The layout plan of the apartments owned by members of the petitioner-association was sanctioned on 09.08.1990 (Annexure P1). As per this plan, the Group Housing colony was to be developed on an area measuring 10.5 acres and was originally consisting of 9 towers comprising 472 dwelling units. In addition, the sanctioned plan also conceptualized the construction of 84 flats for EWS. As per this plan, the Group Housing colony was to be developed on an area measuring 10.5 acres and was originally consisting of 9 towers comprising 472 dwelling units. In addition, the sanctioned plan also conceptualized the construction of 84 flats for EWS. The location of all the 9 Towers as well as EWS Flats was duly depicted in the sanctioned layout plan. Ansal published its Information Brochure as per the layout plan sanctioned on 09.08.1990 and invited the prospective buyers to invest in the Project. 14. The members of the petitioner-Association were also attracted and they bought the apartments which were to be located in Towers No. 1, 2, 3 and 6. The aforestated layout plan (Annexure P-1) also delineates the location of open areas, width of the roads, distance of each Tower from the main road, entry points to each Tower as well as location of EWS Flats on the extreme left side of the layout plan. 15. One can see with bare eyes from the layout plan that Tower No. 10 comprising EWS Flats was nowhere near to the Towers in which members of the petitioner-association purchased their flats and the distance between EWS Flats and Tower No. 6 was not less than 200 meters being intervened by two other Towers bearing Nos. 7 and 9. In fact Towers No. 1, 2 and 3 were on the extreme right whereas Tower No. 10 - EWS Flats was on the extreme left side. The green space is marked as Tot Lot abutting to each Tower and is duly reflected in the layout plan. 16. It appears that at the very initial stage of construction activities, Ansal entered into an "Agreement For Sale" dated 17.06.1998 (Annexure AA-1) with M/s Brilliant Portfolio Limited whereby Ansal sold and transferred its interest and rights for the construction of 6,00,000 sq. ft FAR (Floor Area Ratio) “including proportionate area for the EWS Flats out of the balance permissible FAR area..........” Some of the relevant terms and conditions of the sale agreement are as follows: “(1) That the Vendor hereby agrees to grant, convey and transfer all its rights, title and interest in the construction 6,00,000 (six lakh) sq. ft. ft FAR (Floor Area Ratio) “including proportionate area for the EWS Flats out of the balance permissible FAR area..........” Some of the relevant terms and conditions of the sale agreement are as follows: “(1) That the Vendor hereby agrees to grant, convey and transfer all its rights, title and interest in the construction 6,00,000 (six lakh) sq. ft. of FAR area including proportionate area for the EWS under the scheme as multistoreyed group housing apartments as per sanctioned plans on the remaining area of the plot as shown in red in the plan attached hereto as Annexure.......... unto the Vendee for a total consideration of Rs. 12,00,00,000/- (Rupees Twelve Crore Only) calculated @ Rs. 200/- (Two hundred) per sq. ft. The consideration is subject to decrease proportionate to the decrease in the FAR area below 6,00,000 sq. ft. as may be finally sanctioned. In case there is increase in sanctioned FAR area, it shall be the option of the Vendee to utilize the same. In case the Vendee opts to avail of the additional area it shall be on terms to be mutually settled. It not the additional area shall remain re-utilized. The Vendor further agrees to place at the disposal of the Vendee remaining FAR area of 10250 sq. ft. free of cost as its contribution towards its share of areas for EWS. (2) That the sale consideration has been paid/ agreed to be paid by the Vendee to the Vendor as follows: (a) to (f) xxx xxx xxx 3 & 4 xxx xxx xxx 5(a) That the Vendor has already booked 84 EWS Flats each about 200 sq. ft. plus common areas each, totally measuring about 21,000 sq. ft. on the basis of the entire scheme to be sold at a fixed price of Rs.15,000 (fifteen thousand) each. The Vendor has agreed to contribute FAR area of 10258 sq. ft. as aforesaid free of cost towards its share. The shortfall in the remaining area shall be met by the Vendee out of its 6,00,000 sq. ft. of area subject to a ceiling of its proportionate share in the scheme. The number of EWS units may increase with an increase in the number of overall units depending upon the plans to be prepared by the Vendee. The shortfall in the remaining area shall be met by the Vendee out of its 6,00,000 sq. ft. of area subject to a ceiling of its proportionate share in the scheme. The number of EWS units may increase with an increase in the number of overall units depending upon the plans to be prepared by the Vendee. In the eventuality of increase in the number of such units, if the proportionate share of area of the Vendor goes beyond 10,258 sq. ft. the excess area shall be adjusted from out of the 6,00,000 sq. ft. of the Vendee and consideration shall reduce to that extent. 5(b) It is agreed that the entire EWS area shall be constructed by the Vendee simultaneously with the commencement of construction of its other area and shall be completed within a period of 18 months of the sanction of plans. The Vendor shall reimburse its proportionate share of the costs to the Vendee simultaneously with the progress of construction. The EWS flats shall be placed at the disposal of the Vendor for handing over to the allottees. The proportionate sale proceeds of these flats shall also be reimbursed by the Vendor to the Vendee at the time of delivery of flats. (Emphasis by us) 17. It stands crystallized from the recitals made in the Agreement that the FAR with area sold by Ansal included "proportionate area for the EWS....." which was given to the vendee "free of cost" to discharge the obligation of the vendor. It was further acknowledged that the vendor had already booked 84 EWS Flats each about 200 sq. ft. plus common areas..... to be sold at a fix price. Further, the EWS units were likely to increase with the increase of total dwelling units. Most importantly, it was agreed that “the entire EWS area shall be constructed by the vendee simultaneously with the commencement of construction of its other area.......” 18. M/s Brilliant Portfolio Limited, in turn, further transferred the FAR purchased by it from Ansal in favour of respondent No. 3. No registered Sale-Deed appears to have been executed by Ansal in favour of its vendee or by M/s Brilliant Portfolio Limited in favour of respondent No. 3. 19. M/s Brilliant Portfolio Limited, in turn, further transferred the FAR purchased by it from Ansal in favour of respondent No. 3. No registered Sale-Deed appears to have been executed by Ansal in favour of its vendee or by M/s Brilliant Portfolio Limited in favour of respondent No. 3. 19. It further appears that after entering into an "under hand sale" through the above stated agreement, Ansal applied to the Director, Town and Country Planning for the sanctioning of revised layout plan purportedly on the plea that they have added more land measuring 0.9 acres in the licenced area which stood increased from 10.50 acres to 11.47 acres. 20. The Director, Town and Country Planning, without giving any notice to the apartment-owners and obviously without considering any objection from their side, sanctioned the revised layout plan on 24.05.1999 (Anexure P-2) whereby the ground and open spaces abutting the Towers in which members of petitioner-association bought their flats were drastically altered and the EWS apartments site has been shifted from extreme left side to right side adjoining the Towers of members of the petitioner-association. Not only this, the total Towers in which members of the petitioner-association had purchased their apartments and which were originally four in numbers were also merged and reduced to three Towers. Still further, the total dwelling units have been increased from 472 to 762. As per the State Government Rules/Policy, EWS apartments are required to be equal to 15% of the total apartments. Applying such ratio, the EWS apartments were also increased to 134. In the revised layout plan, the construction site of all the 134 EWS apartments has been shifted from extreme left to extreme right, namely, adjoining the apartments of members of petitioner-association. Due to increase in the dwelling units and corresponding EWS apartments, more floors have been added to the Towers. 21. In the revised layout plan, the construction site of all the 134 EWS apartments has been shifted from extreme left to extreme right, namely, adjoining the apartments of members of petitioner-association. Due to increase in the dwelling units and corresponding EWS apartments, more floors have been added to the Towers. 21. The aggrieved association approached this Court and vide interim order dated November 9, 2000, the respondents were "restrained from raising any construction on the area which was shown as an open space/green belt in the initial plan." According to the petitioner-association the said revised layout plan has affected their right to enjoyment of apartments for the reasons, inter-alia, (i) the apartment owners are entitled to per capita parking space which has to be equivalent to 202 dwelling units plus 10%, but the same has been reduced to 175 vehicles only; (ii) the revised site for the construction of EWS multi-storeyed apartments near the apartments of members of petitioner-association would cause total congestion and their open view will stand blocked and (iii) the Ansal through under hand sale of more than 7 acres land has permitted respondent No. 3 to develop a separate Premium Apartment Colony. To keep the EWS apartments away from those Premium Apartments that the site of EWS Flats has been shifted towards the Towers purchased by the members of petitioner-association. The revision of Lay-out Plan is thus violative of principles of natural justice and fair play; it is alleged to be per-se arbitrary, motivated and unfair, as also directly in the teeth of provisions of the 1983 Act. 22. The respondents, namely, the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana as well as Ansal have filed their respective written statements, contesting the petitioner's claim. Respondent No. 3 though had initially appeared but no one came forward at the time of arguments. 23. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at a considerable length and gone through the record. 24. Learned counsel for Ansal justifies the revision of layout plan as according to him it was necessitated due to increase in the licenced area and consequential increase in the FAR. He further submits that no indefeasible right to enjoy the "open space" or "green space" earmarked in the original layout plan accrued in favour of the allottees as the apartments were allotted on provisional basis. He further submits that no indefeasible right to enjoy the "open space" or "green space" earmarked in the original layout plan accrued in favour of the allottees as the apartments were allotted on provisional basis. He further contends that no immovable property has been sold to respondent No. 3 and the agreement referred to by the petitioner-association merely transfers the rights in FAR. It is also contended that parking space for 202 vehicles has been provided for the members of petitioner-association. 25. Learned State counsel though candidly admits that the petitioner-association or other allottees were not heard before revising the layout plan but submits that the petitioner-association has been, in no way, affected by the revision. He points out that the provision to hear the existing allottees or to invite their written objections has been introduced by the State Government first time vide Policy Circular dated 28.01.2013 whereas the subject layout plan was revised in the year 1999. It is contended that in the absence of any written embargo under the Act, the layout plan could be revised. He relies upon a Division Bench judgment of this Court in DLF Park Place Residents Welfare Association vs. The Director General, Town and Country Planning (Haryana) and Others (CWP No. 12210 of 2013) decided on 02.12.2016 to urge that the authorities are well within their right to revise the layout plan. The Division Bench in the above cited decision has held that “the provisions of the 1975 Act and the 1976 Rules also do not contain any provision specifically authorizing the authorities to allow the 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.” (Emphasis by us) 26. 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.” (Emphasis by us) 26. Having given our thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and after going through the relevant provisions of the Statutes and the Rules framed thereunder, it appears to us that once the licensee publishes its sanctioned building plans/layout plan and creates third party rights for consideration, such third party-cum-buyer does acquire a right to enjoy the apartment in the manner it was promised and projected to be handed over to him. The external surroundings, open space, green areas, access to open air and sunlight etc. are integral parts of the rights transferred in favour of a vendee for consideration. Any material alteration to the disadvantage of such allottee in these rights, without his consent, amounts to infringement of the concluded contract. When such wrongful action is the outcome of an erroneous or illegal exercise of statutory powers by an Authority, the affected person is entitled to seek restoration of status quoente. Section 6 of the 1983 Act unambiguously 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 and such undivided interest of each apartment holder is of a permanent character and cannot be “altered without the consent of all the apartment owners.” There is even a corresponding obligation casts on the apartment owners that they cannot partition or carry out any division in the common areas and facilities and the same shall remain undivided. 27. In the instant case there is an ex-facie violation of Section 6 of the 1983 Act. The areas which were promised to be kept as green or open spaces in the layout plan (Annexure P-1) have been put to a totally different use including for the construction of EWS apartments. Such a revision has further reduced the parking area earmarked for the allottees of Tower Nos. 1, 2 and 6, namely, the merged Towers, regardless of the contrary claim made by Ansal. 28. The shifting of site of EWS apartments from extreme left to extreme right has its own adverse effect on the enjoyment of common open areas by the apartment owners of Tower Nos. 1, 2 and 6. 1, 2 and 6, namely, the merged Towers, regardless of the contrary claim made by Ansal. 28. The shifting of site of EWS apartments from extreme left to extreme right has its own adverse effect on the enjoyment of common open areas by the apartment owners of Tower Nos. 1, 2 and 6. It is the conceded position that the entire licensed area measuring 11.47 acres now stands divided into two parts, namely, Tower Nos. 1, 2 and 6 comprising 202 dwelling units and the remaining area measuring more than 7 acres consisting of 560 Premium Apartments. It is also an admitted fact that the owners of 560 apartments or respondent No. 3 have constructed a dividing wall between the three Towers belonging to the members of petitioner-association and the Premium Apartments. 29. With the clear division of licenced colony into two parts through the purported agreement to sell of FAR, Ansal has cleverly attempted to wriggle out of the consequences of Rule 17 of the 1976 Rules whereunder permission to "transfer" the licenced area can be granted by the Director subject to compliance of certain conditions. There is nothing on record that such a permission was ever applied or granted to Ansal. Be that as it may, once Ansal has transferred a substantial part of the FAR in favour of M/s Brilliant Portfolio Limited, who in turn, has further sold it to respondent No. 3, there is a clear division of the licence and the licensed area. In such eventuality, the EWS apartments which are equivalent to 15% of the total dwelling units, too are required to be divided into two parts. In this manner, while the petitioner-association at best is obligated to accept construction of 30 or 31 EWS apartments being equivalent to 15% of their 202 dwelling units, the remaining 103 EWS apartments are liable to be constructed within the 7 acres area, FAR whereof has been sold to respondent No. 3. Contrary to it, all the 134 EWS apartments are now sought to be constructed on the open space which is meant to be used as open or green space. 30. Resultantly, the land of Premium Apartments measuring over 7 acres has been exempted from the construction of EWS apartments. There appears to be a clear ulterior motive behind this move to give more open space and enhanced ambience to the owners of Premium Apartments. 31. 30. Resultantly, the land of Premium Apartments measuring over 7 acres has been exempted from the construction of EWS apartments. There appears to be a clear ulterior motive behind this move to give more open space and enhanced ambience to the owners of Premium Apartments. 31. Not only this, the very shifting of EWS apartments from extreme left side to extreme right side is in breach of the binding terms and conditions agreed to by Ansal and M/s Brilliant Portfolio Limited which have been reproduced in extenso in Para No. 16 of this order. Respondent No. 3 has stepped into the shoes of M/s Brilliant Portfolio Limited therefore, it cannot run away from its obligation to construct EWS apartments on the land out of over 7 acres which Ansal has eventually transferred to 3rd respondent out of its licensed area. 32. The recourse adopted by Ansal in collusion and connivance with the Director of Town and Country Planning Department, has surely caused severe adverse impact on the statutory right to enjoyment of common areas and facilities conferred upon members of the petitioner-association by virtue of provisions of 1983 Act. 33. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the action of the Town and Country Planning Department in revising the layout plan behind the back of the petitioner-association and without taking into consideration any of the relevant factors, is per se illegal, arbitrary, colourable exercise of powers and is contrary to the scheme of the Statutes, referred to above. The revision of layout plan (Annexure P-2), thus, cannot sustain. The same is, accordingly, set aside. 34. We hasten to add that the quashing of revised layout plan (Annexure P-2) does not mean and shall not be construed that the Department of Town and Country Planning cannot revise a layout plan in any circumstance. Where it is so needed for the benefit of apartment owners or for better regulation of common facilities and areas, the revision of layout plans can be permitted subject to compliance of principles of natural justice. In the instant case also, the authorities are not precluded to revise the layout plan keeping in view the slight increase in the licenced area and consequential addition in FAR. However, such revision must not lead to any adverse impact on the rights of members of petitioner-association, illustrated and demonstrated above. In the instant case also, the authorities are not precluded to revise the layout plan keeping in view the slight increase in the licenced area and consequential addition in FAR. However, such revision must not lead to any adverse impact on the rights of members of petitioner-association, illustrated and demonstrated above. Consequently, we direct the Director General, Town and Country Planning Department to reconsider the whole matter and ensure that the layout plan is revised in such a manner that EWS apartments are proportionately divided keeping in view 202 dwelling units in Tower Nos. 1, 2 and 6 on the one hand and 560 dwelling units in the other Towers where Premium Apartments have been constructed on the overall area measuring 7 acres. While revising the layout plan, the Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana shall further ensure that the parking space, green area or open space promised to the members of the petitioner-association as per the original plan are not reduced or shifted in any manner. 35. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 36. Consequently, it is directed that Ansal may submit a fresh layout plan strictly in conformity with the directions, findings and observations made hereinabove and the Director General shall consider the same after giving an opportunity of hearing to the members of the petitioner-association and other stake holders.