PARVEEN GAMBHIR Vs. UNION OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Through the instant writ petition, the petitioners seek the quashing of the directions dtd. 25/1/2021 (Annexure P-19) issued by respondent No. 2 under Sec. 83 of the Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016 (for short the RE RA Act'), and, also seek the quashing of the in-principal approval dtd. 4/3/2021 (Annexure P-21) granted for the fourth Occupation Certificate, issued by respondent No. 4.

(2.) In addition, the petitioners also seek the hereinafter extracted reliefs.

(3.) It is averred in the instant petition, that a group housing project, namely, Windchants' measuring 23.43 acres, situated at Sector-112 within the revenue estate of village Chauma, Tehsil and District Gurugram, was sought to be developed by respondent No. 6, and, for the said purposes, licence No. 21 dtd. 8/2/2008, and, licence No. 28 dtd. 7/3/2012 were obtained under Sec. 3 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 for short 'the Act of 1975''). On 7/6/2012, respondent No. 6 got the building plan sanctioned and advertised for sale of flats. The petitioners after relying upon the advertisements, sales and marketing brouchers as well as the statements made by respondent No. 6, deposited the earnest money, and, agreed to purchase their respective units/flats in the said project. The petitioners were respectively allotted flats bearing Nos. WT05/1802, WT-7/801, WT05/2002, WT06/2102, WT05/601 and WT07/2001. It is further averred in the instant petition, that the zonal plan was got approved on 10/4/2012 (Annexure P-5), and, vide memo dtd. 7/6/2012 (Annexure P-6) approval of revised building plan (BR-III) was obtained. The licence for the project was initially granted for five years which could be further extended for a maximum period of five years. Since the project was not completed within the stipulated time i.e. on 26/6/2016, thereupon an allottee, namely Mr. Pawan Gupta approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, New Delhi, by filing two Consumer Cases bearing Nos. 285 and 286 of 2018, agitating thereins two separate issues i.e. (i) additional demand on account of the alleged increase in sale area, and (ii) compensation for delay in possession. The issue of additional demand owing to an increase in sale area was decided in favour of petitioner No. 3, and, vide order dtd. 26/8/2020, the demand for an increase in sale area was quashed by the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission. The said order was challenged by respondent No. 6 by filing Civil Appeal Nos. 2703 and 3704 of 2020 before the Apex Court. However, vide order dtd. 12/1/2021, the said appeals were dismissed the Apex Court.