ORDER : 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.18657/2021(O&M) dated 22-9-2021 and CM-16277-CWP-2021 in CWP No.18657/2021 dated 3-12-2021 respectively, by which the High Court rejected the petitions filed by the appellant - herein and thereby declined to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the Petitions. 3. We heard this matter over a period of few months. It is possible for us to put an end to this dispute today. 4. We do not intend to delve much into the facts giving rise to this litigation as with the assistance of both the sides, we have been able to find a way out to resolve the entire controversy. 5. We first take notice of our order dated 21-1-2025. The same reads thus:- 1. We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajat Sangwan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. We have been able to get a fair idea about the dispute in the present litigation. To put it very briefly the petitioner herein is a Private Limited Company. The petitioner owned the piece of land comprising 3.5 acres situated at IFFCO Chowk, Gurugram Haryana. 3. The authorities concerned granted the petitioner permission to construct commercial complex thereon. 4. As the materials on record reveal, the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana-respondent no.1 herein granted License No.116/2004 dated 6.8.2004 for setting up a commercial colony on 2.4 acres area of the land. 5. The problem cropped up when the petitioner entered into a collaboration agreement with one Atul Bansal, Director of M/s Uppal Infrastructure Projects Ltd. for the purpose of development of project. 6. The understanding between the parties was that they would raise a commercial complex by name Delta Square(block B) within the 2 SLP(C) Nos.5904-5905/2022 contours of the terms and license documents. 7. The further understanding was that the infrastructure company would construct block A and the same would be kept by them whereas the same company would also construct block B & block B was to be handed over to the petitioner herein so that the petitioner can put it to sale or enter into a lease agreement with any other party. 8. 8. It is not in dispute that blocks A and B respectively came up almost 15 years back. 9. It is not in dispute that the infrastructure company sold out all the flats in block A and people are occupying the entire block. 10. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein sold some of the flats in block B, whereas have entered into lease agreements with few parties. 11. However, both these buildings i.e. blocks A and B respectively do not have a valid completion certificate. 12. This entire litigation is for the purpose of obtaining a valid completion certificate. 13. According to the respondents the license which was granted expired way back in the year 2009. With the Expiry of the license nothing, further, could have been done in the matter. 14. The position prevailing as on date is what we have said aforesaid. 15. It appears that the respondents are ready and willing to issue 3 SLP(C) Nos.5904-5905/2022 the necessary completion certificate, subject to the petitioner herein paying towards (i) infrastructure and argumentation charges, (ii) composition fee and (iii) composition fee for delay and submission of bank guarantee. The sum of all this is coming to around Rs.2.66 crore. 16. This entire amount is for both the blocks i.e. A and B. 17. We take notice of the fact that the infrastructure company with whom the petitioner entered into an agreement, has gone into liquidation. We are further informed that some of directors have passed away and the whereabouts of some other directors are not known. Therefore, today the entire liability is sought to be fastened on the petitioner herein. 18. At this stage, it has been pointed out by Ms. Arora that the respondents had evolved a one time settlement scheme as a policy dated 12.05.2023. However, unfortunately, the validity period of that scheme has also expired. 19. We are informed that very recently the respondents have taken a decision dated 18th December, 2024 to consider issuing part completion certificate. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents very fairly submitted that the proposal put forward by the petitioner for part completion certificate shall be looked into by the authorities and an appropriate decision shall be taken by the next date of hearing. 4 SLP(C) Nos.5904-5905/2022 21. Let an appropriate decision be taken as regards the aforesaid at the earliest. 22. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents very fairly submitted that the proposal put forward by the petitioner for part completion certificate shall be looked into by the authorities and an appropriate decision shall be taken by the next date of hearing. 4 SLP(C) Nos.5904-5905/2022 21. Let an appropriate decision be taken as regards the aforesaid at the earliest. 22. We hope and trust that the respondents try to resolve the entire problem taking a practical view of the matter and put an end to this entire litigation. 23. We have also taken notice of the order passed by this Court on 19th December, 2024. However, on that date the petitioner was not aware about the new policy of part completion certificate. 24. Place this matter for further hearing after three weeks.' 6. The order, referred to above, is self-explanatory. 7. In pursuance of our order, referred to above, the Directorate of Town and Country Planning, Haryana passed an order dated 5-2-2025 which reads thus:- 'The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had passed the orders dated 21.01.2025 in SLP (Civil) No. 59045905 of 2022 titled as EMCIPI Electronics Pvt. Ltd, v/s State of Haryana and others. The sald order is reproduced as under: '1. We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajat Sangwan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 2. We have been able to get a fair Idea about the dispute in the present litigation. To put it very briefly the petitioner herein is a Private Limited Company. The petitioner owned the plece of land comprising 3.5 acres situated at IFFCO Chowk, Gurugram, Haryana. 3. The authorities concerned granted the petitioner permission to construct commercial complex thereon. 4. As the materials on record reveal, the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana-respondent no.1 herein granted License No. 116/2004 dated 6.8.2004 for setting up a commercial colony on 2.4 acres area of the land. 5. The problem cropped up when the petitioner entered into a collaboration agreement with one Atul Bansal, Director of Mis Uppal Infrastructure Projects Ltd. for the purpose of development of project. 6. The understanding between the parties was that they would raise a commercial complex by name Delta Square (block B) within the contours of the terms and license documents. 7. The problem cropped up when the petitioner entered into a collaboration agreement with one Atul Bansal, Director of Mis Uppal Infrastructure Projects Ltd. for the purpose of development of project. 6. The understanding between the parties was that they would raise a commercial complex by name Delta Square (block B) within the contours of the terms and license documents. 7. The further understanding was that the infrastructure company would construct block A and the same would be kept by them whereas the same company would also construct block B & block B was to be handed over to the petitioner herein so that the petitioner can put it to sale or enter into a lease agreement with any other party. 8. It is not in dispute that blocks A and B respectively came up almost 15 years back. 9. It is not in dispute that the infrastructure company sold out all the flats in block A and people are occupying the entire block. 10. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein sold some of the flats in block B, whereas have entered into lease agreements with few parties. 11. However, both these buildings i.e. blocks A and B respectively do not have a valid completion certificate. 12. This entire litigation is for the purpose of obtaining a valid completion certificate. 13. According to the respondents the license which was granted expired way back in the year 2009. With the Expiry of the license nothing, further, could have been done in the matter. 14. The position prevailing as on date is what we have said aforesaid. 15. It appears that the respondents are ready and willing to issue the necessary completion certificate, subject to the petitioner herein paying towards (i) infrastructure and argumentation charges, (ii) composition fee and (iii) composition fee for delay and submission of bank guarantee. The sum of all this is coming to around Rs.2.66 crore. 16. This entire amount is for both the blocks i.e. A and B. 17. We take notice of the fact that the infrastructure company with whom the petitioner entered into an agreement, has gone into liquidation. We are further informed that some of directors have passed away and the whereabouts of some other directors are not known. Therefore, today the entire liability is sought to be fastened on the petitioner herein. 18. We take notice of the fact that the infrastructure company with whom the petitioner entered into an agreement, has gone into liquidation. We are further informed that some of directors have passed away and the whereabouts of some other directors are not known. Therefore, today the entire liability is sought to be fastened on the petitioner herein. 18. At this stage, it has been pointed out by Ms. Arora that the respondents had evolved a one time settlement scheme as a policy dated 12.05.2023. However, unfortunately, the validity period of that scheme has also expired. 19. We are informed that very recently the respondents have taken a decision dated 18th December, 2024 to consider issuing part completion certificate. 20. The learned counsel appearing for the respondents very fairly submitted that the proposal put forward by petitioner for part completion certificate shall be looked into by the authorities and an appropriate decision shall be taken by the next date of hearing. 21. Let an appropriate decision be taken as regards the aforesaid at the earliest. 22. We hope and trust that the respondents try to resolve the entire problem taking a practical view of the matter and put an end to this entire litigation. 23. We have also taken notice of the order passed by this Court on 19th December, 2024. However, on that date the petitioner was not aware about the new policy of part completion certificate. 24. Place this matter for further hearing after three weeks' 2. In compliance to the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court dated 21.01.2025. an opportunity for a personal hearing was granted to the petitioner/licensee on 03.02.2025. Mrs. Anju Aggarwal, Liquidator of Jassum Propcon Pvt. Ltd. appeared for attending the hearing through VC. However, no one appeared for hearing on behalf of licensee/petitioner company. Accordingly, the hearing was adjourned for 05.02.2025. 3. The matter is heard on 05.02.2025. No one appeared to attend the hearing on behalf of developer. Mr. Sameer Tripathi, appeared for attending the hearing on behalf of petitioner company and requested to consider the request of the petitioner company for grant of part completion certificate in favour of licensee/petitioner. 4. The office has apprised that in compliance to the orders passed by Hon'ble Apex Court on 08.08.2023, the detailed speaking orders were passed on 05.12.2024 which stands circulated to the petitioner company and liquidator of the developer company. 4. The office has apprised that in compliance to the orders passed by Hon'ble Apex Court on 08.08.2023, the detailed speaking orders were passed on 05.12.2024 which stands circulated to the petitioner company and liquidator of the developer company. Now the Hon'ble Supreme Court has passed an order dated 21.01.2025, vide which this Department has been directed to look into the proposal put forward by the petitioner for part completion certificate and take an appropriate decision by the next date of hearing. 5. Accordingly, the petitioner company has submitted a fresh representation dated nil in this office on 18.01.2025, 22.01.2025 and 24.01.2025 which has been examined by the office and submit the request wise comments as under:. i. Request-1: Tower-A is now occupied by various unit holders and managed by ABW Towers Condominium Association. While the license for this tower remains in the name of the applicant, the applicant has no physical possession or control over Tower-A. Licensee also submitted a request to relinquish all interest in Tower-A and further requested that the sald Tower be deemed forfeited and cancelled Submission: The request of the licensee/petitioner company is not considerable as the license is granted for development of complete licensed land and licensee cannot be relieved from the compliance of conditions of license till the completion certificate of the colony and till compliances of terms and conditions of completion certificate. Further, the matter regarding execution of agreement by the licensee with any third party for maintaining and managing the Towers is bilateral in nature and the Department cannot interfere in such bilateral matter in view of judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of DLF Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and others passed while deciding Civil Appeal No. 550-551 of 2003 passed on 19.11.2010. The license has been issued in the name of petitioner company and the bilateral agreement i.e. LCIV and LC-IV-B was also executed between the petitioner company and Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana at the time of grant of licence to comply with the terms and conditions of the agreements, the license and the provisions of the applicable Act/Rules made therein. ii. Request-2: To take action against the occupants of Tower-A who have undertaken illegal construction. Submission: Vide Speaking Orders dated 05.12.2024, DTP(E) Gurugram has already been directed to initiate the necessary action against unauthorized construction raised in the basement of Tower-A. iii. ii. Request-2: To take action against the occupants of Tower-A who have undertaken illegal construction. Submission: Vide Speaking Orders dated 05.12.2024, DTP(E) Gurugram has already been directed to initiate the necessary action against unauthorized construction raised in the basement of Tower-A. iii. Request-3: To issue a part completion certificate for Tower-B as per amendment dated 18.12.2024 in Act no. 8 of 1975 as the petitioner company is willing to pay applicable charges for grant of part completion certificate. Submission:- a) The amendment dated 18.12.2024 in Act no. 8 of 1975 is applicable for grant of completion certificate in cases where the colonizer has obtained occupation certificate for all the building blocks in the colony. It is clarified that the said amendment is not applicable for grant of part completion certificate. The amendment in Section 3 of Act no. 8 of 1975 issued vide notification dated 18.12.2024 is reproduced as under: '(8) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (6) and (7) above, in cases where the colonizer has either obtained occupation certificate for all the building blocks in case of other than plotted colonies or where part completion certificate for the entire colony has been obtained in case of plotted colonies, no further scrutiny for the purpose of grant of completion certificate shall be necessary and such completion certificate may be issued upon payment of applicable infrastructure augmentation charges.'. (b) In the impugned license, the licensee/petitioner company has obtained the occupation certificate of all building blocks of the commercial complex (Block-A & Block-B) on 21.05.2009 & 08.06.2009 1.e. also within the validity of the license. (c) Therefore, the request of the petitioner company for a grant of completion certificate of the entire colony of an area measuring 2.40 acres can be considered upon receipt of the following documents and payment of requisite fee/charges: (i) The petitioner company has to apply for the grant of completion certificate of complete colony In Form LCVIII alongwith requisite Infrastructure Augmentation Charges l.e. Rs. 48,00,000/-. 48,00,000/-. (ii) Further, the Rule 20 of Rules, 1976 prescribed for release of Bank guarantee provided that: 'After the layout and development works or part thereof in respect of the 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 colonizer, release bank guarantee or part thereof as the case may be:- Provided that if the completion of the colony is taken in parts only, the part of the bank guarantee corresponding to the part to the colony completed shall be released: Provided further that the bank guarantee equivalent to 1/5th amount thereof shall be kept unreleased to ensure upkeep and maintenance of the colony or 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 colonizer is relleved of the responsibilities in this behalf.' In the Impugned license, the Bank Guarantee on account of Internal development works of Rs. 53,46,240/ stands expired. Therefore, the petitioner company/licensee is required to deposit the valid 1/5th Bank Guarantee on account of internal development works of Rs. 10,69,248/- before granting of completion certificate as per the provisions under Rule 20 of Rules, 1976. (iii) Further, as per the condition of occupation certificates granted vide memo dated 29.08.2009 & memo dated 06.09.2009, the licensee/petitioner was required to file the Deed of Declaration within 90 days as required under Section 2 of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act of 1983 (hereinafter referred as Act of 1983). In this case, the petitioner or the developer company has not submitted the Deed of Declaration (DOD) for the occupation certificates granted vide memo dated 29.08.2009 & memo dated 06.09.2009 till date. Therefore, the petitioner company/licensee is liable for penal action under the provisions of Section 24 of the Act of 1983. The provisions of section 246 of the Act of 1983 attracted with respect to 'penalties' for delay in filing the Deed of Declaration, which is reproduced as under 'Penalties. Any owner of property/building, who does not file declaration within the period specified under section 2, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine of not less that Rs. 50,000 and Rs. Any owner of property/building, who does not file declaration within the period specified under section 2, shall be punishable with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to a fine of not less that Rs. 50,000 and Rs. 10,000 for each day of continuing offence.' However, as per the statutory provision in the Act of 1983 composition of delay' is also provided in section 24C of the Act of 1983, which empowers the Director to compound any delay regarding the filing of Deed of Declaration. The legal provisions under Section 24-C of the Act of 1983 are reproduced as under: '24.C- Composition of Offence. (1) The Competent Authority or any person authorized by him by general or special order made in this behalf, may either before or after the Institution of the prosecution compound any offence made punishable by or under this Act.' Further, the composition rates for the delay in filing a Deed of Declaration have been fixed in policy dated 07.01.2013 and further amended on 15.03.2013. Therefore, as per the provisions of Section-24C reproduced above, any offence under the Act of 1983 can be compounded by the competent Authority, which is the Director as defined in Section 3(1) of the Act. However, in the instant case, the licensee/petitioner has not filed the deed of declaration as required under the statutory provisions of the Act of 1983 till date, which is required to be filed before grant of the completion certificate. Therefore, vide this office memo dated 04.02.2025 a show cause notice has also been issued to the petitioner company mentioning why penal action as per the provisions of Section 24A of the Act of 1983 may not be initiated against the petitioner/licensee. However, the DOD is not yet submitted by the petitioner company. Accordingly, the petitioner company is liable for penal action as per the provisions under the Act of 1983. However, such an offence is compoundable under Section 24C of the Act of 1983 and the composition fee will be imposed as per policy dated 15.03.2013 till the date of submission of DOD. The delay for the occupation certificate granted on 21.05.2009 started beyond 19.08.2009 therefore, the total composition fee till submission of DOD up to 31.01.2025 is Rs. 78,00,000/-, Further, for the occupation certificate granted on 08.06.2009, the delay started beyond 06.09.2009. The delay for the occupation certificate granted on 21.05.2009 started beyond 19.08.2009 therefore, the total composition fee till submission of DOD up to 31.01.2025 is Rs. 78,00,000/-, Further, for the occupation certificate granted on 08.06.2009, the delay started beyond 06.09.2009. Therefore, the total composition fee up to 31.01.2025, Rs.77,50,000/-. However, the composition fee will be imposed as per policy dated 15.03.2013 till the date of submission of DOD. iv) The petitioner company is also liable to submit the compliance of Rules 24, 26 (2), 27 & 28 of Rules, 1976 till 31.03.2024 and to pay the composition fee amounts to Rs. 40,92,000/-. However, the composition fee will be imposed on the date of submission of compliances. v) Also, an unauthorized construction raised in the basement of Tower A is also required to be removed by the licensee before granting a completion certificate. vi) Further, the petitioner company is also required to transfer the area measuring 0.8710 acre falling in 30 mtr wide green belt along Gurugram- Mehrauli Road and 50 mtr wide green belt along Delhi-Jaipur National Highway before the grant of completion certificate. The above facts stand conveyed to the Sr. AAG, Haryana vide ernail dated 06.01.2025 for apprising the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. The matter is heard and accordingly it is concluded that the benefit of the amendment in Section 3 of Act no. 8 of 1975 issued vide notification dated 18.12.2024 for issuance of completion certificate of the colony can only be extended to the petitioner company subject to compliance of terms and conditions of the license, payment of applicable infrastructure augmentation charges, other fee & charges and compliance of other statutory provisions as detailed out in para no. 5 above. However, it is clarified that the amendment dated 18.12.2024 is not applicable for the grant of a part completion certificate as requested by the licensee/petitioner company. Further, since, the petitioner company has not submitted any application for grant of completion certificate in form LC-VIll alongwith requisite compliances, the representations of the petitioner comparry received in this office on 18.01.2025, 22.01.2025 and 24.01.2025 are hereby filed. The order be communicated to all the concerned. S/d (Amit Khatri) IAS, DTCP, Haryana' Dated: 05.02.2025 8. We heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Alok Sangwan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Authority. 9. The order be communicated to all the concerned. S/d (Amit Khatri) IAS, DTCP, Haryana' Dated: 05.02.2025 8. We heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant and Mr. Alok Sangwan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Authority. 9. There are two towers which came to be constructed at Gurugram, State of Haryana. 10. There is tower 'A' and there is tower 'B'. 11. For the purpose of construction and development, the Developer was issued a licence in accordance with the rules and regulations more particularly in accordance with Section 75 of the Act. The construction of the two towers was completed. However, the Authority declined to issue completion certificate for various reasons. Indisputably, the validity period of the licence expired on 5-8-2009. Although, the Authority issued occupancy certificate for both the towers and there are people who are occupying shops/offices in both the towers, yet the fact is that the two towers do not have a valid completion certificate. 12. The understanding arrived at for the purpose of putting an end to this dispute is that the appellant - herein shall deposit an amount of Rs.3.25 Crore with the respondent - Authority within a period of two months from today. At the time of deposit, the appellant shall also file an appropriate application for renewal of the licence. Once the amount is deposited and the application is filed, the Authority shall pass appropriate orders renewing the original licence that expired in 2009. At the same time, the necessary completion certificate shall also be issued at the earliest. 13. We clarify that the amount of Rs.3.25 Crore is being paid towards both the towers. Although Ms. Arora, the learned counsel made a gallant effort to persuade the Court that why her client be fastened with the liability of Tower 'A'. However, in turn, we were able to persuade her to accept this proposal and put an end to this controversy. However, we reserve the liberty in favour of her client to recover the necessary amount so far as Tower 'A' is concerned in accordance with law. 14. With the aforesaid, no further dispute remains to be resolved. 15. We hope and trust that this arrangement sails through and the parties may not have to come back to this Court. 16. However, we reserve the liberty in favour of her client to recover the necessary amount so far as Tower 'A' is concerned in accordance with law. 14. With the aforesaid, no further dispute remains to be resolved. 15. We hope and trust that this arrangement sails through and the parties may not have to come back to this Court. 16. We further clarify that this order shall not be cited as a precedent as the same has been passed only with a view to put an end the long-lasting litigation. 17. This order has been passed without prejudice to the rights of the Authority to take necessary action in accordance with law so far as unauthorized construction alleged to have been put up in Tower 'A' is concerned. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent - Authority has made a statement before this Court that necessary action shall be taken for demolition of the unauthorized constructions put up in Tower 'A' after following due process of law. 18. With the aforesaid, the appeals stand disposed of. 19. All pending applications, including application for impleadment, if any, shall also stand disposed of. 20. Let this matter come up for hearing after a period of three months to report compliance of this order.