Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2022 DIGILAW 2082 (PNJ)

Cassock Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Haryana

2022-12-01

HARINDER SINGH SIDHU, LALIT BATRA

body2022
JUDGMENT Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - Since common questions are involved in both the aforesaid writ petitions, the same are decided together. Facts are being extracted from CWP No.11661 of 2022. 2. The petitioners, which are Companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, have filed this petition seeking directions to respondent No.2 - the Director General, Department of Town and Country Planning (for short 'the Director') to adjudicate their complaints dated 11.08.2021 (P.28) and 01.09.2021 (P.30) and to cancel Licence No.57 of 2021 (granted in the name of petitioner No.1). They have also sought directions to the official respondents to inquire into the fraud committed by the private respondents while submitting their applications for grant of licence and to take necessary action as per law. Directions have also been sought to restrain private respondent Nos.3 to 5 from creating any third party rights by allotment or otherwise under the licence by allotment/sale etc. till the complaints of the petitioners are adjudicated. 3. When the case came up for preliminary hearing on 27.05.2022, Mr. Bahri, Ld. Addl.A.G, Haryana stated that as per his instructions, the Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana would decide the representation of the petitioners within 4 to 6 weeks. Noticing the contentions of the petitioners and the statement of Mr. Bahri, it was directed that till the next date of hearing, no third party rights of any kind whatsoever be created qua the licence in question. 4. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on various dates awaiting the order of the Director. 5. On 29.11.2022 Mr. Bahri placed on record a copy of order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. The same was taken on record. A copy was handed over to Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioners. 6. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, has argued that order dated 23.11.2022 placed on record by Mr. Bahri does not finally dispose of the complaint of the petitioners and it is in the nature of an interim order. He argued that the Director has noticed the inter-se dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents. The Director has noticed that the share holding pattern of land owning company and its umbrella company is sub-judice before the Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. He argued that the Director has noticed the inter-se dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents. The Director has noticed that the share holding pattern of land owning company and its umbrella company is sub-judice before the Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. It has also been noticed in the order that an appeal filed by MGF Developments Ltd. against Emaar MGF Land Ltd. for non-compliance of order of NCLT dated 16.07.2018 in not transferring the assets to the resulting company i.e, MGF Developments Ltd. in accordance with the Demerged Frame Work Agreement dated 13.04.2016 as well as LIA and WIA dated 07.04.2016, is pending before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and its orders are awaited. 7. He then referred to that part of the order, wherein, it has been noted that both the companies i.e the Emmar MGF Land Ltd and MGF Land Development Ltd have not 'submitted the undertaking certifying that the orders of NCLT dated 16.07.2018 has been complied with in totality with respect to apportioning of the assets of both these companies in accordance with the Schedule of Agreement contained in the orders of NCLT, which ultimately decides the ownership of the subsidiary companies including the land owning company in the present case as well as in the case of Licence No.26 of 2021 dated 07.06.2021'. Both the companies were directed to submit an undertaking certifying therein that the assets are apportioned and claims are settled in compliance of the NCLAT dated 16.07.2018 so as to enable this Department to proceed for final decision on ownership of the land owning company. 8. He also made a reference to operative part of the order, which reads thus: 'In view of above aforesaid facts, it would not be appropriate for this authority at this juncture to either intervene or pass any order regarding the ownership of the subsidiary companies being not the competent authority and the matter already subjudice before competent Court of law. Any further action shall be taken subsequent to submission of undertaking by both the companies i.e Emmar MGF Land Ltd & MGF Development Ltd with regard to compliance of NCLT orders dated 16.07.2018 or any subsequent appeals filed before the NCLT Tribunal. Hence, the complaint dated 11.08.2021 is decided accordingly. The same orders shall also apply in case of CWP No.12375 of 2022. Hence, the complaint dated 11.08.2021 is decided accordingly. The same orders shall also apply in case of CWP No.12375 of 2022. On account of such land title related disputes, the Department is not on account of such land title related disputes, the Department is not only dragged into various litigations and also that Home owners suffer at later stage. The minimum that the Demerged entity can do to proceed further is to provide an undertaking that either they have implemented judicial pronouncements made by the NCLT through order dated 16.07.2018 or to give an undertaking through a Board Resolution that the land parcels stand transferred and they have no objections if revenue authorities amend records accordingly. The undersigned is duty bound as per Section 3 (2)(a) of Haryana Urban Development and Regulation Act, 1975 to ensure that the 'title' firmly belongs to the said land owner or developer referring to the particular collaboration. Regarding the contractual obligation of the Resulting entity towards the Demerged entity, both the contention and law are clear that judicial pronouncements will always supersede the contractual obligations. The above orders were reserved after hearing on 04.10.2022, which are pronounced today. Further, the hearing will be resumed after getting any instructions regarding implementation of NCLT order dated 16.07.2018. The concerned parties be informed accordingly." 9. He accordingly contended that the Director General has not finally adjudicated the complaints of the petitioners. 10. Mr. Bahri, Ld. Addl.AG, Haryana, Mr. R.S.Rai and Mr. Chetan Mittal, Ld. Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents on the other hand contend that it is clear from the reading of order dated 23.11.2022 that the Director has disposed of the complaints filed by the petitioners. They argued that in paragraph 9 of the order, the Director has clearly held that on the date of grant of LOI dated 03.05.2021 as well as on the date of grant of licence No.57 of 2021 dated 20.08.2021, the title of the land was in the name of the respective land owners and the company namely Cassock Properties Pvt Ltd- (Petitioner No.1 herein). This was confirmed by the reports dated 09.04.2021 and 08.06.2021 of the competent Revenue Authority. This was confirmed by the reports dated 09.04.2021 and 08.06.2021 of the competent Revenue Authority. It was concluded that there was no infirmity in respect of title of the land for which licence No.57 of 2021 dated 20.08.2021 was granted for setting up of Affordable Housing Colony over an area measuring 5.24 acres, Sector 81, GMUC. They further referred to paragraph 11 of the order where the Director has concluded that Licence No.57 of 2021 had been granted after conducting due enquiry about the title of the land in accordance with sub-section (2)(a) of Section 3 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereafter for short 'the 1975 Act') wherein land measuring 3.84 is owned by Cassock Properties Pvt. Ltd. and the company through registered irrevocable JDA dated 24.12.2020 was legally entitled to obtain the licence. We refrain from opining on either of the submissions. 11. Suffice it to say that as per Section 19 of the the 1975 Act, any person aggrieved by an order of the Director or any officer appointed by the Government may prefer an appeal to the Secretary to Government, Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department. In view thereof, both the petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to file an appeal under Section 19 of 1975 Act. 12. If such an appeal is filed before the Appellate Authority within six weeks from today, the same be considered on merits without any reference to the period of limitation.