{"id":179090,"date":"2003-03-14T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2003-03-13T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003"},"modified":"2018-01-14T05:40:18","modified_gmt":"2018-01-14T00:10:18","slug":"the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003","title":{"rendered":"The Indraprastha Colony Plot … vs The State Of Haryana Through Its … on 14 March, 2003"},"content":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court<\/div>\n
The Indraprastha Colony Plot … vs The State Of Haryana Through Its … on 14 March, 2003<\/div>\n
Equivalent citations: (2003) 134 PLR 615<\/div>\n
Author: V Mittal<\/div>\n
Bench: V Mittal<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
<\/pre>\n
JUDGMENT<\/p>\n
Viney Mittal, J.<\/p>\n
1. The petitioner Indraprastha Colony Plot Holders
\nAssociation (hereinafter referred to as the
\n“petitioner-association”) claiming itself to be an
\nassociation of about 400 plots holders has filed the
\npresent petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of
\nIndia. The prayer made in the petition is for the
\nissuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing
\nrespondent No. 1 to 4 to accord the benefits of Section 8
\nof Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas
\nAct, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) to the
\npetitioner. An additional prayer has been made for the
\nissuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for
\nquashing exemption orders dated August 30, 1985 and
\nNovember 20, 1992 issued by the respondents. Still
\nfurther, a prayer has been made for restraining the
\nrespondents No. 1 to 4 from granting a completion
\ncertificate to respondent No. 5 in respect of Indraprastha
\nColony.\n<\/p>\n
2. The necessary facts may be noticed as under:
\n It has been claimed by the
\npetitioner-association that it has 400 members who were
\nplot holders and is a registered association under the
\nSocieties Registration act vide Registration Certificate
\ndated September 29, 1971 Annexure (P\/1). It has further
\nbeen claimed by the petitioner-association that it jointly
\nowns approximately 48 acres of land known as Indraprastha
\nColony in village Itmadpur in District Faridabad in the
\nState of Haryana. The writ petition has been filed by the
\npetitioner-association through Shri R.C. Khanna, the then
\nPresident of the petitioner-association, who is stated to
\nhave since died, on the authority of a resolution dated
\nMarch 4, 1997 (Annexure P\/2).\n<\/p>\n
3. As per the averments in the writ petition,
\nrespondent No. 5 -M\/s. Swatantra Land & Finance Pvt. Ltd.
\n(hereinafter referred to as the “Colonizer-Company”) in
\nthe year 1962-63 advertised that they had acquired land
\nmeasuring about 100 acres for the development of a Colony
\nknown as “Indraprastha Colony” adjacent to Delhi in
\nvillage Itmadpur (presently falling within District
\nFaridabad). The aforesaid advertisement was repeated by
\nthe Colonizer-Company in the year 1965-67. A copy of the
\naforesaid advertisement appearing in the Hindustan Times
\nhas been appended as Annexure P\/3 with the present
\npetition. As per the aforesaid advertisement tarred
\nroads sweet water, tubewells with electric connection,
\nsewage, drainage etc. were to be available to the plot
\nholders. It is claimed by the petitioner-association that
\nthe price of the plots varied from Rs. 17\/- to Rs. 50\/- per
\nsq. yards as per the assurance given by the
\nColonizer-Company. The petitoner-association claims that
\nthese plots were “purchased by the petitioner against a
\nwell-defined contract and all the payment terms were
\ncovered with firm receipts. The rates of plots varied
\naccording to category, location at the time of booking.
\nThe petitioner duly completed all the formalities
\nincluding payment of all instalments within the time
\nperiod as specified in the contract.” A photocopy of one
\nsuch application along with payment receipt in favour of
\none Shri Pushpa Khanna has been appended as Annexure P\/4
\nwith the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
4. It is further claimed by the
\npetitioner-association that it has paid the entire price
\nof the plots with a view to construct their houses but
\nthey were misled by the Colonizer-Company from time to
\ntime. It is further claimed that in the year 1967 the
\nColonizer-Company by their letter dated January 7, 1967
\ncalled upon all the plot holders to make an extra payment
\nof Rs. 6\/- per sq. yard for additional external
\ndevelopment charges. The petitioner-association further
\nclaims that the plot holders duly complied with the new
\nterms and conditions although it is stated that “it was
\nnot a part and parcel of the original contract as
\nenvisaged at the out-set. Till today despite making the
\nentire payment to the Colonizer-Company, the petitioner
\nhas not received the possession of even a single plot of
\nland for the last 30 years.” A document showing the extent
\nof payment by some of the individual plot holders is
\nannexed as Annexure P\/5 with the petition.\n<\/p>\n
5. In the year 1963 an enactment known as The
\nPunjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas ( Restriction
\nof Unregulated Development) Act, 1963 (hereinafter called
\nthe “1963 Act”) came to be enacted. After the enacemetn
\nof the aforesaid 1963 Act, t he Colonizer-Company was
\nrequired to seek permission and clearances as required
\nunder the enactment. The petitioner-association has
\naverred that the Colonizer took steps under the aforesaid
\nenactment for the grant of licences etc.<\/p>\n
6. In the year 1971, another enactment, namely,
\nHaryana Restriction on Development and Regulation of
\nColonies Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred as the “1971
\nAct”) came to be enacted by the State of Haryana. After
\nthe enforcement of 1971 Act, the Colonizer-Company was
\nrequired by the provisions of aforesaid Act to get the
\nrequisite clearance, permission and approval under the
\naforesaid enactment. The Colonizer-Company accordingly
\nmoved the competent authority under the 1971 Act for
\ngranting the requisite clearance and approval.\n<\/p>\n
7. Ultimately, in the year 1975, the Haryana
\nDevelopment and Regulations of Urban Areas Act, 1975
\n(hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) was enacted by the
\nState of Haryana. it is the case of the
\npetitioner-association that after the enforcement of 1971
\nAct the Colonizer-Company applied for exemption of the
\naforesaid colony under Sections 9 and 23 of the Act.
\nUltimately on August 30, 1985 the State Government of
\nHaryana granted conditional exemption to the Colonizer for
\nsetting up a colony. The aforesaid exemption was granted
\nto the Colonizer-Company upon certain terms and conditions
\nmentioned therein. A copy of the aforesaid exemption
\norder dated August 30, 1985 in favour of the
\nColonizer-Company issued by the State Government of
\nHaryana under Section 23 of the Act has been appended as
\nAnnexure P\/6 with the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
8. The petitioner-association has complained that
\nthe terms and conditions of 1985 exemption letter were not
\ncomplied with by the Colonizer-Company but on the contrary
\nin the year 1987 the aforesaid company demanded a higher
\namount from the plot holders and issued a revised contract
\nto be signed by them. The aforesaid revised payment and
\ncontract took the petitioner completely by surprise.
\nAccordingly in the year 1991 the petitioner-association
\nmade a complaint against the Colonizer-Company.\n<\/p>\n
9. On November 20, 1992 a further exemption to the
\nColonizer-Company for an additional area of 3.31 acres for
\nthe development of the Colony was granted. In this
\nmanner, the total exempted area came to be 51.81 acres.
\nThe aforesaid exemption in the year 1992 was also granted
\nupon certain terms and conditions. The aforesaid order
\nfor additional exemption dated November 20, 1992 has been
\nappended as Annexure P\/9 with the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
10. The petitioner-association has further averred
\nthat the Colonizer-Company has failed to comply with the
\nconditions stated in the exemption letters of 1985 and
\n1992 and has acted in collusion with the authorities to
\ndeny the plots in the said colony to the
\npetitioner-association.\n<\/p>\n
11. The petitioner-association made complaints to
\nvarious authorities including the Chief Minister of
\nHaryana. On August 9, 1993 the petitioner-association made
\nanother complaints addressed to respondent No. 1, namely,
\nSecretary Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana.
\nIn the aforesaid complaint also it was stated by the
\npetitioner-association that exemption under Section 23 of
\n1975 Act being a serious matter and there being a
\nviolation of the aforesaid terms and conditions, the
\nauthorities were bound in law to take action in the matter
\nunder Section 8 of the 1975 Act. Similar complaints to
\nvarious authorities are stated to have been made by the
\npetitioner-association or some of its office bearers.\n<\/p>\n
12. Thereafter a Civil Writ Petition was filed
\nbefore the Delhi High Court being C.W.P. No. 340 of 1999.
\nHowever, the aforesaid writ petition came to be withdrawn
\nby the petitioner-association on May 27, 1999 with a
\nliberty to them to pursue the remedy in an appropriate
\nforum in accordance with law. A copy of the order dated
\nMay 27, 1999 has been appended as Annexure P\/20 to the
\npresent writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
13. It is in these circumstances and with the
\nbackground noticed  above that the present writ petition
\nhas been filed by the petitioner-association with the
\nprayers as noticed in the opening para of the judgment.\n<\/p>\n
14. It may not be out of place to mention that when
\nthis writ petition was pending at the motion stage, the
\npetitoner-association moved an application under Order 1
\nRule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure for impleading such
\nplot holders\/owners who had subsequently acquired
\nrights\/plots in the Colony. Accordingly a list of 59
\npersons being new allottees was furnished by the
\npetitioner-association and the aforesaid persons were
\nordered to be added as the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
15. Upon a notice issued to the respondents
\n(original as well as added), they have put in appearance.
\nSeparate written statements have been filed on behalf of
\neach set of respondents. Whereas a joint written
\nstatement has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2
\nand 4 (official respondents), another joint written
\nstatement has been filed on behalf of respondents No. 5, 6
\nand 8 (the Colonizer-Company and Directors). Still
\nfurther a separate written statement has been filed by the
\nadded respondents. All the respondents through the
\naforesaid separate written statements, respectively, have
\ncontested the claim made by the petitioner-association.\n<\/p>\n
16. In the written statement filed on behalf of
\nrespondents No. 1, 2 and 4, the  locus-standi of the
\npetitioner-association to file and present writ petition
\nhas been questioned. It has been further stated by the
\naforesaid respondents that as per the record available in
\nthe office, the Colonizer-Company\/respondent No. 5 had
\nobtained a permission for developing a residential colony
\nfrom Gram Panchayat under the provisions of Section 22 of
\nthe Gram Panchayat Act. Subsequently after the enactment
\nof the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas
\nRestriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, the
\nColonizer-Company applied for permission to develop a
\nresidential colony for an area of 100 acres. An amount of
\nRs. 20,000\/- at the rate of 5 paise per sq. yard was
\ndeposited as scrutiny fee and Rs. 30,000\/- was deposited on
\naccount of external services for the said land. After
\nexamining the matter and after getting all the formalities
\ncompleted, a layout plan of 62.2 acres was approved by
\nrespondent No. 2 subject to fulfilment of conditions as
\ndetailed in the letter dated April 11, 1969. The official
\nrespondents have stated that the aforesaid conditions were
\nduly fulfilled by the Colonizer-Company. When the matter
\nwas under examination, a new enactment being 1971 Act came
\nto be enforced. On the enforcement of 1971 Act, all the
\ncases pertaining to licensing\/exemption were covered under
\nthe aforesaid Act. Accordingly, the Colonizer-company was
\nasked to apply under the provisions of the aforesaid act.
\nThe matter was again examined by the competent authority.
\nThe Colonizer-Company was granted a licence on November
\n6, 1973 in form LC-II. The aforesaid licence was further
\nrenewed upto December 31, 1974. However, when the case for
\nthe grant of necessary approval and sanction under the
\naforesaid 1971 Act was under consideration of the
\ncompetent authority, then the aforesaid 1971 Act was
\ndeclared as ultra vires by this court in the case of  Jai
\nChand Bhagar v.  State of Haryana (SWP 2419 and 3624 of
\n1973).\n<\/p>\n
17. The official respondents have further
\nmaintained that after the aforesaid 1971 Act was declared
\nultra vires, the new legislation being the Haryana
\nDevelopment and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 came to
\nbe enacted. After the enactment of the aforesaid 1975
\nAct, the Colonizer-Company\/respondent No. 5 was intimated
\nvide office memo dated June 5, 1975 that the rules under
\nthe aforesaid enactment were being finalized and
\naccordingly the Company could apply for exemption after
\nthe finalization of the rules. A formal application was
\nreceived from respondent No. 5 by the competent authority
\non August 25, 1976 for exemption. However, it was felt
\nthat since the land sought to be developed by the
\nColonizer-Company was not in a compact block, therefore,
\nvide a communication dated May 10, 1977, the exemption was
\ndeclined to the Colonizer-Company.\n<\/p>\n
18. Subsequently, a policy decision cameto be
\ntaken at the State Government level that certain
\ncolonizers, who fulfilled the conditions as provided under
\nthe said policy decision, were eligible for the grant of
\nexemption and, therefore after the policy decision, the
\nmatter for grant of exemption to the Colonizer-Company was
\nre-examined that it was found that the company had a clear
\ntitle for an area of 48 acres 3 kanals 4 marlas
\nand, therefore, the Company was asked to submit certain
\naddiitonal documents. The Colonizer-Company duly complied
\nwith the aforesaid requirements. Ultimately on October
\n29, 1980 the Colonizer-Compnay was advised to furnish bank
\nguarantee for Rs. 5,07,400\/- which was duly furnished, by
\nthe Colonizer-Company.\n<\/p>\n
19. However, in the year 1980 some acquisiton was
\nmade by the department of Urban Estate for residential
\npurposes. The aforesaid acquisition also included the land
\nof the Colonizer-Company. But subsequently, the matter
\nwas re-examined by the Government and it was decided to
\nexempt the land measuing 48.4 acres owned by the
\nColonizer-Company. On the release of the land, respondent
\nNo. 5 (colonizer-company) was directed to submit the
\nrevised layout plan. After all the formalities were
\ncompleted by the colonizer-company, ultimately an
\nexemption order dated August 30, 1985 was issued by the
\nState Government exempting 48.50 acres of land in exercise
\nof the power under Section 23 of the Act, for setting up
\nof a residential colony. The revised layout plan was
\nsubmitted which was duly approved in the year 1987. Later
\nanother additional area being 3.31 acres was also exempted
\nvide order dated November 20, 1992. Another revised layout
\nplan was submitted by the Colonizer-Company. With regard
\nto the external development charges, the official
\nrespondents have maintained that as per the terms and
\nconditions of the exemption letter, the Colonizer-Company
\nwas required to deposit the external development charges
\nat the rate of Rs. 1, 31, 300\/- per gross acre being the
\ntentative rate. Subsequently, the decision was taken at
\nthe State Government level to raise external development
\ncharges at the rate of Rs. 3.68 lacs per gross acre for
\nFaridabad Town. All the Colonizers of Faridabad including
\nrespondent No. 5 i.e. Colonizer-Company were required to
\npay the aforesaid enhanced external development charges.\n<\/p>\n
20. On these averments, the official respondents
\nhave maintained that they did not find any violation
\nhaving ever been committed by the Colonizer Company
\nand, therefore, the claim made by the
\npetitioner-association with regard to the violation of the
\nterms and conditions of the exemption letter was wholly
\nwithout any basis. It is further stated by the aforesaid
\nrespondents that the Colonizer-Company had duly complied
\nwith all the terms and conditions of the aforesaid
\nexemption orders.\n<\/p>\n
21. In the separate detailed written statement
\nfiled on behalf of respondents No. 5, 6 and 8 i.e. on
\nbehalf of the Colonizer-Company and its Directors, the
\nvarious pleas raised by the petitioner-association have
\nbeen controverted. The claim of the
\npetitioner-association has been vehemently contested. The
\n Locus standi of the petitioner-association to file and
\nmaintain the present writ petition has again been
\nquestioned by these respondents. It has been maintained
\nby these respondents that “there is no contract of
\nbooking with the association itself which was not even in
\nexistence when the said colony was sponsored or plots were
\nbooked. Therefore, There is no  locus standi of the
\npresent petitioner-association to file the present writ
\npetition”\n<\/p>\n
22. Respondents No. 5, 6, and 8 (hereinafter called
\nas the Colonizer-Company) have detailed out that initially
\nthe aforesaid respondents had planned for a Colony named
\nas Indraprastha Colony over an area of approximately 100
\nacres in the year 1962. The only requirement at the time
\nof floating the aforesaid scheme was to obtain a no
\nobjection certificate under Section 22(h) of the Punjab
\nGram Panchayat Act. The aforesaid necessary sanction was
\nobtained by the Colonizer-Company from the Gram Panchayat
\nof village Itmadpur on January 10, 1963.\n<\/p>\n
23. The Colonizer-Company maintains that there were
\nno rules or regulations framed for the development of the
\ncolony at the relevant time and, therefore, it was planned
\nby the Company to provide for 75 percent covered area and
\n25 percent open area for roads, parks and other public
\nutility services etc. The Colonizer-company was to
\nprovide only with regard to pucca internal roads, pucca
\nstorm water drains within the colony, electric poles and
\ntube- wells etc. It was specifically stipulated that
\ncharges for internal sewerage, external development and
\nother extra development works would be charged extra. A
\ncopy of the specimen application form issued in the year
\n1962-63 which was duly filled up by one applicant, namely,
\nR.K. Sheopuri has been appended as Annexure R-5\/1 with the
\nwritten statement. The Colonizer-Company has claimed that
\nit carried out all the development works in respect of the
\nfour amenities which it had promised to provide and the
\ndevelopment of the same was at the finishing stages.
\nHowever, when the aforesaid colony was almost completely
\nlaid out, the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Ares
\nRestrictions of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 came into
\nforce with effect from November 30, 1963. By the
\nenforcement of aforesaid 1963 Act, there was a complete
\nban on carrying out development activities in the Colony.\n<\/p>\n
24. The Colonizer-Company has further maintained
\nthat “on the enforcement of the Act, the further
\ndevelopment works in the colony had to be suspended and
\nthe contracts already executed by the answering
\nrespondents with the intending purchasers stood frustrated
\nby the operation of the new Law”. The colonizer-Company
\nhas further stated that in pursuance to the new
\nlegislation introduced by the State Government, it had
\napplied for the necessary permission to the State
\nGovernment. Various queries and clarifications were
\nsought by the official respondents which were duly
\nreplied.\n<\/p>\n
25. On August 2, 1963, a part of the land planned
\nfor the aforesaid colony was acquired and was subsequently
\nutilized by the State Government for the construction of
\nthe Gurgaon Canal Feeder.\n<\/p>\n
26. The Colonizer-Company subsequently applied to
\nthe Senior town Planner(West), Department of Town and
\nCountry Planning, Punjab for the grant of necessary
\napprovals. Since the rules with regard to necessary
\napprovals etc. were still under consideration, therefore,
\nit took quite some time for the Colonizer-Company to
\nobtain necessary approvals from the competent authorities.
\nUltimately, the Company received a communication dated
\nJanuary 3, 1966 from the Director, Town and Country
\nPlanning, Punjab, informing them that the estimate for
\nsewerage disposal etc. had been received from the Chief
\nEngineer, Public Health, Patiala. The same was worked out
\nat Rs. 5000\/- per acre and Rs. 1200\/- per acre for the
\nfacility of storm water drain outside the colony. Another
\ncommunication dated May 16, 1966 was received by the
\nCompany from the Director, Town and Country Planning,
\nPunjab asking the Colonizer-Company to furnish earnest
\nmoney to meet the charges on account of scrutiny of plans
\nand estimates in respect of the colony. The aforesaid
\ncommunication has been appended as Annexure R-5\/5 with the
\nwritten statement. The Company furnished a bank draft on
\nJune 17, 1966. Thereafter, various Colonizers reached to
\nan agreement for the joint execution of the external
\ndevelopment works through the State agency on a cost
\nsharing basis. Upon this, the Director, Town and Country
\nPlanning, Haryana through a communication dated December
\n29, 1966 informed the Colonizer-Company that its share for
\nthe execution of the external development works came to
\nRs. 3, 09, 000\/-. It was subsequently enhanced to
\nRs. 3,19,000\/- Accordingly a demand at the rate of Rs. 6\/-
\nper square yard was raised in the year 1967 by the
\nColonizer-Company from the various persons who had booked
\nthe plot with it. The Company maintains that  “those
\ndefaulters who were not interested in the purchase of the
\nplots did not make the payment for the said demand and
\nconsequently their booking stood lapsed\/terminated when
\nthey failed to make the payment inspite of repeated
\ndemands.”\n<\/p>\n
27. The matter remained still pending with the
\nGovernment for approval of the Colony. On September
\n12, 1967, another notification was issued acquiring a part
\nof the land forming part of the Colony. In this view of
\nthe matter, further consideration for the grant of
\napproval by the Government was suspended.\n<\/p>\n
28. On reconsideration of the matter by the
\nGovernment, when the land forming part of the Colony came
\nto be denotified by the State Government, the matter with
\nregard to the grant of necessary sanctions\/approvals came
\nto be reviewed. The State Government required the Company
\nto submit revised plans.\n<\/p>\n
29. Ultimately on April 11, 1969 a permission letter
\nwas issued by the Director, Town and Country Planning,
\npermitting the Colonizer-Company to set up the colony in
\nthe controlled area. The aforesaid permission letter
\ndated April 11, 1969 has been appended as Annexure R-5\/8 to
\nthe written statement of these respondents. The aforesaid
\napproval\/permission was granted by the Director, only to
\ndevelop an area of 62.20 acres against the originally the
\nproposed area of 100 acres. However, while granting the
\naforesaid permission, the total covered area was reduced
\nto 58 percent while 42 present open area was required to
\nbe left for roads, parks and other public utility services
\netc. The Colonizer-Company has maintained that on account
\nof the reduced plotted area of the colony, a revision of
\nthe layout plan had to be resorted to since the plotted
\narea was decreased and there was an increase in the area
\nearmarked for the public utility services such as roads,
\nfootpaths, parks and community centre etc. Additionally
\nthe aforesaid permission letter dated April 11, 1969 also
\nrequired the Colonizer-Company to furnish a bank guarantee
\nequal to 25 percent of the estimated cost of any one of
\nthe development services, namely, roads, drainage, water
\nsupply, sewerage and electricity.\n<\/p>\n
30. The aforesaid requirements were duly met by the
\nsaid respondent through a communication dated August
\n1, 1969 and the requisite bank guarantee was duly
\nsubmitted.\n<\/p>\n
31. The Company has averred that on account of the
\nsaid revision of the layout plan of the Colony and the
\ndemand raised by the State Government for carrying out the
\ndevelopment works, “an intimation was given by the
\nanswering respondent to all the intending purchasers who
\nhad booked the plots in the colony for selecting the
\nalterative plots in the new layout and also to remit the
\nextra charges claimed by the State Government. Some of
\nthe intending purchasers exercised their option and
\nselected alternative plots while also agreeing to pay the
\nextra demand of the Government. Those who were not
\ninterested to pursue their bookings, opted out of the
\nscheme and thus, their bookings lapsed.” It is further
\naverred by the Company that some of the individuals who
\nhad exercised their option also ultimately failed to make
\nthe payment of the extra Government demand and thus, the
\nbooking of those defaulters also lapsed.\n<\/p>\n
32. After the furnishing of the bank guarantee, the
\nmatter was under consideration of the competent authority
\nfor providing development works etc. It was at that stage
\nthat a new legislation known as “the Haryana Restrictions
\non Development and Regulations of Colonies Act, 1971” came
\nto be enacted. On the promulgation of the aforesaid
\nenactment, all the earlier steps, efforts and applications
\nfilled by the Company and approvals granted by the
\ncompetent authority came to a standstill and the entire
\nexercise for obtaining the necessary and requisite
\npermissions had to be started de-novo by the
\nColonizer-Company under the 1971 Act. The
\nColonizer-Company again involved itself into the process
\nof obtaining the requisite permission. The matter was
\nstill under consideration when the aforesaid 1971 Act was
\ndeclared as ultra vires by this Court.\n<\/p>\n
33. In the year 1975 a new legislation was
\nintroduced by the State Government of Haryana known as the
\nHaryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act of
\n1975. The Colonizer-Company again started pursuing the
\nmatter with the State Government for the grant of
\nnecessary exemption. The necessary applications were
\nfiled by the Company to the competent authorities. The
\ncolonizer-company received a memo dated May 10, 1977
\nthrough which it was informed that the necessary exemption
\nhad been declined to the Company. A representation was
\nmade by the Company for reconsideration of the matter. In
\nthe meanwhile the policy for the grant of exemption was
\nrevised and a policy decision was taken by the State
\nGovernment to grant exemption to such colonizers which
\nfell into the criteria formulated under the aforesaid
\npolicy. The official respondents required the
\ncolonizer-company to complete the necessary formalities.
\nWhen the matter was under consideration then a part of the
\nland again was sought to be acquired. The
\nColonizer-Company was advised by the official respondents
\nnot to proceed any further in the matter and not to
\nfurnish the bank guarantee, as originally asked for by
\nthem. However, subsequently the land came to be
\ndenotified.\n<\/p>\n
34. After denotification of the land and finding a
\nfurther progress in the grant of exemption, a fresh
\nrevised application form was circulated by the
\nColonizer-Company to the original intending plot
\npurchasers wherein they were informed with regard to the
\npayment of external development charges as demanded by the
\nHaryana Government. It was clearly intimated to all the
\noriginal intending plot purchasers that those who were
\ngenuinely interested in the plots should submit the
\nrevised application form. A proforma of the revised
\napplication from circulated in the year 1982 and filled up
\nby one R.K. Sheopuri dated February 24, 1982 has been
\nappended as Annexure R-5\/18 with the written statement.\n<\/p>\n
35. After prolonged and persistent efforts made by
\nthe Company, finally the Colonizer-Company was granted the
\nnecessary exemption vide letter dated August 30, 1985. A
\ncopy of the aforesaid exemption order has been appended as
\nAnnexure R-5\/19 with the written statement (same as
\nAnnexure P\/6). Vide the aforesaid exemption order the
\nnecessary exemption under Section 23 of the Act was
\ngranted to the Colonizer-Company with regard to the area
\nmeasuring 48.5 acres as against 62.20 acres originally
\ngranted under the 1963 Act. Certain other terms and
\nconditions were imposed and a service charge at the rate
\nof Rs. 1 per square yard of the total area of the Colony
\nwas levied. Additionally external development charges at
\nthe rate of Rs. 1,3,500 per gross acre were also required
\nto be paid by the Company. A payment of cost of land to
\nbe transferred to the Irrigation Department was also
\nrequired to be deposited.\n<\/p>\n
36. Subsequently, an additional exemption order was
\npassed on November 20, 1992 whereby an additional area
\nmeasuring 3.31 acres was also exempted. In this matter
\nthe total exempted area came to be 51.81.81 acres.\n<\/p>\n
37. In this view of the matter, the Colonizer
\nCompany maintains that a covered\/plotted area of the
\ncolony which originally stood at 75 percent was reduced to
\n54.41 percent and the open area comprising of the road,
\nfootpaths and the parks and other common facilities was
\nincreased to 45.59 percent. It is the further case of the
\nColonizer-Company, that originally the area as proposed in
\nthe colony was 100 acres but the exemption was merely
\ngranted for 51.81 acre. In the addition thereof, the
\ncolonizer-company was further required to upgrade and make
\nprovision for such other additional facilities, which were
\nnot at all earlier provided in the original contracts.
\nThe details of such additional facilities have been
\nenumerated in the written statement.\n<\/p>\n
38. After receiving the aforesaid exemption under
\nsection 23 of the Act, the Colonizer Company duly
\nsubmitted the requisite demarcation plans\/zoning plans
\nwhich were finally approved by the official respondents on
\nMay 17, 1995.\n<\/p>\n
39. On the basis of the aforesaid narration of
\nfacts, the Colonizer Company has maintained that after
\nobtaining the approval\/permission from the official
\nrespondents, originally in the year 1987, it had issued
\nnotices of demand dated August 26, 1987 to the persons who
\nhad made bookings of plots with it and all such persons
\nwho were really not keen or interested in the purchase of
\nthe plots in the Colony and had only blocked the bookings
\nby payment of notional amounts, opted out of the said
\nbooking, choosing not to remit the extra payment demanded
\nfrom them in the year 1987. A copy of the intimation
\nletter\/notice dated August 26, 1987 issued by the
\nColonizer-Company to the intending purchasers has been
\nappended as Annexure R-5\/21 with the written statement.
\nIt is the case of these respondents that the aforesaid
\namount had been sought by them taking into consideration
\nthe demands raised by the Government and other incidental
\nexpenses thereto for extra development works.\n<\/p>\n
40. It is further averred by the Colonizer-Company
\nthat the demand notice\/intimation letter dated August
\n26, 1987 along with the revised application forms were sent
\nto various applicants who had booked the plots with the
\nCompany but all the persons, who had been detailed out by
\nthe petitioner-association in the list Annexure P\/5, opted
\n” not to make payment and instead sent individual printed
\nproforma replics” and a sample copy of the said reply by
\nShri R.K. Sheopuri dated October 6, 1987 has been appended
\nas Annexure R-5\/22 with the written statement. All the
\nsaid persons refused to make the payment of the extra
\ndemand made by the Company on the basis of the demand
\nraised by the State Government. Instead, the aforesaid
\npersons demanded that the sale deeds be executed and
\nvacant possession of the developed plots be delivered to
\nthem. The Colonizer-Company was clearly given a notice
\nthat on failing the aforesaid execution of the sale deeds
\nand delivery of possession, they would be proceeded
\nagainst in the court of law. The Company again replied to
\nall such persons through a communication dated November
\n11, 1987. A copy of said letter dated November 11, 1987 has
\nbeen appended as Annexure R-5\/23 with the written
\nstatement. The Company reiterated its stand taken int he
\nearlier demand notice Annexure-5\/21.\n<\/p>\n
41. It is further averred by the Colonizer-Company
\nin the written statement that some of the intending
\npurchasers who were not interested in the plots, demanded
\nthe refund of the amount which had been paid by them. The
\naforesaid amount was duly refunded. A copy of one refund
\nreceipt has been appended as Annexure R-5\/24.\n<\/p>\n
42. The Colonizer-Company has still further averred
\nthat vide communication dated December 18, 1991 (a copy
\nwhereof has been annexed as Annexure R-5\/25) received from
\nthe Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, the
\nexternal development charges were increased from
\nRs. 1,31,500 to Rs. 3,68,000\/- per gross acre. It is stated
\nthat, still further, aforesaid external development
\ncharges were increased to Rs. 4,70,000\/- per gross acre.
\nIt is maintained by the Colonizer-Company that they had
\nalready paid a sum of Rs. 323.17 lacs as external
\ndevelopment charges to the State Government and since the
\naforesaid cost was to be shared by the intending
\npurchasers and plot holders and therefore, the defaulters
\nhad actually forfeited their bookings and the Company was
\nwell within its rights to sell such plots whose bookings
\nhad lapsed or were cancelled.\n<\/p>\n
43. Besides controverting the pleas raised by the
\npetitioner-association on the merits of the controversy,
\nthe Colonizer-Company has also detailed out the various
\ncomplaints filed by such persons individually who had
\nbooked the plots with the Colonizer-company in the year
\n1962. Such complaints may be noticed as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“(1) On a Complaint made by one of the
\ndefaulters in the year 1991 to the Director,
\nTown and Country Planning, Haryana, a
\ndepartmental inquiry is stated to have been
\nconducted but no basis for taking any action
\nwas found.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) One Agya Sehgal who is also a member of
\nthe petitioner-Association filed a complaint
\nbefore the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
\nCommission, Delhi which was dismissed vide
\norder dated September 7, 1994. A copy of the
\naforesaid order passed by the State Commission
\nhas been appended as Annexure R-5\/29 with the
\nwritten statement.\n<\/p>\n
(iii) In 1993 a complaint was made by the
\npetitioner-association to the Registrar of
\nCompanies for misappropriation of funds. The
\nsaid complaint was ultimately dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(iv) A departmental enquiry was held by the
\nDirector, Town and Country Planning, Haryana on
\ncomplaints made in the year 1993. A specific
\nfinding was recorded in the aforesaid enquiry
\nthat the intending purchasers had to pay the
\ninternal as well as external development
\ncharges.\n<\/p>\n
(v) Four complaints were filed before the
\nDistrict Consumer Dispute Redressal Forum,
\nDelhi which were dismissed vide order dated
\nSeptember 15, 1995. The appeal was also
\ndismissed by the State Consumer Disputes
\nRedressal Commission, New Delhi vide order
\ndated January 29, 1999. It was left open to the
\ncomplainants to seek their remedies before the
\ncivil court. A copy of the orders passed by
\nthe District Forum as well as the State
\nCommission are appended as Annexures R-5\/30 and
\nR-5\/31 respectively<\/p>\n
(vi) A complaint was also filed before the
\nMonopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices
\nCommission by some intending purchasers. The
\naforesaid complaint came to be adjourned sine
\ndie to await the decision of the National
\nCommission in similar matters.\n<\/p>\n
The respondents have maintained that since the
\nNational Commission has already refused to
\ninterfere in the matter, therefore, the said
\ncomplaint was also likely to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
(vii) An enquiry was made by the Sub Divisional
\nOfficer(C), Faridabad on a complaint made by
\nsome of the intending purchasers in the year
\n1998. A detailed enquiry report was submitted
\nby the Sub Divisional Officer which has been
\nappended by the petitioner-association itself
\nas Annexure P-18.\n<\/p>\n
44. On the basis of the aforesaid averments, the
\nwrit petition has been contested by the
\nrespondents\/Colonizer-Company and its Directors.\n<\/p>\n
45. A separate written statement has also been
\nfilled by the newly added respondents who are the
\nallottees, who had been allotted\/transferred the plot by
\nthe Colonizer-Company. The aforesaid allottees have,
\nbesides adopting various pleas raised by the
\nColonizer-Company, maintained that they have already
\nraised construction upon their plots by spending huge
\namounts and being bonafide purchasers of the aforesaid
\nplots are protected under law. It is also maintained by
\nthe newly added respondents that the third party rights
\nhaving been created in favour of such persons, who had no
\nconnection with the writ petitioner or the controversy in
\nquestion, were protected under law and therefore, the writ
\npetition against them for challenging the
\nallotment\/transfer in their favour was nor maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
46. In the back-drop of the aforesaid detailed
\npleadings, as noticed above, I have heard Shri Rajiv Atma
\nRam, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
\npetitioner-association, Shri Rajbir Sehrawat, the learned
\nDeputy Advocate General, Haryana appearing for respondents
\nNo. 1 to 4, Shri Ashok Aggarwal, the learned senior counsel
\nappearing for respondents No. 5, 6 and 8 and Shri M.L. Sarin,
\nthe learned Senior counsel appearing for the newly
\nadded respondents and with their assistance have also gone
\nthrough the record of the case.\n<\/p>\n
47. At the outset it has been pointed out by Shri
\nAshok Aggarwal, learned Senior counsel appearing for the
\nColonizer-Company\/respondent No. 5 and Shri M. L. Sarin,
\nthe learned Senior counsel appearing for the newly added
\nrespondents that during the pendency of the present writ
\npetition, vide an order dated February 13, 2001 a
\nprovisional completion certificate had been granted to the
\nColonizer-Company with regard to the Colony in question.
\nIt has been further pointed out that a copy of the
\naforesaid provisional completion certificate has been
\nappended as Annexure AR\/9 along with CM No. 29996 of 2002.
\nThis fact is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing
\nfor the petitioner-Association. Under these
\ncircumstances, it is apparent that prayer (d) made by the
\npetitioner-association in the present petition with regard
\nto restraining the respondents No. 1 to 4 from granting the
\ncompletion certificate in respect of Indraprastha Colony
\nhas been rendered infructuous.\n<\/p>\n
48. Shri Ashok Aggarwal, the learned senior counsel
\nappearing for the colonizer-company has raised a few
\npreliminary objections. Firstly, the  locus-standi of the
\npetitioner-association to file the present writ petition
\nhas been challenged. Another objection has been raised to
\nthe effect that although the relief as claimed in the
\npresent petition was framed against the official
\nrespondents No. 1 of 4 but in effect was a relief directly
\naimed at the colonizer-company\/ respondent No. 5
\nand, therefore, the writ petition against the colonizer-
\ncompany, which was a Company incorporated under the
\nCompanies Act, was not maintainable. It has been further
\nobjected by Shri Ashok Aggarwal that the relief claimed in
\nthe present writ petition by the petitioner-association
\nwas actually a relief for specific performance of the
\ncontracts which had been originally entered into between
\nsome of the applicants\/intending purchasers in the year
\n1963-64 and the colonizer-company\/ respondent No. 5
\nand, therefore, the present writ petition claiming the
\naforesaid relief was not maintainable. Shri Ashok
\nAggarwal has further objected that the writ petition has
\nbeen filed after a delay of more than 30 years for the
\nenforcement of the rights of the applicants\/intending
\npurchasers who had booked the plots in the year 1963-64
\nand was liable to be dismissed on account of delay and
\nlaches. It is maintained by him that in any case, a cause
\nof action had arisen to such applicants in the year 1987
\nitself when the company had demanded enhanced external
\ndevelopment charges vide communication Annexure R-5\/21 and
\nwhen all the applicants, who are now stated to be members
\nof the petitioner-association, had refused to make the
\npayment and demanded the sale deeds to be executed vide
\ntheir communication dated October 6, 1987 (Annexure
\nR-5\/22). On that basis it is submitted that since the
\ncivil suit for specific performance itself had become
\nbarred by limitation, therefore, the present writ petition
\nwas liable to be dismissed on the basis of incordinate
\ndelay and laches.\n<\/p>\n
49. Shri Rajiv Atma Ram, the learned senior counsel
\nappearing for the petitioner-association has rebutted the
\naforesaid preliminary objections raised by the respondents
\nand has submitted that the petitioner-association has a
\n locus-standi to file the present writ petition and further
\nthat the writ petition was not filed claiming any relief
\ndirectly against the Colonizer-Company but was actually
\nfor the issuance of directions to the official respondents
\nNo. 1 to 4 to perform their duties in accordance with law
\nunder the 1975 Act. It has been further submitted by Shri
\nRajiv Atma Ram, the learned senior counsel appearing for
\nthe petitioner-association, that under the 1975 Act,
\nexemption had been granted to the
\nColonizer-Company\/respondent No. 5 on certain terms and
\nconditions and since there was a violation of the
\naforesaid terms and conditions, therefore, the aforesaid
\nexemption was liable to be withdrawn and respondents No. 1
\nto 4 were required in law to take over the colony in
\nquestion and proceed, thereafter, in accordance with law.
\nIt has also been submitted by Shri Atma Ram that some
\nmembers of the petitioner-association had already
\npurchased the plots from the colonizer-company
\nand, therefore, the Colonizer-company was not authorised in
\nlaw to redemarcate the aforesaid plots and revise the
\nlayout plan and thereafter offer the plots to the new
\nbuyers.\n<\/p>\n
50. Dealing with the first objection with regard to
\nthe  locus-standi of the petitioner-association to maintain
\nthe present writ petition on behalf of the original
\napplicants\/intending purchasors, Shri Atma Ram learned
\ncounsel appearing for the petitioner-association has
\nargued that the present writ petition was in fact a
\npetition for and on behalf of the individual members of
\nThe Association and it was only as a matter of convenience
\nand expediency that the petitioner-association has filed
\nthe present petition on its behalf. It is further
\nsubmitted by the learned counsel that the
\npetitioner-association was not claiming any relief for
\nitself and was infect claiming directions only for and on
\nbehalf of its members and, therefore, the present petition
\nfiled by the petitioner-association could not be rejected
\non the question of locus-standi. Shri Atma Ram has placed
\nreliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in the case of
\n Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare Association and
\nAnother V.  State of Karnataka and others<\/a> 1991(2) SCC 604
\nto contend that if the impugned action of the Government
\naffects a class of persons and it that group of persons is
\nrepresented by the association then they have a right to
\nbe beard in the matter.\n<\/p>\n
51. With regard to the objection raised by the
\nrespondents with regard to the maintainability of a civil
\nwrit petition against a company, Shri Atma Ram has
\nsubmitted that in fact a perusal of the various prayers
\nmade in the petition would show that the
\npetitioner-association was seeking issuance of directions
\nto respondents No. 1 to 4 to take appropriate action
\nagainst the Colonizer-company, in accordance with the 1975
\nAct. Another prayer has been made in the petition seeking
\na writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the
\nexemption order dated August 30, 1985 and November 20, 1992
\nand, therefore the writ petition claiming the aforesaid
\nreliefs was fully maintainable and it was only
\nincidentally, that the relief was directed against the
\nColonizer-company, which in fact was a defaulter under the
\nAct.\n<\/p>\n
52. On the other hand Shri Ashok Aggarwal the
\nlearned senior counsel appearing for the
\ncolonizer-company\/ respondent No. 5 has submitted that the
\npetitioner-association has absolutely no  locus standi in
\nthe matter to maintain the present writ petition.
\nAccording to Shri Aggarwal, the various
\napplicants\/intending purchasers who had entered into
\nindividual contracts with the colonizer-company had
\nseparate and distinct contracts to enforce against the
\ncompany. For individual cause, if filed by the aforesaid
\napplicants, the company was at liberty to take up various
\npleas which were individually available to the company in
\neach case, such as readiness and willingness of each of the
\nintending purchasers to perform their part of the
\nagreement. According to Shri Aggarwal since the matter
\nhas been generalised by the present
\npetitioner-association, thereof, the writ petition filed
\nby the petitioner-association claiming the aforesaid
\nrelief, which was available to the individual member
\nalone, was not available to the association. It has been
\nfurther submitted by Shri Aggarwal that the
\npetitioner-association has failed to place on record the
\nmemorandum of its association and, therefore, it cannot be
\nsuggested that any decision rendered in the present
\npetition would bind all the members of the association
\nindividually as well. On that basis Shri Aggarwal has
\nmaintained that according to the law laid down by a full
\nBench of Allahabad High Court in the case  Umesh Chand
\nVinod Kumar and others V.  Krishi Utpadan Mandi Saimiti
\nAIR<\/a> 1984 Allahabad 46, the present petition filed by the
\nassociation for the enforcement or protection of the
\nrights of its member is not maintainable.\n<\/p>\n
53. With regard to next preliminary objection
\nraised by Shri Aggarwal regarding the maintainability of
\nthe present writ petition against the
\ncolonizer-company\/respondent No. 5, it is submitted by shri
\nAshok Aggarwal, the learned senior counsel that a perusal
\nof the entire writ petition would show that the petitioner
\nassociation was merely seeking an enforcement of a
\ncontractual obligation arising out of some contracts
\nbetween persons who had originally intended to buy the
\nplots in the colony in the year 1963-64 and the
\ncolonizer-company. According to Shri Aggarwal the
\naforesaid obligation was merely contractual in nature
\nbetween the contracting parties, and was to be enforced
\nonly as per the ordinary law of the land by seeking
\nspecific performance of the aforesaid agreements. Since
\nthe aforesaid remedy has never been sought by the
\naforesaid persons, therefore, in the garb of seeking
\ndirections against the official respondents No. 1 to 4, the
\npetitioner-association has merely filed the present writ
\npetition. Shri Aggarwal maintains that in fact the writ
\npetition was essentially directed against the company and
\nsince no writ petition was maintainable against the
\ncompany, which was not instrumentality of the
\nState, therefore, the writ petition was liable to be
\ndismissed on this ground as well.\n<\/p>\n
54. I have given my thoughtful consideration to
\nthe rival contentions raised by the learned counsel for
\nthe parties.\n<\/p>\n
55. Dealing with the objections with regard to
\n locus-standi of the petitioner-association it may be
\nrelevant to notice that in para 2 of the writ petition,
\nthe petitioner association has averred as follows:
\n  “The plot holders association (hereinafter
\nreferred to as the petitioner) jointly owns
\napproximately 48 acres of land known as
\nIndraprastha Colony in village Itmadpur in
\nDistrict Faridabad Haryana State. Mr.
\nR. C. Khanna, President of the Association has
\nbeen duly authorised by the petitioner
\nAssociation vide authorisation letter dated
\n4.03.1997 in hi favour to institute the present
\nwrit petition. A copy of the said
\nauthorisation letter is annexed hereto and
\nmarked as Annexure-P\/2.”\n<\/p>\n
56. In the corresponding para 2 of the written
\nstatement filed on behalf of respondents No. 5, 6 and 8,
\nit has been averred as follows:\n<\/p>\n
  “That the contents of para-2 of the writ
\npetition are entirely wrong and are hence
\ndenied. It is wrong and denied that the
\nPetitioner owned, jointly or otherwise any land
\nor 48 acres of and as falsely alleged. It is
\nfurther wrong and denied that the colony is
\nowned by the Petitioner as falsely represented
\nin the para under reply. It is submitted that
\nthe answering respondent held the clear and
\nundisputed title in respect of the land of the
\ncolony. It is further wrong and denied that
\nShri R. C. Khanna is duly authorized person to
\nfile the present petition on behalf of the
\nPetitioner as falsely alleged. It is submitted
\nthat as a matter of fact different persons with
\nthe illegal and malafide motive to harass the
\nRespondents have been filling false complaints
\nand petitions. The petitions and complaints so
\nfiled have already met their fate as detailed
\nin preliminary objections.”\n<\/p>\n
57. The petitioner-association has also attached
\nthe registration certificate dated September 20, 1971
\nissued by the Registrar of Societies, Delhi, whereby the
\npetitioner-association was registered under the Societies
\nRegistration Act. A copy of the resolution dated march
\n4, 1977 has been appended as Annexure P\/2 whereby the then
\nPresident Shri R. C. Khanna of the petitioner-association
\nwas given an authority to file the legal proceedings for and on behalf of the petitioner-association.\n<\/p>\n
58. Besides the aforesaid two document there is
\nabsolutely nothing on the record to show the details of
\nmembership of the petitioner-association, the number of
\noriginal applicants\/persons intending to buy the plots in
\nthe colony in the year 1963-64, the number and details of
\nthe persons who had constituted the petitioner-association
\nand the memorandum of association which could show that
\nany decision rendered in a cause taken by the
\npetitioner-association would bind all its members.\n<\/p>\n
59. Under these circumstances, it cannot be
\nsuggested that the petitioner-association had any cause or
\nlocus standi to file the writ petition.\n<\/p>\n
60. I have already noticed above the averments made
\nby the petitioner-association in para 2 of the writ
\npetition which have been specifically denied in the
\ncorresponding para of the written statement filled by the
\ncolonizer-company\/respondent No. 5. Nothing has been
\nbrought on the record to show and suggest that there was
\nany privity of contract between the petitioner-association
\non the one hand and the Colonizer-Company on the order.\n<\/p>\n
61. I have also taken into consideration the law
\nlaid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the
\ncase of  Scheduled Caste and Weaker Section Welfare
\nAssociation(supra), relied upon by the learned counsel for
\nthe petitioner. In para 7 of the aforesaid judgment it
\nwas observed as follows;\n<\/p>\n
  “The first question that falls for
\nconsideration is whether the appellants can
\nchallenge the action of the government. This
\nquestion need not detain us when the law is now
\nsettled that in such situation even a public
\ninterest litigation would lie. Appellant 1 –
\nAssociation represents the interests of the
\nslum dwellers and appellant 2 himself is one of
\nthe residents in the area. The action of the
\ngovernment on the averments made affects a
\nclass of persons and if that group of person is
\nrepresented by the Association, they have a
\nright to be heard in the matter. Where a
\nmember of the public acting bona fide moves the
\ncourt for enforcement of a fundamental right on
\nbehalf of a person or class of persons  who on
\naccount of poverty or disability or socially or
\neconomically disadvantaged position cannot
\napproach the court for relief, such member of
\nthe public may move the court even by just
\nwriting a letter as held by this Court in
\n‘Bandhua Mukti Morcha V. Union of India’. We<\/a>
\nare, therefore, of the view of that the High Court
\nwas wrong in concluding that appellants were
\nincompetent in invoke the jurisdiction of the
\ncourt.”\n<\/p>\n
62. There is no quarrel with the preposition of law
\nlaid down by the Apex Court, but in my considered view,
\nthe aforesaid preposition does not arise in the present
\ncase. It is not the case of the petitioner-association
\nthat any one of its member was under any disability or was
\notherwise not in a position to approach the competent
\ncourt of law for the cause of action which had
\nindividually arisen to any one of such member. It was
\nonly in a situation where the cause espoused by an
\nassociation was in the nature of public interest or where
\nany member of the association on account of poverty or his
\ndisability or disadvantageous position could not approach
\nfor a relief, that the locus standi of the association was
\nrecognized by the Apex Court. No such position exists in
\nthe present case.\n<\/p>\n
63. A full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the
\ncase of Umesh Chand Vinod Kumar and others (supra) was
\nalso dealing with the question of  locus-standi of an
\nassociation of persons maintained under Article 226 of the
\nConstitution of India for enforcement of the rights of its
\nmembers, as distinguished from the enforcement of its own
\nrights. The learned Judges of the Full Bench enumerated
\nthree situations where the association could maintain a
\npetition on behalf of its member namely  (i) in case
\nmembers of such an association are themselves unable to
\napproach the court by reason of poverty, disability or
\nsocially or economically disadvantaged position (Little
\nIndians); (ii) in cases of a public injury leading to
\npublic interest litigation provided the association has
\nsome concern deeper than that of a way-farer or a busybody
\ni.e. It has special interest in the subject matter (iii)
\nwhere the rules or regulations of the association
\nspecifically authorise it to take legal proceedings on
\nbehalf of its members, so that any order which was passed
\nby the court in such proceeding will be binding on the
\nmembers. The Hon’ble judges held that in all other cases
\nan association whether registered or unregistered cannot
\nmaintain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution
\nfor the enforcement or protection of the rights of its
\nmembers as distinguished from enforcement of its own
\nrights.\n<\/p>\n
64. As discussed above, there is nothing on the
\nrecord of present petition to show that any of the members
\nof the petitioner-association were unable to approach the
\ncourt themselves by reasons of poverty or any disability
\nor other disadvantageous position nor it has been shown
\nthat the case was of any public injury leading to a public
\ninterest litigation. Even the rules and regulations of
\nthe association have not been placed to show
\nthat any orders passed in the present petition would bind
\nits members.\n<\/p>\n
65. In such a situation when no personal interest
\nof the petitioner-association has been disclosed, then
\nfollowing the law laid down by the full bench by the
\nAllahabad High court in the case of Umesh Chand Vinod
\nKumar and others (supra), I have no hesitation in holding
\nthat the petitioner-association has no  locus-standi to
\nmaintain the present petition.\n<\/p>\n
66. Coming to the next preliminary objection raised
\nby the learned counsel for the respondents, the petitioner
\nhas made averments in the petition with regard to the
\nviolation of the orders of exemption Annexure P\/6 and P\/9
\nrespectively. On the basis of the aforesaid averments,
\nthe petitioner-association has claimed that official
\nrespondents No. 1 to 4 are bound in law to proceed against
\nthe colonizer-company under the terms of 1975 Act. Since
\nthe petitioner-association has claimed the issuance of
\ndirection to the official respondents to take the
\naforesaid action against the colonizer-company, therefore,
\nin my considered view it cannot be suggested that the
\npresent petition filed by the petitioner-association is
\nmerely against the colonizer-company respondent No. 5 and
\nas such not maintainable. May be the incidental relief,
\nthe warrants and brunt of the directions sought by the
\npetitioner-association may ultimately fall upon the
\ncolonizer-company but for this reason alone it cannot be
\nsuggested at all that the present petition filed by the
\npetitioner-association was only directed against a limited
\ncompany, incorporated under the Companies Act. In my
\nconsidered view the second preliminary objection raised by
\nthe learned counsel for respondent No. 5 is without any
\nmerit and, is therefore rejected.\n<\/p>\n
67. This brings me to the next objection raised by
\nthe respondents with regard to the enforcement of the
\ncontractual obligation through the present petition.
\nShri Rajiv Atma Ram, the learned senior counsel for the
\npetitioner-association has submitted that the
\ncolonizer-company had sponsored a colony prior to the
\nenforcement of 1963 Act and had advertised for the sale of
\nthe plots. When certain persons had made necessary
\npayments, then the colonizer-company was bound in law to
\nexecute the conveyance deed and hand over the possession
\nof the plots. According to the learned counsel it was
\nonly subsequently in the year 1963 and thereafter that
\ncertain enactments such as 1963 Act, 1971 Act and 1975 Act
\nhad come into operation and therefore the
\nColonizer-company was not authorised in law to change the
\ncomplexion of the colony, revise the layout, redemarcate
\nthe plots and offer them for sale.\n<\/p>\n
68. However, Shri Rajiv Atma Ram has fairly
\nconceded that although some of the applicants\/intending
\nplot holders, who had entered into the original contract
\nwith the colonizer-company, had approached various
\nTribunals\/Forums for the redressal of their grievances and
\neven in a complaint filed by some of the applicants,
\nConsumer Disputes Redressal forum had dismissed the
\naforesaid complaint as being barred by limitation vide
\norder dated September 15, 1995 (Annexure R-5\/30). It is
\nfurther conceded by the learned counsel that even an
\nappeal filed before the State Commission against the order
\nAnnexure R-5\/30 had been disposed of vide order dated
\nJanuary 29, 1999 (Annexure R-5\/31) granting a liberty the
\naforesaid applicants to approach the civil court, keeping
\nin view the effect of the legislation which had
\nintervened, but none of the applicants\/complainants had
\napproached the civil court because according to the
\nlearned counsel the jurisdiction of the civil court was
\nbarred under Section 15 of the Act.\n<\/p>\n
69. On the other hand Shri Ashok Aggarwal learned
\nsenior counsel appearing for the colonizer-company has
\nsubmitted that the questions raised by the
\npetitioner-association were the disputed questions of
\nfacts and were questions with regard to enforcement of
\ncontractual obligations involving the title of immovable
\nproperly and, therefore, the only remedy available to any
\naggrieved party was to approach the civil court in
\naccordance with law for the enforcement of any such
\nrights. According to Shri Aggarwal since none of the
\nparties aggrieved against any action of the
\ncolonizer-company had ever approached the civil court,
\neven inspite of the directions in this regard contained in
\nthe order dated January 29, 1999 (Annexure R-5\/31) passed
\nby the State Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New
\nDelhi, therefore, the present petition for the enforcement
\nof the aforesaid contractual obligation was not
\nmaintainable. According to Shri Aggarwal, since the cause
\nof action, if any, had arisen to the applicants\/ including
\npurchases in the year 1987 itself, therefore, even when
\nthe remedy of the Civil suit had become barred by
\nlimitation, the present petition under Article 226 itself
\nwas liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and
\nlaches. Shri Aggarwal has relied upon certain
\nobservations made by a Division Bench of this court in the
\ncase of  Chandra Tewatia V.  State of Haryana and others
\n1998(1) P.L.J. 322, wherein it has been held as follows:
\n  “…..All the purchasers like the petitioners
\nentered into an agreement with the
\nlicensees\/colonizers. The relation between the
\nlicensees\/colonizers and the Government may be
\ngoverned by statute and the contract entered
\ninto between the Government and the
\nlicensee\/colonizer may have statutory flavour
\nbut as far as the purchasers and the
\nlicensees\/colonizers are concerned their
\nrelationship emanates from pure contract. The
\nagreement to sell and the sale deed executed
\nbetween the purchasers and the licensees do not
\nhave their source in the provisions of the Act
\nand the Rules. Therefore, we find merit in the
\nsubmission of Shri Hooda and Shri Mittal that
\nafter having agreed to pay the amount of
\nexternal development charges to the
\nlicensees\/colonizers, the petitioners cannot
\nquestion the jurisdiction of respondents No. 2
\nand 3 to enhance the amount of external
\ndevelopment charges. There is no privity of
\ncontract between the petitioners and the
\nrespondents No. 1 to 3. Therefore, they are not
\nentitled to question the levy of enhanced
\nexternal development charges by the respondent
\nNo. 2. In our opinion, the petitioners are not
\nentitled to seek issuance of a writ under
\nArticle 226 to avoid their contractual
\nobligation. If they felt aggrieved by the
\ndemand of enhanced external development charges
\nby the licensees\/colonizers, the petitioners
\nshould have availed the remedy of civil suit.
\nThe jurisdiction of the civil Court to
\nadjudicate the dispute between the petitioners
\nand the licensees\/colonizers is not ousted by
\nvirtue of Section 15 of the Act. That section
\nbars the jurisdiction of the civil Court only
\nfor resolution of the questions and the Rules
\nframed thereunder. It has nothing to do with
\nthe private dispute between the purchasers and
\nthe licensees\/colonizers.”\n<\/p>\n
70. After considering the rival contentions raised
\non this point by the learned counsel for the parties, I
\nfind myself in agreement with the contention raised by
\nShri Aggarwal, the learned counsel for the respondents.
\nIt is not in dispute that the colonizer-company issued the
\nrevised application form (Annexure R-5\/18) in the year
\n1982, wherein the various applicants\/intending plot
\nholders were required to execute a revised contact with
\nthe colonizer-company. Clause 7 of the aforesaid revised
\nagreement clearly provided for the payment of the extra
\ndevelopment charges to be paid by the applicants, over and
\nabove the original booking rate. Clause 8 of the
\naforesaid application form provided that….. extra
\ncosts payment for developments shall be the essence of
\nthis contract between me and the colonizer falling which I
\nshall have no lien on the plot and the amount already paid
\nby me shall be deemed to have been forfeited by the
\nColonizer without any reference or notice to me.” It is
\naverred by the colonizer-company in the written statement
\nthat only those intending original purchasers who were
\ninterested in the plots, submitted the revised application
\nforms. It is apparent that such applications\/original
\nintending purchasers, who did not submit this revised
\napplication form, had disentitled themselves from claiming
\nany interest in the colony, which was to be developed by
\nthe coloniser-company after the grant of necessary
\nsanctions, in the year 1982 itself. In any case, such
\npersons, who had not submitted the revised application
\nforms, had a cause of action arisen to them at that point
\nof them. If such persons, in whose favour an action had
\narisen in the year 1982, chose not to seek any redressal
\nof their grievances in an appropriate court of law then
\nthey had no subsisting cause of action thereafter, when
\nthe present petition was sought to be filled by the
\npetitioner-association.\n<\/p>\n
71. Not only this, even subsequently the
\ncolonizer-company after obtaining the necessary exemptions
\nin the year 1985, wrote a communication on September
\n10,1987 to all the persons who had originally booked plots
\nwith the colonizer-company. The aforesaid communication
\nhas been appended as Annexure R-5\/21 with the written
\nstatement of the colonizer-company. While communicating
\nthe necessary exemptions to the various original
\napplicants, the company also detailed the various internal
\ndevelopments which it was required to undertake in
\npursuance to the exemption orders. It was also enumerated
\nthat in compliance of the aforesaid terms and conditions
\nof the exemption orders, the plots had to be rearranged
\nand renumbered according to the approved layout plan, with
\nreduced ploted area, and with provision of access,
\nservices and linkage in the colony. On the basis thereof,
\nthe company made an offer to the aforesaid applicants to
\nmake a payment of Rs. 185\/- per sq. yard for the actual
\nsize of the plot. It was made clear that “this offer is
\nbeing extended to you for the reasons that you are our old
\ncustomer and you have a priority in respect of allotment
\nof plot…..” It was further specifically informed that
\n“the company is looking forward to receive your acceptance
\nof this offer within 30 days of its letter along with the
\nabove said 25 percent amount of the total price and Rs.20
\nper sq. yard payable to the Government of Haryana in the
\nabsence of which it will be presumed by us that you are
\nnot interested to accept this offer. In that eventuality,
\nthe company will be obliged to cancel the allotment and
\nits offer will stand automatically withdrawn.”\n<\/p>\n
72. It is apparent from the language emphasised by
\nthe company in the aforesaid annexure R-5\/21 that the
\naforesaid offer was made to the applicants\/original
\nintending purchases to make the payment and it was also
\nmade clear that in case of not accepting the aforesaid
\noffer, the company would cancel the allotment and offer
\nwould stand automatically withdrawn.\n<\/p>\n
73. In this view of the matter, it is apparent that
\nthe main relief sought by the petitioner-association is in
\nsum and substance a relief for execution of the conveyance
\ndeeds and for possession of the respective plots to the
\napplicants\/intending purchasers who had booked the plots
\nwith the colonizer-company in the year 1963-64. The
\naforesaid relief necessarily emanates from the contractual
\nobligations between the parties. In this view of the
\nmatter and in view of the law laid by the Division Bench
\nof this court in Chandra Tewatia’s case (supra), I have no
\nhesitation in holding that the present petition under
\nArticles 226\/227 of the Constitution of India qua the
\nenforcement of the aforesaid contractual rights of the
\npetitioner-association or any of its members and seeking
\nperformance of the contractual obligations by the
\ncolonizer-company is not maintainable. The only remedy
\navailable to any aggrieved person was to pursue the
\nordinary remedy of a civil suit.\n<\/p>\n
74. At this stage, it may also be pertinent to
\nnotice that the provisions of Section 15 of the Act which
\noust the jurisdiction of the civil court would not be
\nattracted to the controversy in question inasmuch as,
\nfirstly as held by the Division Bench in Chandra Tewatia’s
\ncase (supra), the jurisdiction of the civil court was
\nbarred for resolution of the questions covered under the
\nprovisions of the Act and the rules framed thereunder and
\nhas no bearing upon any private dispute between a
\npurchaser and the licencee-colonizer. In any case since
\nthe exemption orders Annexure P\/6 and P\/9, respectively,
\nhad been issued by the State Government under the
\nprovisions of Section 23 of the Act whereby the
\nColonizer-company was exempted from the operation of the
\nprovisions of the Act, therefore, by such exemption even
\nthe operation of the provisions of Section 15 would be
\nexempted.\n<\/p>\n
75. This brings me to the next question of delay
\nand laches raised by Shri Ashok Aggarwal with regard to
\nthe present petition.\n<\/p>\n
76. It is the admitted case between the parties
\nthat the offer made by the colonizer-company vide Annexure
\nR5\/21, dated September 10, 1987 was not accepted by a very
\nlarge number of persons and such persons chose to reply
\nback to the company through a communication dated October
\n6, 1987, making it clear that the demand raised by the
\ncolonizer -company was totally  against the contractual
\nobligation and was unauthorised and in violation of the
\nagreement. It was stated in the aforesaid reply informing
\nthe company that “since you have not complied with the
\ncontractual obligation you have no authority to cancel the
\nplot\/agreement. Any arbitrary action on your part will be
\ncontested at your costs and risk.” The said reply further
\nwent on to inform the company that “you have threatened to
\ncancel the agreement which you cannot do unilaterally..
\nThe agreement relates to immovable property and has to be
\nenforced specifically and we further hold you liable for
\ncausing damages to us during all this period.” From the
\njoint reading of communication Annexure R-5\/21 and reply
\nthereto (Annexure R-5\/22) It is apparent that a dispute
\nhad arisen between the parties with regard to the
\nenforcement of the contract, originally entered into
\nbetween the company and the applicants, in the year 1987
\nitself. At that stage, the company had specifically
\ndemanded the additional charges and the new rates. The
\naforesaid demand was resisted and objected to by the
\napplicants. In such a situation the cause of action had
\ndefinitely arisen to the applicants. Thus, the aforesaid
\naggrieved applicants\/intending purchasers had to seek a
\nremedy on the basis of the aforesaid cause of action,
\nwithin the statutory period of limitation in accordance
\nwith law. Admittedly no such remedy was ever sought by
\nthe applicants or any of the members of the
\npetitioner-association. Only some of the applicants
\nmerely chose to approach the various Tribunals\/Forums but
\nnever chose to enforce their rights under the agreement in
\nthe civil court of competent jurisdiction. In this view
\nof the matter, besides the fact that the enforcement of
\nthe aforesaid contract is not available to the
\napplicants\/intending purchasers and the members of the
\npetitioner-association through the present writ petition,
\nthe same has also become barred by limitation.\n<\/p>\n
77. It has been held in the case of  State of Madhya
\nPradesh and another V.  Bhai Lal Bhai and others AIR 1964
\nSupreme Court 1006 that:\n<\/p>\n
  “……Learned Counsel is right in his
\nsubmission that the provisions of the
\nLimitation Act do not as such apply to the
\ngranting of relief under Article 226. It appears
\nto us however that the maximum period fixed by
\nthe legislature as the time within which the
\nrelief by a suit in a civil court must be
\nbrought may ordinarily be taken to be a
\nreasonable standard by which delay in seeking
\nremedy under Article 226 can be measured. This
\nCourt may consider the delay unreasonable even
\nif it is less than the period of limitation
\nprescribed for a civil action for the remedy
\nbut where the delay is more than this period,
\nit will almost always be proper for the Court
\nto hold that it is unreasonable. The period of
\nlimitation prescribed for recovery of money
\npaid by mistake under the Limitation Act is
\nthree years from the date when the mistake is
\nknown. If the mistake was known in these cases
\non or shortly after January 17, 1956 the delay
\nin making these applications should be
\nconsidered unreasonable. If on the other
\nhand, as Mr. Andley seems to argue, that the
\nmistake discovered much later this would be a
\ncontroversial fact which cannot conveniently be
\ndecided in writ proceedings. In either view of
\nthe matter we are of opinion the orders for
\nrefund made by the High Court in these seven
\ncases cannot be sustained.”\n<\/p>\n
78. In this view of the matter, the present writ
\npetition having been filed in the year 1999 is, thus,
\nclearly hit by the law laid down by the Apex Court in the
\nBhallal Bhai’s case(supra) and, therefore, having been
\nfilled beyond the period of limitation provided for a civil
\nsuit for the enforcement of the agreement is liable to be
\ndismissed on the ground of delay and laches.\n<\/p>\n
79. It has been further argued by Shri Ashok
\nAggarwal, the learned Senior counsel appearing for the
\nrespondents, that there have been serious concealments,
\nand mis-statements made in the petition, thereby
\ndisentitling the petitioner-association to seek any relief
\nin the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this court. It has
\nbeen pointed out that along with the petition Annexure P\/5
\nhas been appended which shows the details of payments made
\nby 58 persons. Subsequently at the time of the hearing of
\nthe present petition, through a CM No. 4254 of 2003, 77
\naffidavits have been filed purporting to be on behalf of
\nthe members of the petitioner-association. Shri Aggarwal
\npoints out that it is apparent that although originally at
\nthe time of filing of the petition there were 58 persons
\nonly, who were such persons who claimed themselves to be
\noriginal applicants, but subsequently 77 persons had filed
\naffidavits. Out of the aforesaid 77 persons 21 persons
\nwere such persons who were either dead or shown to be not
\nthe original applicants with the company. The affidavits
\nhad been filed on their behalf on a mere stated
\nauthorisation by the original applicants. Some persons,
\nout of the aforesaid 77 persons had already taken the
\nrefund of the amount from the company. A few persons out
\nof the aforesaid 77 persons had already approached various
\nConsumer courts and had lost their cause. In this view of
\nthe matter Shri Aggarwal maintains that the
\npetitioner-association was merely trying to harass and
\npressurise the colonizer-company to concede their
\nunjustified and time barred demands.\n<\/p>\n
80. The claim of the petitioner company for the
\nallotment of the plots and the handing over the possession
\nhas also been contested on the ground that in fact the
\nscheme as originally floated by the company in the year
\n1963-64 stood completely abrogated by the enforcement of
\nthe 1963 Act. When the necessary sanction was granted by
\nthe competent authority in the year 1963 then the scheme
\nwas revised and the area of the Colony was considerably
\nreduced. Again on the enforcement of the 1971 Act, the
\ncompany was required to revise the lay-out and conform to
\nthe conditions laid in the 1971 Act. But the matter was
\nstill under process when 1971 Act was declared as ultra
\nvires by this court. Ultimately 1975 Act came to be
\nenforced. The approval dated August 13, 1985 (Annexure P\/6) was granted only for an area of 48.5 acres.
\nSubsequently in the year 1992 an additional area of 3.31
\nacres was exempted. In this manner the total exempted
\narea with the company came to be 51.41 acres. In this
\nview of the matter, Shri Aggarwal has submitted that
\noriginally the colony had been planned for an area of 100
\nacres by the colonizer-company. Out of the aforesaid 100
\nacres, 75 percent was to be covered area whereas 25
\npercent was to remain open. Whereas under the exemption
\norders Annexures P\/6 and P\/9 respectively, the covered
\narea was reduced to 54.41 percent of the total area
\nwhereas the open area was to constitute 49.59 percent. On
\nthat basis Shri Aggarwal has argued that the nature and
\ncharacter of the layout of the colony having gone a
\ncomplete sea-change, the original contract between the
\napplicants\/intending plot holders and the
\nColonizer-Company stood frustrated and therefore, could
\nnot be relied upon by the applicants, any more at this
\nstage.\n<\/p>\n
81. This factual position is not disputed by Shri
\nRajiv Atma Ram, the learned senior counsel appearing for
\nthe petitioner-association. It is not disputed by the
\npetitioner-association at all that the company had been
\nput to various strict terms and conditions as per the
\nexemption orders issued by the competent authority and the
\noriginal colony, which was planned for 100 acres had been
\nconfined to an area of 58.81 acre only. However the
\ncovered area and the open area ratio had also been changed
\nby the competent authority while granting the exemption.
\nOn the basis of the terms and conditions of the aforesaid
\nexemption orders, the Company had to revise the layout and
\nredemarcate the plots by reducing their area considerably.
\nOpen parks, roads, community center and school were
\nrequired to be provided. The Colony as such could not
\neven be termed to be the same colony, as was sought to be
\nfloated by the Colonizer-Company, in the year 1962-63,
\nexcept in name.\n<\/p>\n
82. Shri Rajiv Atma Ram, the learned Senior counsel
\nappearing for the petitioner-association then submitted
\nthat since the colonizer-company had violated the terms
\nand conditions of the exemption orders Annexures P\/6 and
\nP\/9, therefore, in terms of clause IX of the aforesaid
\nexemption order, the said exemption was liable to be
\nwithdrawn and thereafter the official respondents were
\nbound in law to take over the colony. On the other hand,
\nShri Ashok Aggarwal, the learned Senior counsel appearing
\nfor the colonizer-company has submitted that the aforesaid
\nplea raised by the petitioner-association was totally
\nvague inasmuch as nothing has been pointed out in the
\npetition nor shown during the course of arguments as to
\nin what manner the colonizer-company violated any of the
\nterms of the exemption orders. Shri Aggarwal has further
\nmaintained that in fact the entire efforts made by the
\npetitioner-association were to put pressure upon the
\ncolonizer-company, to allot plots in the now developed
\ncolony, to the members of the petitioner-association.\n<\/p>\n
83. At this stage, it may be relevant to notice the
\nprovisions of Section 23 of the Act which reads as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
  “Power to exempt: If the government is of the
\nopinion that the operation of any of the
\nprovisions of this Act causes undue hardship or
\ncircumstances exist which render it expedient
\nso to do, it may, subject to such terms and
\nconditions as it may impose, by a general or
\nspecial order exempt any class of persons or
\nareas from all or any of the provisions of this
\nAct”\n<\/p>\n
84. From a perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it
\nis apparent that the power to exempt under Section 23
\nvests in the State Government and is to be exercised when
\nthe State Government is of the opinion that the operation
\nof any of the provisions of the Act causes undue hardship
\nor circumstances exist which render it expedient so to do
\nto exempt any class of persons of area from all or any of
\nthe provisions of the Act on such terms and conditions as
\nmay be imposed by a general or special order.\n<\/p>\n
85. It is the admitted case between the parties
\nthat at the stage of the initial inception of the colony
\nneither 1963 Act nor 1971 Act nor the present 1975 Act
\nwere in operation. Subsequently 1963 Act came into
\noperation which imposed certain conditions and liabilities
\nupon the colonizer. The Colonizer-company in the present
\ncase was in the process of completing the aforesaid
\nformalities when 1971 Act was enacted. Again the process
\nof approvals\/sanctions were started denovo by the Company
\nwhen the aforesaid Act was declared to be ultra vires by
\nthis court. Then 1975 Act was enacted. Through a very
\nlengthy process the colonizer -Company completed all the
\nformalities and completed all the other requirements, as
\ndirected by the official- respondents from time to time.
\nIt was only thereafter that exemption orders Annexures P\/6
\nand P\/9 were issued by the State Government. Certain
\nconditions were imposed upon the colonizer-company while
\ngranting the aforesaid exemptions. Nothing has been shown
\nby the petitioner-association that any one of the terms or
\nconditions of the exemption orders had ever been violated
\nby the colonizer-Company.\n<\/p>\n
86. A faint attempt has been made by Shri Rajiv
\nAtma Ram, the learned senior counsel for the
\npetitioner-association by pointing out certain terms and
\nconditions of the exemption orders Annexure P\/6 and P\/9,
\nrespectively, to show that there was violation of the
\naforesaid terms and conditions and on that basis it was
\nsought to be argued by the learned counsel that since
\nthere was a violation therefore, on the basis of the
\nterms and conditions of the exemption order itself, the
\nsaid exemption orders are liable to be withdrawn by the
\nofficial respondents and in any case were liable to be
\nquashed by this court, on the basis of the said violation.
\nIt has been pointed out by Shri Atma Ram that while
\ngranting the exemption orders on August 30, 1985 (Annexure
\nP\/6), the State Government had imposed certain conditions
\nand required the colonizer-company to adhere to those
\nconditions. My pointed attention has been drawn to
\nClauses (iv) and (v) of the exemption order dated August
\n30, 1985 (Annexure P\/6) as follows:\n<\/p>\n
iv) That you shall be responsible for the
\nmaintenance and upkeep of all roads, open
\nspaces, public parks and public health services
\nfor a period of 5 years from the date of issue
\nof completion certificate to be issued by the
\nDirector, Town and Country Planning in
\naccordance with condition No. ix below unless
\nearlier relieved of this responsibility and
\nthereupon to transfer all such roads, open
\nspaces, public parks and public health services
\nfree of cost to the Govt., Haryana Urban
\nDevelopment Authority or the local authority
\netc. as the case may be.\n<\/p>\n
v) That you shall construct at your own cost or
\nget constructed by any other institution or
\nindividual at your cost, school and play
\ngrounds, hospital, community centres and other
\ncommunity buildings on the land set apart for
\nthis purpose or undertake to transfer to the
\nGovernment free of cost the land set apart for
\nschools and play grounds, hospitals, community
\ncentres and community buildings, in which case
\nthe Government shall be at liberty to transfer
\nsuch land to any person or institution,
\nincluding a local authority on such terms and
\nconditions, as it may deem fit.\n<\/p>\n
87. A similar clause exists in the exemption order
\ndated November 22, 1992 (Annexure P-9) as follows:-\n<\/p>\n
vii) That the owner shall construct at his own
\ncost or get constructed by any other
\ninstitution or individual at its cost, schools
\nhospitals community centres and other community
\nbuildings on the land set apart for this
\npurpose or undertake to transfer to the
\ngovernment as any time, if so desired by the
\ngovernment, free of cost, the land set apart
\nfor schools, hospitals, community centres and
\nother community buildings, in which case the
\ngovernment shall be at liberty to transfer such
\nland to any person or institution including
\nlocal authority on such terms and conditions as
\nit may lay down.\n<\/p>\n
No third party rights will be created without
\nobtaining the prior permission of the Director,
\nTown and country planning, Haryana. All the
\ncommunity buildings will be get constructed by
\nthe coloniser within time period so specific by
\nthe Director.\n<\/p>\n
88. On the basis of the aforesaid clauses, Shri
\nAtma Ram submits that the colonizer-company has neither
\ncompleted the aforesaid development works etc. and had
\neven created third party interest when it had
\nallotted\/transferred the plots to the new allottees (newly
\nadded respondents) and therefore, their being a violation
\nof the aforesaid terms and conditions, action in
\naccordance with the law was required to be taken against
\nthe colonizer company and in any case the exemption orders
\nissued in favour of the colonizer-company were liable to
\nbe withdrawn or set aside.\n<\/p>\n
89. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the
\nargument raised by Shri Rajiv Atma Ram the learned senior
\ncounsel for the petitioner-association. However, I find
\nmyself unable to agree with the same. The aforesaid terms
\nand conditions are such terms and conditions which are in
\nthe nature of development works which are liable to be
\ncompleted by a colonizer prior to the issuance of the
\ncompletion certificate. As regard the prohibition to
\ncreate third party interest is concerned, it is apparent
\nthat the said prohibition related only to the land, school,
\nhospital, community center etc. mentioned in the said
\nclause. Obviously it could not be suggested by the
\npetitioner-association that even after the development of
\nthe colony, the colonizer company was under any
\nprohibition not to allot\/transfer the plots developed by
\nit in the colony. The said clause is apparently being
\nmisread and misinterpreted by the petitioner association.\n<\/p>\n
90. It is apparent from the perusal of the
\nexemption orders Annexures P\/6 and P\/9 and from a reading
\nof the Section 23 of the Act that on the aforesaid
\nexemption having been granted to the Colonizer-company,
\nthe colonizer-company was exempted from the operation of
\nthe various provisions of the Act. In this view of the
\nmatter the prayer made by the petitioner-association that
\nthe official-respondents were required to proceed in terms
\nof Section 8 of the Act to take over the colony in
\nquestion was wholly misplaced and contrary to the
\nexemption orders Annexures P\/6 and P\/9. As has been
\nnoticed by me in the above portion of the judgment, the
\nprovisional completion certification has already been
\nissued by the competent authority to the colonizer-company
\non February 13, 2001. The issuance of the aforesaid
\ncompletion certificate necessarily postulates that the
\ncompetent authority was fully satisfied with regard to the
\ncompliance of the various terms and conditions imposed in
\nthe exemption orders.\n<\/p>\n
91. It is apparent that the petitioner-association
\ntaking the shelter of the original booking agreements, in
\nthe year 1963-64, is trying to revive the old issues,
\nwhich have since become time barred and is trying to
\nenforce contractual obligations which cannot be enforced
\nby the aforesaid intending purchasers now before the Civil
\ncourt after the lapse of more than 30 years.\n<\/p>\n
92. It might be relevant to notice here, again,
\nthat if any of the members of the petitioner-association
\nor original applicants\/intending purchasers had any
\ngrievance with regard to non-performance of the contract
\nby the colonizer-company then the only remedy available to
\nhim to enforce the aforesaid agreement was by seeking the
\ncivil remedy of filing a civil suit for specific
\nperformance. None of the aforesaid applicants ever sought
\nthe aforesaid remedy. The same has since become bared by
\nlimitation now. Once the aforesaid remedy has become
\nbarred by limitation, then as observed by the Supreme
\nCourt in the case of Bhailal Bhai (supra), the said remedy
\ncannot be enforced by the petitioner-association or any
\none of the members through this petition filed under
\nArticle 226 of the Constitution of India.\n<\/p>\n
93. In view of the aforesaid discussion. I do not
\nfind any merit in this petition and the same is hereby
\ndismissed. However, there shall be order as to costs.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Punjab-Haryana High Court The Indraprastha Colony Plot … vs The State Of Haryana Through Its … on 14 March, 2003 Equivalent citations: (2003) 134 PLR 615 Author: V Mittal Bench: V Mittal JUDGMENT Viney Mittal, J. 1. The petitioner Indraprastha Colony Plot Holders Association (hereinafter referred to as the “petitioner-association”) claiming itself to be an […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,28],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-179090","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-punjab-haryana-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nThe Indraprastha Colony Plot ... vs The State Of Haryana Through Its ... on 14 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"The Indraprastha Colony Plot ... vs The State Of Haryana Through Its ... on 14 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2003-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-01-14T00:10:18+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"66 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"The Indraprastha Colony Plot … vs The State Of Haryana Through Its … on 14 March, 2003\",\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-14T00:10:18+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003\"},\"wordCount\":13271,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Punjab-Haryana High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003\",\"name\":\"The Indraprastha Colony Plot ... vs The State Of Haryana Through Its ... on 14 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2003-03-13T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-01-14T00:10:18+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"The Indraprastha Colony Plot … vs The State Of Haryana Through Its … on 14 March, 2003\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"The Indraprastha Colony Plot ... vs The State Of Haryana Through Its ... on 14 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"The Indraprastha Colony Plot ... vs The State Of Haryana Through Its ... on 14 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2003-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-01-14T00:10:18+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"66 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"The Indraprastha Colony Plot … vs The State Of Haryana Through Its … on 14 March, 2003","datePublished":"2003-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-14T00:10:18+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003"},"wordCount":13271,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Punjab-Haryana High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003","name":"The Indraprastha Colony Plot ... vs The State Of Haryana Through Its ... on 14 March, 2003 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2003-03-13T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-01-14T00:10:18+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/the-indraprastha-colony-plot-vs-the-state-of-haryana-through-its-on-14-march-2003#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"The Indraprastha Colony Plot … vs The State Of Haryana Through Its … on 14 March, 2003"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179090","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=179090"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/179090\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=179090"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=179090"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=179090"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}