Aaliyah Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

270 paragraphs · 6,853 words

Jasbir Singh, J.—This order is passed in three writ petitions bearing No. 826, 1467 and 1468 of 2011. Petitioners in all these writ petitions are private limited companies which are being represented through one authorised representative, namely, Arvind Singh. To dictate order, facts are taken from CWP No. 826 of 2011.

The eight Petitioners are the private limited companies. This writ petition has been filed by alleging that the Petitioners No. 1 to 7, are the land owning companies and are the associate of Petitioner No. 8. It is further averred that Petitioner No. 8 and its associate companies have, from time to time purchased vast chunks of land in Tehsil and District Gurgaon and planned and developed the same into residential colonies after obtaining licence under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (in short the 1975 Act).

In this writ petition, it is prayed by the Petitioners that a writ of certiorari be issued to quash a notification dated 2.6.2009 ( P4) proposing to acquire land measuring 1417.05 acres, some part of which is owned by the Petitioners. Further challenge has been made to a declaration issued u/s 6 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 on 31.5.2010 (P7) to acquire land measuring 850.1025 acres including land owned by the Petitioners. It is case of the Petitioners that they were able to get a licence, to develop a colony, under the provisions of 1975 Act,qua part of the land owned by them however, their application was not considered so far as the land in dispute is concerned. Besides making a prayer to quash the above said notifications, a prayer is also made by the Petitioners that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the Respondents to release/denotify the land owned by them,which is subject matter of this writ petition.

In the writ petition and also in the list of dates and events, it is specifically mentioned that the Petitioners in association with other companies have developed thousand acres of land in the State of Haryana.

After looking into the provisions of Section 4 of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 ( in short 1972 Act) which specify the permissible limit of land which can be retained by a landowner and taking note of the averments made by the Petitioners that they had developed thousand acres of land , to verify that there may not be any violation of the provisions of 1972 Act, the following order was passed on 22.02.2011:

In the writ petition, it is stated that to get a licence issued to develop a colony under the provisions of Haryana Development and Regulation Urban Areas Act, 1975, application was moved by Petitioner No. 8 along with its associate companies. In the present affidavit, it is stated that Petitioner Nos. 1 to 7 have nothing to do with Petitioner No. 8. To verify this fact, it is directed that Registrar of Companies (Delhi and Haryana), Paryavaran Bhawan, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi, be impleaded as Respondent No. 5 and he is directed to come present in Court on the next date of hearing along with record of Registration of Petitioner Nos. 1 to 8.

Mr. Narender Hooda, Addl.A.G. Haryana is directed to give detail regarding each of the Petitioners, as to for how much land, may be agricultural or otherwise, anywhere in the State of Haryana, change of land use certificate was granted in favour of the Petitioners after enactment of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972 (in short, 1972 Act).

Principal Secretary, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana is directed to file an affidavit as to whether at any point of time, it was noticed whether these companies individually or collectively, have violated any provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act,1972 Act. In the affidavit, it be further stated as to whether when completion certificate is granted, the execution of the licence is complete or not. If and when additions can be made and under which provision. Regarding each Petitioner in these writ petitions, in the affidavit, it be clearly stated as to when first application was moved, who was the applicant and thereafter, when additions were made and for those additions when the land was purchased.

Authorised signatory Mr. Arvind Singh is directed to file an affidavit as to with which company he is permanently working as an employee or whether he is a partner/ Director of any company.

The Registry is directed to intimate Respondent No. 5 of the date fixed through ordin well Registered post and also through Email.

10.

Adjourned to 08.03.2011.

Copy of the order be supplied to the State counsel under signature of the Court Secretary.

11.

An affidavit was filed by Shri Arvind Singh, the authorised signatory of Petitioner-companies, in which it was stated as under:

That deponent is employee of DLF HOME DEVELOPERS LTD having its registered office at 9th Floor DLF Centre, Sansad Marg, New Delhi-110001.

That the deponent is neither partner nor Director of any of the Petitioner companies. The deponent is Director in other companies, the list showing details of these companies is ANNEXURE-1 to this affidavit.

12.

Mr. Arvind Singh has specifically stated that he is an employee of DLF Home Developers Ltd-Petitioner No. 8, and he is neither partner nor Director of any of the Petitioner companies. It was further stated that he is Director in other companies the detail of which is given in annexure attached with the affidavit. Those companies were named as:

Sr.No.

Name of the Company.

Date of appointment

Nellis Builders &

Developers Pvt. Ltd.

30.07.2008

DLF Real Estate Builders

Ltd.

04.09.2008

KhemBuildconPvt.Ltd.

31.03.2010

DLF Gurgaon Developers

Limited

19.07.2010

13.

Taking into consideration of all the averments made above, The Registrar of companies ( Delhi), was impleaded as a party to know as to who is the real promotor of the Petitioner-companies. The officer was directed to produce the record of incorporation of Petitioners No. 1 to 8. Mr. Narender Hooda, Addl.A.G. Haryana was also directed to file detail regarding each of the Petitioners, showing as to for how much land, may be agricultural or otherwise, anywhere in the State of Haryana, ''change of land use certificate'' was granted in favour of these companies after the enactment of 1972 Act. The Principal Secretary, Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana, was also directed to file an affidavit to the effect, as to whether at any point of time, it was noticed whether these companies individually or collectively were violating any provision of 1972 Act. It was further directed to state as to when completion certificate is granted with regard to a licence issued under the 1975 Act.

14.

In response to an order mentioned above, an affidavit was filed by Shri S.S. Dhillon, Financial Commissioner and Principal Secretary to Government of Haryana, Department of Town and Country Planning,Haryana. The following detail was provided regarding the Petitioners in all the three writ petitions:

That with regard to the orders of the Hon''ble Court regarding status of the registration as companies of Petitioners, it is submitted that the Petitioner companies were incorporated under the companies Act, 1965 on the following dates as per information submitted along with these applications:

Sr.No.

Name of the Petitioner company

Date of Incorporation

CWP No.826 of 2011

M/s Aaliyah Real Estates (P)Ltd.

23.03.2006

M/s Arnon Builders &Developers(P)Ltd.

09/03/06

M/s Arlie Builders &Developers(P)Ltd.

24.03.2006

M/s Beyla Builders &Developers(P)Ltd.

24.03.2006

M/s Alfanso Builders &Developers(P)Ltd.

24.03.2006

M/s Karena Estates Developers (P) Ltd.

27.03.2006

M/s Zanobi Builders & Construction (P) Ltd.

16.03.2006

M/s DLF New Gurgaon Homes Developers (P) Ltd

31.03.2006

CWP No.1467 of 2011

M/s Chrysilla Builders &Developers(P)Ltd.

10/01/07

M/s Abjayoni Estates Developers(P)Ltd.

28.03.2006

M/s Ethan Estates Developers (P)Ltd.

21.03.2006

M/s Kusumita Builders &Developers(P)Ltd.

24.03.2006

M/s Luvkush Builders (P)Ltd.

20.09.2005

CWP No.1468 of 2011

M/s Dae Real Estate (P) Ltd.

17.03.2006

M/s Hyacintia Real Estate Developers (P)Ltd.

02/04/07

15.

It was further stated that as per the application moved by these companies, for grant of licence to develop the colonies, the companies have shown themselves as the Group Companies of M/S DLF New Gurgaon Homes Developers Private Limited. They have also executed a Deed of Undertaking stating that the companies authorised the holding company to deal with the Haryana Government in connection with the grant of licence to those companies and also undertook to ratify all that has been done or would be done by the holding company on their behalf. Undertaking of the companies was annexed with the affidavit as Annexures R1 and R2. The relevant portion of the affidavit in that regard reads as under:

That it is further submitted that Petitioner No. 8 i.e M/s DLF New Gurgaon Homes Developers (P) Ltd. had applied for grant of licence under the provisions of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1975) on behalf of Petitioners No. 1 to 7 stated to be its group of companies on 15.2.2008. The individual companies before submitting application of LC-I have also executed a Deed of Undertaking with Petitioner No. 8, Inter-alia the said Deed of Undertaking provided that the company authorizes the holding company i.e. M/s DLF New Gurgaon Homes Developers (P) Ltd to deal with the Haryana Government in connection with the grant of licence to the company and also undertake to ratify all that has been done or would be done by the aforesaid holding company on their behalf. A copy of the applications received for grant of licence and copy of Deed of Undertaking in case of two petitionrs is attached as Annexure R-1 & R2 respectively for perusal of this Hon''ble Court. Similar Deed of Undertakings have also been executed by the other Petitioners also.

16.

Details regarding ownership of land owned by each of the Petitioner and the Petitioners in the other connected cases, the date on which the licences were granted to them was also furnished in the affidavit. The relevant para

5(i) of the affidavit reads thus:

5.i)As regards point No. 4(i), it is humbly submitted that the CLU permission is granted under the provisions of Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963, as applicable to the State of Haryana and till date no CLU permission has been granted to any of the Petitioner companies. It is however, clarified that grant of licence for development of colonies under the provisions of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and the Rules of 1976 framed there under impliedly involves grant of CLU permission and no separate application is required to be filled under Act No. 41 of 1963. The details of the licences granted to the Petitioner companies as per record are as under:

S. No

Name of the Petitioner

Type of Colony

Village

Area details of licence granted in favour of Petitioner

Details of license granted to the Petitioner

Remarks

M/s Arnon Builders & Developers (P) Ltd.

Commercial Colony, Sector 65

Maidawas

31//4(7-7) 5(5(7-7), 14min(5-0), 7/1(2-12), 7/2(5-8) i.e. 27K-14M or 3.462 Acres.

2 of 2010, Dated 8.1.2010 for area measuring 3.462 Acres.

The application for area measuring 3.462 acres was submitted.

31//3(7-7), 8/1(5-12), 8/2(2-8) 13min(7-19), 14min (2-11)31//3 (7-7)) i.e. 2512K-17M or 3.2312 or 3412 Acres

87 of 2010, dated 23.10.2010 for area measuring 3.2312 Acres.

The application for area measuring 3.294 acres was submitted

M/s Aaliyah Real Estate (P) Ltd.

Commercial Colony Sector 63

Maidawas

24//7min (3-14), 6/1min(3-8), 6/2min (2-8), 14/2 (4-0), 15/1 (4-0), 15/2 (4-0), 25//11/1/1 (1-3), 11/1/2(2-0), 10/1(1-17), 10/2min (2-15) i.e. 29K-5M or 3.656 Acres.

80 of 2010, Dated 15.10.2010 for area measuring 3.656 Acres.

The application for area measuring 3.656 acres was submitted

M/s DLF New Gurgaon Homes Developers (P) Ltd.

Group Housing Colony, Sector 90

Hayatpur

47//9(8-0), 10(8-0) i.e. 16K-0M or 2.00 Acres

The licence No. 22 of 2008, dated 12.2.2008 was transferred from individual landowners in the name of M/s DLF New Gurgaon Homes Developers (P) Ltd. Out of the total licenced area measuring 21.513 acres (172K-2M). Remaining area 19.513 acres is licenced to M/s Laman Real Estate (P) Ltd.

The application for licence was submitted by individual landowners and M/s Laman Real Estate (P) Ltd. For area measuring 23.113 acres.

M/s Arnon Builders & Developers (P) Ltd., 52/525 share, M/s Beyla Builders & Developers (P) Ltd., 473/525 share.

Cyber Park, Sector 62

Maidawas

6//22(8-0), 23(8-0) i.e. 16K-0M or 2.00 Acres.

86 of 2010, dated 23.10.2010 for area measuring 8.356 Acres, out of which 2.00 acres land is licenced to the Petitioners in share.

Petitionersalongwith M/s Baakir Real Estate (P) Ltd. Submitted application on 22.8.2007 for area measuring 8.610 acres.

M/s Beyla Builders & Developers (P) Ltd.

Cyber Park, Sector 62.

Maidawas

24//3min (3-7) or 0.418 Acre.

86 of 2010, dated 23.10.2010 for area measuring 8.356 Acres, out of which 0.418 acres land is licenced to the Petitioner.

Petitionersalongwith M/s Baakir Real Estate (P) Ltd. Submitted application on 22.8.2007 for area measuring 8.610 acres.

M/s Arnon Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 1/8 share, M/s Arlie Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 7/8 share.

Residential Plotted Colony, Sector 60, 61,62,63

Maidawas

22//6min (0-14), 17//1min (1-12), 18/1/1min (1-17), 18/1/2min (0-10) i.e. 4K-13M or 0.581 Acre.

64 of 2010, dated 21.8.2010 for area measuring 151.569 Acres. The licence is granted to the Petitioners who owned the land in shares. It is submitted that the Petitioners alongwith other individual landowners and companies applied for licence.

M/s KrrishBuildtech (P) Ltd. Have executed Collaboration Agreement for developing Residential Plotted Colony.

M/s Beyla Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 304/412 share, M/s Karena Real Estate (P) Ltd. 108/412 share.

Residential Plotted Colony, Sector 60,61,62,63

Maidawas

46//5 (7-14), 6/1 (5-0), 7(7-7), 47//1 (0-11) i.e. 20K-12M or 2.575 Acres.

The remarks are mentioned at serial No. 7 above.

M/s AaliyahReal Estate (P) Ltd. 21/206 share, M/s Karena Real Estate (P) Ltd. 185/206 share & M/s Aaliyah Real Estate (P) Ltd. 63/702 share, M/s Karena Real Estate (P) Ltd. 639/702 share.

Residential Plotted Colony, Sector 60, 61,62,63

Maidawas

46//20/1/1 (5-3) or 0.644 Acre. & 46//10(8-0), 11/1 (1.11) i.e. 9K-11M or 1.194 Acre Total : 14K-14M or 1.838 Acres.

The remarks are mentioned at serial No. 7 above.

10)

M/s Beyla Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 473/525 Share, M/s Arnon Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 52/525 share & M/s Arnon Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 1/20 share, M/s Beyla Builders & Developers (P) Ltd. 9/20 share.

Residential Plotted Colony, Sector 60, 61, 62, 63

Maidawas

6//21/2(4-0), 22(8-0), 24(6-5), 23 (8-0) i.e. 26K-5M or 3.281 Acres & 22//14(8-0) or 1.00 Acre. Share � -4K-0M or 0.50 Acre. Total: 30K-5M or 3.781 Acres.

The remarks are mentioned at serial No. 7 above.

11)

M/s Arlie Builders & Developers (P) Ltd.

Residential Plotted Colony, Sector 60,61,62,63

Maidawas

46//9(8-0), 12(8-0), 13/1(7-12), 19/1(6-18) i.e. 30K-10M or 3.813 Acres & 46//8/2(7-12) or 0.95 Acre. Total: 38K-2M or 4.762 Acres.

64 of 2010 dated 21.8.2010 for area measuring 151.569 Acres. The licence is granted to the Petitioners who owned the land in shares. It is submitted that the Petitioners alongwith other individual landowners and companies applied for licence.

The remarks are mentioned at serial No. 7 above.

12)

M/s Beyla Builders & Developers (P) Ltd.

Residential Plotted Colony, Sector 60, 61, 62, 63

Maidawas

26//21/3(2-15), 27//25/2/2 (2-10) i.e. 5K-5M or 0.656 Acre

Taksim by Revenue Court on 11.8.2008. The remarks are mentioned at serial No. 7 above.

13)

M/s Karena Real Estate (P) Ltd.

Residential Plotted Colony, Sector 60, 61, 62, 63

Maidawas

45//6/2(4-13) or 0.581 Acre.

The remarks are mentioned at serial No. 7 above.

14)

M/s Alfanso Builders & Developers (P) Ltd

Residential Plotted Colony, Sector 60, 61, 62, 63

Maidawas

46//8/1 (0-8), 13/2(0-8) i.e. 0K-16M or 0.1 Acre.

The remarks are mentioned at serial No. 7 above

15)

M/s Luvkush Builders & Developers (P) Ltd

Residential Plotted Colony, Sector 60, 61, 62, 63

Ullawas

36//5/2min (0-11), 14min(0-12) Share 0K-11.5M or 0.072 Acre & 37//1/2(1-1), 10(6-16), 7K-17M or 0.981 Acre. Total: 8K-8.5M or 1.0531 Acre.

The remarks are mentioned at serial No. 7 above

17.

It was further mentioned that regarding applicability of the provisions of 1972 Act, while granting licences to the companies, were not noticed. It was simply stated that the licence(s) was granted by one department whereas the application of the provisions of 1972 Act, is to be seen by another department. It reads thus:

(ii) Regarding applicability of the provision of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, it is submitted that Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as Act of 1972) is applicable in Haryana. While examining the ownership documents of the developer companies, the issue regarding holding of land by the company beyond the limits prescribed under the Act of 1972 was not examined by this Department, as the Department of Town and Country Planning is not an Administrative Department for the Act of 1972. The issue regarding holding of land beyond the permissible limits is regulated by the revenue authorities for which powers have been given to the Collector/Prescribed Authority under the Act of 1972. In this regard a letter-dated 31.3.2011 has been written to the concerned Department for appropriate action under intimation to the department of Town and Country Planning. A true copy of the letter-dated 31.3.2011 is attached herewith as Annexure R-3. It is also submitted that now any colonizer applying for grant of licence under the provisions of Act of 1975 is also required to file an affidavit that he has not violated the provisions of Act of 1972 and if it is found at any point of time that provisions of this have been violated by him, the Letter of Intent/Licence granted in respect of land shall be deemed to be void abinitio and he will indemnify Director/Government for any loss occurred due to this misrepresentation, if any.

18.

Shri Dhillon has further stated that a letter has been written to the concerned department to get the necessary information, however, no information was placed on record thereafter, in that regard. It is necessary to mention here that in the meantime, the Petitioners through their counsel have also put on record many documents to show that the Petitioners No. 1 to 7 have nothing to do with Petitioner No.8. To the same effect a statement was also made by their counsel in Court. Taking note of the facts mentioned above, on 4.4.2011, the following order was passed by this Court.

Counsel, who has put in appearance for Registrar of Companies at Delhi, informs us that all the Promoters Directors of the Petitioner companies in CWP No. 826 of 2011 were the same, however, subsequent thereto, Directors were changed on different dates. Even in the list of changed Directors, one or two Directors are the same in all the Companies.

19.

Information sought by us has been put on record by Mr. Hooda.

20.

Mr Aggarwal is directed to file an affidavit stating as to who were the Promoters Directors of all the Companies in all the three writ petitions, what was their Share Capital, when Directors were changed and who are Directors at present. It be specifically stated in the affidavit as to whether Promoters and Directors and the present Directors are/ were Directors of any other Company or not during the last ten years. Regarding the present Directors, their inter-se their relationship be also stated in the affidavit.

21.

As per information supplied by Mr. Hooda, it is apparent that all these Companies were incorporated between the year 2005 and 2007. As per provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972, a land owner, at the maximum, can own 7.25 hectares of land of first quality under assured irrigation. We are making this effort only to know as to whether all these Companies in large number have been created simply to defeat the above said provision of the Act or not.

22.

In the meantime, counsel appearing for the Registrar of Companies at Delhi is directed to supply us information regarding the Petitioners in all the writ petitions. Registrar of Companies through Mr. Data Ram, Technical Assistant, who is present in Court, is directed to give all information to the counsel to supply the same to this Court.

Adjourned to 28.4.2011.

A copy of order be placed on the files of connected cases.

23.

It was noted by the Court that as per the record of Registrar of the Companies at Delhi, the Promotors Directors of the Petitioner companies No. 1 to 7 were the same. However, subsequent thereto Directors were changed on different dates. Even in the list of changed Directors, one or two Directors are the same in all the companies. Not only this, as per the information supplied by the Registrar of Companies (Delhi),in almost all the Petitioner-companies i.e. Petitioners No. 1 to 7, the bigger companies have the majority share holding. Petitioners through their counsel, Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, were directed to file an affidavit stating as to who were the Promoters Directors of all the companies in all the three writ petitions, what was their share capital, when Directors were changed and who are Directors at present, and whether ''Promoter Directors'' and the present Directors are/were Directors of any other company or not during the last ten years. It is a fact that all these companies were incorporated between the year 2005 and 2007.

24.

In response to our order mentioned above, an affidavit dated 26.4.2011 of Mr. Arvind Singh was placed on record. A perusal thereof indicates that almost in all the cases Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat and Mr. Vipen Jindal were having majority share holdings along with M/S DLF Estate Developers Limited and M/s DLF Home Developers Limited.

25.

The original share capital of almost all the companies was shown as Rs. 1 lac.

26.

During the proceedings in this case, record was summoned from the office of Registrar of Companies Delhi, including the financial statements filed by the companies in that office, on perusal thereof, it is noted that transactions worth many crores of rupees were done by the Petitioners in these cases.

27.

Under similar circumstances five more companies namely ,(i) M/s Morgan Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd, (ii) M/s Morven Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd, (iii) M/s Jesen Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd, (iv) M/s Jingle Builders & Developers Pvt. Ltd and (v) M/s Gavel Builders & Construction Pvt. Ltd. filed three writ petitions bearing No. 10261 of 2010, 11140 of 2010 and 13870 of 2010. On 6.4.2011 a prayer was made to withdraw those writ petitions. Taking note of the same and also noticing that the matter is already pending before this Bench, considering, whether there is violation of any of the provisions of 1972 Act, the following order was passed by the Court on 6.4.2011 in these cases:

This order will dispose of C.M. Nos. 5016 of 2011, 5128 of 2011 and 5061 of 2011 filed in CWP Nos. 10261 of 2010, 11140 of 2010 and 13870 all of 2010 respectively. For facility of reference, facts are being taken from CWP No. 10261 of 2010.

28.

Notice of the applications. Ms.

29.

Palika Monga, DAG Haryana and Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate accept notice appearing Vide order dated 10.1.2011, all the three writ petitions, in which these applications have been moved were adjourned sine die to await decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in some pending matter.

30.

These applications have been moved with a prayer to withdraw the above said writ petitions. To the prayer made, no objection has been raised by the State counsel. In view of that we allow all these C Ms and take up on board all the three writ petitions for disposal today.

31.

As per prayer made, to which no objection has been raised, the writ petitions are ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn, however, order passed would not amount to the approval of release of land in favour of the Petitioners, the issue is kept open.

32.

In CWP No. 10261 of 2010, in the list of dates and events and also in the body of the petition, it is stated that the five Petitioner companies are part of DLF Group, which has over approximately 289 million sq. ft. of development area across its business, out of which over approximately 224 million sq.ft. have developed projects and the remaining land is in the process of development. It is further stated that the DLF has been responsible for development of the entire integrated 3000 acres of township known as ''DLF City'' in the State of Haryana at Gurgaon, besides that, many other colonies have been developed in Ambala, Shimla, Amritsar, Jalandhar, Ludhiana, New Delhi, Panchkula, Chandigarh, Mumbai, Calcutta and Bangalore etc.

33.

CWP No. 10261 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of the following five companies through their authorized signatory Mr. Vinod Kumar, Senior Manager (Legal), M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Limited, Plot No. 2, Ground Floor, D-Block, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh:

1 M/s Morgan Builders & Developers Private Limited having its Registered office at P-39, New Delhi South Extension (Basement), Part-II, New Delhi-110048

2 M/s Morven Builders & Developers Private Limited

3 M/s Jesen Builders & Developers Private Limited

4 M/s Jingle Builders & Developers Private Limited

5 M/s Gavel Builders & Constructions Private Limited (2 to 5 having their Registered Offices at 1-E, Jhandewalan Extension, Naaz Cinema Complex, New Delhi-110055).

34.

In CWP No. 11140 of 2010, the DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited having its Registered Office at 1-E, Jhandewalan Extension, Naaz Cinema Complex, New Delhi-110055 through its authorized signatory Mr. Vinod Kumar, Senior Manager (Legal), M/s DLF Homes Panchkula Limited, Plot No. 2, Ground Floor, D-Block, Rajiv Gandhi Technology Park, Chandigarh is also one of the Petitioners.

35.

In CWP No. 13870 of 2010 also DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited is a Petitioner.

36.

In many cases, we have seen that the private companies are mushrooming like anything and are developing the land in the State of Haryana at many places. The development projects run by those companies in Haryana may be hundreds in number. Why it is so?

37.

In CWP No. 826 of 2011, we are looking into this aspect of the matter. In that case, tentatively, we felt that these small companies are being incorporated with a view to defeat the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972. As per Section 4 of the said Act, a land owner is entitled to retain 7.25 hectares of land growing at least two crops in a year. Relevant provision reads thus:

PERMISSIBLE AREA. -(1) The permissible area in relation to a land-owner or tenant or mortgagee with possession or partly in one capacity or partly in another, of person or family consisting of husband, wife and upto three minor children (hereinafter referred to as "the Primary unit of family"), shall be, in respect of-

(a) land under assured irrigation capable of growing at least two crops in a year (hereinafter referred to as the land under assured irrigation), 7.25 hectares; .

(b) land under assured irrigation capable'' of growing at least one crop in a year, 10.9 hectares;

(2) The permissible area shall be increased by one-fifth of the permissible area of the primary unit of family for each additional member of family;Provided that the permissible area shall not exceed twice thepermissible area of the primary unit of family.

(3) The permissible area shall be further increased up to the permissible area of the primary unit of a family for each separate unit: (Vide Act No. 17 of 1976). Provided that where the separate unit also owns any land, the same shall be taken into account for calculating the permissible area.

(4) The permissible area shall be determined on the basis of valuation to be calculated in the prescribed manner taking into consideration the ownership of the means of irrigation, their intensity and such other factors as may be prescribed subject to the condition that the total physical holding does not exceed 21:8. hectares.

(5) In determining the permissible area for the purpose of Clause (a) of Sub-section (1) five hectare are of land under irrigation from privately-owned tubewells, pumping sets, etc., shall be equal to four hectares of land under irrigation from canal as defined in the Northern India Canal and Drainage Act, 1873 (Central Act 8 of 1873) or from State tubewells as defined in the Punjab State tubewells Act, 1954 (Punjab Act No. 21 of 1954).

(6) For evaluating the land of any person at any time under this Act, the land owned by him immediately before the commencement of this Act as well as the land acquired by him after such commencement by inheritance, bequest or gift from a person to whom he is an heir shall be evaluated as if the evaluation was being made on the appointed day and the land acquired by him after the appointed day in any other manner shall be evaluated as if the evaluation was being made on the date of such acquisition.

38.

In CWP No. 10261 of 2010, it has been stated that the group of companies has 289 million sq. ft. of development area and DLF has developed 3000 acres of township known as ''DLF City'' in the State of Haryana. Whether these companies can acquire land to that extent or not, the matter is being examined in CWP No. 826 of 2011, which is now fixed for 28.4.2011. DLF Homes Panchkula Private Limited which is the Petitioner in one of these petitions is also a Petitioner in that case.

39.

We direct the Registry to place a copy of this order on the file of CWP No. 826 of 2011.

The State counsel is directed to supply us the information regarding these companies also, which we have sought with regard to the Petitioners in CWP No. 826 of 2011. The State counsel shall also inform as to when the matter is pending in Court, if the Government is going to give any relief to the Petitioner(s) contrary to the written statement, is it not desirable to bring it the notice of the Court.

40.

Copy of the order be supplied to the State counsel under signature of the Court Secretary."

41.

In response to our order stated above, the State Government supplied information by filing an affidavit of Shri J.S. Redhu, Chief town Planner, Town and Country Planning Department,Haryana, wherein some information was supplied regarding those five companies. Detail of land granting licence(s) to them was also given. Those companies were also associate companies of M/S DLF Homes Panchkula Pvt. Ltd. By taking note of the above said fact, the following order was passed by this Court on 28.4.2011:

Counsel appearing for Registrar of Companies at Delhi, is directed to give us detail regarding 15 companies in these three writ petitions and five more companies, regarding which, we have sought information vide order dated 6.4.2011 passed in CWP No. 10261 of 2011.

In the affidavit filed in Court today and in the record of the Registrar of Companies, names of the Directors are available, further information be supplied as to in how many other Companies, those individuals are the Directors. Detail, regarding date of incorporation, who were the original Directors, what was the share capital, who were the share capital holders, as and when the Directors and share capital holders were changed and who are the present share holders of the Companies, be also supplied.

Mr. Hooda states that in terms of an order passed by this Court on 4.4.2011 and also in CWP No. 10261 of 2010 on 6.4.2011, he needs more time to give the requisite information.

42.

On request made counsel for the parties, adjourned to 13.5.2011.

43.

In this case, it is our tentative opinion that a large number of Companies are being floated with a view to defeat provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 and some other Tax provisions. Our view has now become somewhat more affirm when we look into the contents of an affidavit filed by Mr. Arvind Singh. On perusal thereof, it is very clear that Companies have been floated in a short span of about a month and in most of the Companies original Directors were the same i.e. Mr. Arun Kumar Bhagat and Mr. Vipen Jindal. In view of that we are seeking information from the Registrar of companies. It is also very perplexing that these companies'' shareholding is very less, however, the companies are running its business worth crores by purchasing land and developing the colonies. To know about the working of the companies, we have sought above information from the Registrar of the Companies at Delhi. The counsel for Respondent No. 5 has agreed to do so.

44.

The issue is very complicated, to assist this Court, we appoint Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate and Mr. Gitish Bhardwaj, Advocate as amicus in these cases.

45.

The Registry is directed to supply them two copies of complete paper book of CWP No. 826 of 2011, including interim orders passed therein, forthwith.

46.

Copy of the order be supplied to counsel for the Registrar of Companies under signature of the Court Secretary.

47.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of the connected cases.

48.

At this stage Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, on getting instructions from shri Puneet Bali, Advocate, states that the Petitioners wish to withdraw all these writ petitions. It is not possible for us to deny the prayer.

49.

Ordered accordingly.

50.

However, on account of withdrawal of these writ petitions, we feel that the Petitioners, in all the writ petitions, have forfeited the right to get their land released from acquisition stating whatever reasons may be.The same is the situation in the case of other Petitioner-companies in these writ petitions.

51.

Considering gravity of the situation and after noticing that the companies in the State of Haryana are mushrooming like anything, as in this case within one month ten companies were incorporated by two Directors/Promotors, which clearly indicates that there is some design to defeat the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972 or may be any other tax Statute. Not only this, Petitioner-companies i.e. Petitioners No. 1 to 7 have been promoted by Petitioner No. 8.

52.

As per the provisions of Section 4 of the 1972 Act, a person/owner can retain 7.25 hectares of land under assured irrigation. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajinderpal Singh Athwal v. District Collector and Ors. (LPA No. 1323 of 2009 decided on 9.7.2010) when interpreting similar provisions of the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, specifically held that the limitation of land holding also applies to a company. It was observed as under:

A bare perusal of Section 4 of the Act (supra) would indicate that no person shall own or hold land as landowner or mortgage with possession or tenant or partly in one capacity and partly in another in excess of the permissible area. As per the definition of person u/s 3 of the Act, company, family, association or other body of individuals whether incorporated or not, and any institution capable of holding property shall be a person. Hence, Respondent No. 4-company is person who cannot own or possess any land beyond the permissible area as defined u/s 4 of the Act. Company admits that it owns agricultural land beyond the permissible area as defined u/s 4 of the Act and area under the ownership and possession of the company is about 1200 acres.

53.

In these writ petitions the Petitioners have stated that along with their associate companies they have developed more than 3000 acres of land. If so, We feel that this may be a grave violation of the provisions of the Haryana Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1972.

54 .Besides as above, we feel that there may be only one operating company which is floating further subsidiary companies, with small share capital to save itself from the rigor of the 1972 Act or some other Act, may be to get tax benefits.

55.

Taking note of the facts mentioned above, and also ratio of the judgments of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd and Ors. v. The State of Bihar, AIR 1965 Supreme Court 40, Juggi Lal Kamlapat Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, U.P., , Life Insurance Corporation of India Vs. Escorts Ltd. and Others, and State of U.P. and Others Vs. Renusagar Power Co. and Others, , we feel that it is a fit case in which corporate veil needs to be lifted to see as to who is the operating company. For that it is necessary to look into the annual financial returns filed by these companies with the Registrar of Companies at Delhi. The Registrar of companies is directed to keep ready the record of all the companies in that regard. This exercise needs to be done with regard to other companies also operating within the State of Haryana. The process can be started by getting records of ten companies, to whom first ten licences were granted after coming into existence of 1975 Act. The Respondent-department is directed to keep ready the record showing the licences granted to those first ten companies in association with other companies thereafter till today.

56.

Tentative perusal of record in this case indicates that the Petitioners are only the face companies, the real operator is somebody else. By adopting such tactics the provisions of law cannot be allowed to be defeated. In the State of Punjab by making amendment in the Punjab Land Reforms Act, 1972, a provision has been made in favour of the Developers to retain land more than the prescribed limit. However, no such provision exists so far as 1972 Act is concerned. If a poor farmer cannot retain land more than the prescribed limit, these companies by misusing the provisions of the companies Act, cannot be permitted to hold land more than the permissible limit. Under the circumstances, it is necessary to know as to who is the real operator, if, on lifting the corporate veil, it is established that the real operator company is one or more, the provisions of 1972 Act can accordingly be made applicable.

57.

Under the circumstances mentioned above, we treat this writ petition as "Public Interest Litigation" to undertake an exercise, as has been stated above. The feasibility of conducting an investigation through an independent agency to know the truth, under the supervision of the Court can be looked into.

58.

Let these matters be put up before the Hon''ble Chief Justice for listing the same before an appropriate Bench on 6.7.2011.

59.

In the meantime, it is directed that if any further licence is to be granted to any of the Petitioners or their associates or any other company in the State of Haryana, the Competent Authority shall look into that there is no violation of the provisions of 1972 Act or any other tax Statute.

60.

A copy of the order be supplied to counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Court Secretary.

Aaliyah Real Estates Pvt. Ltd. and Others vs State of Haryana and Others

More clarity. Every judgment.

Judgment