THE INDIAN AIRLINES PILOTS COOPERATIVE HOUSE BUILDING SOCIETY LIMITED Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge, in the present writ petition, is to the sanction of Drawing No. DTCP -819, dated 4.11.2004 (Annexure P -13), memo. No. 15956, dated 9.11.2004 (Annexure P -14), site/building plan, sanctioned vide memo. No. 2276, dated 4.3.2005 (Annexure P -16), letter memo. No. 11950, dated 26.4.2006 (Annexure P -25), and the impugned order, dated 30.3.2007 (Annexure P -28), passed by respondent No. 1.

(2.) The petitioner -society purchased 30 acres of land in villages Sukhrali and Sarhaul in District Gurgaon and obtained a licence for development of land measuring 29.794 acres into a Group Housing Colony under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (for short herein after referred to as "the Act"). The licence was granted, taking into consideration a Collaboration Agreement, dated 31.1.1995 with M/S Altamas Township Pvt. Ltd. The builder could not carry out development and, therefore, another agreement was executed with M/S Essel Housing Projects Pvt. Ltd on 8.5.1999. The zoning plan was sanctioned and as pleaded in the petition, construction commenced in the year 1999. The bone of contention is the grant of a licence of additional area of 4.20 acres, which the petitioner -Society alleges, was granted, without due authorization by the Society. It is alleged that Captain D.S. Giare, the then President of the Society colluded with the developers and wrote three letters, dated 6.10.2004, 6.10.2004 and 1.11.2004 on the letter heads of the Society for payment of additional licence fee, conversion charges, EDC etc. towards 0.5% commercial component, to be developed, pursuant to a new policy of the Government permitting a part of the colony to be developed into a commercial area. The altered zoning plan was approved on 18.5.2004. The petitioner -society alleges that it came to know about the altered zoning plan only when construction began. Thereafter, the petitioner -society served a notice upon the developer, titled as "cease and desist notice", complaining therein that the zoning had been altered and an additional licence for construction of an area of 4.20 acres issued without the consent of the society. The petitioner -society's complaints led respondent No. 2 to issue a letter, dated 2.3.2006 asking the Society not to undertake any construction activity for a shopping complex. The petitioner - Society immediately communicated a letter to the developer. The Director, Town and Country Planning addressed another letter, dated 9.3.2006 to the District Town Planner, Enforcement Gurgaon asking him to immediately C.W.P No. 5554 of 2007 ::3:: stop construction and to submit a status report. The developer thereafter filed CWP No. 4624 of 2006 challenging the letter, dated 2.3.2006. The said writ petition was disposed of, vide order dated 24.3.2006, by directing the respondents to dispose of proceedings as regards the notice, dated 2.3.2006 expeditiously. It is further alleged that in the absence of the society and without hearing the grievances, the developer was permitted, vide letter, dated 26.4.2006 to commence construction. The petitioner -society thereafter filed CWP No. 6880 of 2006 before this Court. The said writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government Haryana, Town and Country Planning Department to decide the entire controversy within a period of six weeks. All parties appeared and filed detailed representations before the aforementioned officer. After hearing counsel for the parties and upon a perusal of the documents, the representation, made by the petitioner -society, was dismissed, and stay on construction of shopping area, approved in the building plans, vide letter dated 4.3.2005, vacated.

(3.) Counsel for the petitioner contends that the impugned order should be quashed, as the policy, provided for development of additional area, and the sanction of the revised building plan, was violative of the rights of the society. It is contended that change in the zoning does not take into consideration the rights, vested in the members of the society, as changes, sanctioned therein, have affected their rights. It is further contended that the society did not grant any permission to the developer, did not file any application before the authorities for alteration of the zoning or grant of new licence and merger of the new licence area in the original licence of the society. Captain D.S. Giare had no authority to act on behalf of the society and, therefore, the present petition be allowed and the impugned order be quashed.