HC vacates stay on granting licences to 4 Gurgaon builders
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Saturday vacated its interim stay for grant of licences to real estate companies namely Commander Realtor, High Responsible, Mahamaya Exports and Anant Raj Industries for their proposed group housing projects in Sector 63-A, Gurgaon.chandigarh Updated: Dec 21, 2013 18:52 IST
The Punjab and Haryana high court on Saturday vacated its interim stay for grant of licences to real estate companies namely Commander Realtor, High Responsible, Mahamaya Exports and Anant Raj Industries for their proposed group housing projects in Sector 63-A, Gurgaon.
The division bench comprising justices Surya Kant and Surinder Gupta passed the orders when the principal secretary of town and country planning department, TC Gupta, assured the court that the government would not jeopardise petitioners' rights till the finalisation of the case in the court. The directions came on a petition filed by one of the aggrieved applicants for the housing projects, Pawan Bhatia of Delhi.
Gupta, who was present in the court, informed through his affidavit that in Sector 63-A, Gurgaon, the government could provide licence for group housing colony on around 75 acres and till date licences for around 26 acres had been granted. However, now the government had decided not to grant licence for remaining area of around 13 acres, for which the petitioner had applied for licence, till conclusion of legal proceedings.
Aggrieved by court's stay orders issued in October, senior advocate Mohan Jain had appeared for the Commander Realtor contending that since petitioners' interest was just limited to allotment of around 13 acres land out of a total land measuring 75 acres, the court's stay order needed to be modified to that extent only.
The petitioners had alleged that despite the applications submitted by the four builders had same deficiencies as of the petitioners, their applications had been kept alive so as to issue licences to them and petitioners' applications had been rejected in November 2010. It was alleged that licences were being granted for "malicious and illegal considerations" so as to bestow wrongful gains to "privileged builders/developers".
The case would now come up for hearing on February 10.