Sangeeta Kumari & Ors. vs State Of Punjab & Ors.

Rupinderjit Chahal, J.

The present Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order dated 23.02.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ Petition No. 28692 of 2025, whereby the writ petition preferred by the appellants challenging the rejection of their applications for sanction of e-Naksha came to be dismissed.

The facts leading to the filing of the present appeal, in brief, are that the appellants were allotted residential plots measuring approximately 100 square yards each in Rosewood Estate-I, Dera Bassi, S.A.S. Nagar, Mohali, a project developed by M/s Gupta Builders and Promoters Private Limited, Dera Bassi after obtaining the requisite permissions on 27.09.2014. Pursuant to such allotment, allotment letters and possession certificates were issued to the appellants. At the time of handing over possession, the developer informed the appellants that they were required to obtain approval of their respective building plans from the competent authorities. In the year 2024, the appellants commenced the process of obtaining approval of their building plans and, in June 2025, submitted their applications for sanction of e-Naksha. Respondent Nos. 4 and 5, who were similarly situated plot holders, also submitted applications for sanction of their respective e-Naksha on 09.07.2025. However, the applications submitted by the appellants came to be rejected by respondent Nos. 1 to 3 on the ground that their plots fell under the Economically Weaker Section (EWS) category. At the same time, the building plans submitted by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 were sanctioned by the very same authorities. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action and alleging discriminatory treatment in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, the appellants approached this Court by way of the aforesaid writ petition. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition primarily on the ground that the controversy involved disputed questions of fact, determination whereof would require leading of evidence and, therefore, could not appropriately be undertaken in writ proceedings. The learned Single Judge also noticed that the appellants had failed to implead the developer, namely, M/s Gupta Builders and Promoters Private Limited, Dera Bassi as a party to the petition and accordingly relegated them to avail of such other alternative remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law. Hence, the present appeal.

Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the learned Single Judge erred in dismissing the writ petition on the ground of non-impleadment of the developer, as no effective relief had been sought against M/s Gupta Builders and Promoters Private Limited, Dera Bassi . It is contended that the developer had already completed the requisite formalities and handed over possession of the plots in the year 2014 and that the surviving dispute is exclusively between the appellants and the municipal authorities regarding sanction of their building plans. It is further contended that the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the applications on the ground that the plots fall under the EWS category, while sanctioning the building plans of similarly situated plot holders, including respondent Nos. 4 and 5, is arbitrary and discriminatory. Out of the 80 plots, 41 have already been granted building approval and, therefore, the appellants could not be subjected to a different standard without any rational basis, particularly in view of the mandate of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel submits that the appellants cannot be relegated to a civil suit or other alternative proceedings when the challenge is directly against the arbitrary exercise of statutory power by the municipal authorities and raises a clear issue of violation of their constitutional rights. It is also submitted that the doctrine of laches has no application to the present controversy, particularly when possession of the plots was delivered in the year 2014 and the dispute presently concerns sanction of building plans by the municipal authorities. It is accordingly contended that the impugned action, being arbitrary and discriminatory, warrants interference by this Court in the present Letters Patent Appeal.

Per contra, learned State counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that no interference is warranted with the well-reasoned order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is contended that the writ petition itself was not maintainable in the absence of necessary and proper parties, particularly M/s Gupta Builders and Promoters Private Limited, Dera Bassi , the developer of the project, and the Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), whose role and obligations in relation to the development and classification of the plots in question are directly involved in the controversy. Learned State counsel submits that the appellants have challenged the status and treatment of the plots on the ground of their alleged classification as EWS plots and that the issue cannot be effectively adjudicated in the absence of the developer as well as GMADA, whose rights, obligations and records may have a direct bearing upon the controversy. It is further submitted that the appellants not only failed to implead the necessary parties in the original writ petition but have also failed to implead them in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The defect, therefore, goes to the root of the matter and cannot be cured merely by contending that no specific relief has been claimed against the developer. Learned State counsel contends that the questions as to whether the plots were validly allotted, the terms and conditions governing such allotment, the nature and status of the plots, the EWS component of the project and the obligations arising therefrom cannot be effectively adjudicated in the absence of the entities responsible for the development and approval of the project. It is accordingly submitted that the learned Single Judge rightly declined to exercise writ jurisdiction, particularly when adjudication of the controversy would require examination of disputed questions of fact and relevant project records. It is further submitted that, the appellants having failed to implead the developer and GMADA even in the present appeal, no effective adjudication of the controversy or consequential relief against the respondent authorities is possible. The appeal, therefore, suffers from the fundamental defect of non-joinder of necessary parties and the appellants have failed to demonstrate any error of law or jurisdiction in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The appeal is accordingly liable to be dismissed.

Having considered the rival submissions, we find no ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, we do not consider it necessary to enter into the merits of the grievance regarding classification of the plots under the EWS category or the alleged discriminatory treatment in the matter of sanction of building plans. The controversy, in its present form, cannot be effectively adjudicated without the presence of the parties whose rights, obligations and records are directly connected with the development, allotment and approval of the project.

The appellants themselves trace their rights in the subject plots to the allotments made by M/s Gupta Builders and Promoters Private Limited, Dera Bassi and to the approvals and development of the project undertaken by it. The developer, therefore, cannot be regarded as a merely formal or proforma party. The nature of the allotment, the terms and conditions governing the project and the obligations, if any, relating to the EWS component may have a direct bearing upon the controversy raised by the appellants. Likewise, GMADA, being the development authority concerned with the planning, approval and regulatory aspects of the project, is a necessary party for an effective and complete adjudication of the issues sought to be raised by the appellants. Any determination concerning the status of the plots, the sanctioned layout or the obligations attached to the EWS component, without affording the developer and the concerned development authority an opportunity of being heard, would neither be appropriate nor conducive to a complete and effective adjudication of the controversy.

Significantly, the appellants have not impleaded either the developer or GMADA even in the present Letters Patent Appeal. The fundamental defect noticed by the learned Single Judge, therefore, has not been remedied at the appellate stage. The contention that no relief has been directly claimed against the developer does not, by itself, dispense with its presence where the adjudication sought may have a direct bearing upon its rights and obligations arising out of the development and allotment of the project. Equally, the absence of GMADA assumes significance when the very status and regulatory framework of the project form part of the factual foundation of the appellants’ claim.

In the circumstances, the learned Single Judge was justified in declining to adjudicate upon the matter in exercise of writ jurisdiction, particularly when the controversy involves factual and technical aspects requiring examination of the relevant project records and when necessary parties have not been brought before the Court.

We, therefore, refrain from expressing any opinion on the merits of the claim of the appellants, including the issue of EWS classification, the allegation of discrimination and the applicability of the Government notification relied upon by them. The appellants have failed to demonstrate any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has rightly relegated the appellants to avail of such alternative remedy as may be available to them in accordance with law.

The present appeal consequently fails and is dismissed. It is, however, clarified that none of the observations made herein shall be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the underlying dispute, and the appellants shall be at liberty to avail of such remedies as may be available to them in accordance with law.

Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.