E-Paper
Manesar land case: Supreme Court orders non-exclusion of land from deemed award
Supreme Court said expression transfer used in its 2018 judgment in the Manesar land case was not confined to sale, lease or other encumbrance but also included development and/or collaboration agreements
The Supreme Court (SC) on Thursday said expression transfer used in its 2018 judgment in the Manesar land case was not confined to sale, lease or other encumbrance but also included development and/or collaboration agreements, as well as licences issued (for development) during the suspect period, whether or not in favour of the real estate developer.
The apex court had in its 2018 order set aside the August 24, 2007, decision of the Congress government in Haryana to drop acquisition proceedings for 688 acres in Manesar, terming it as a clear case of fraud on power.
A CBI investigation was also ordered by the SC in 2015. In its 2018 order, the SC had ruled that the award for this land is deemed to have been passed on August 26, 2007, and 688 acres shall vest in the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC) and all licenses granted in respect of lands covered by the deemed award of August 26, 2007, will stand transferred to the HSIIDC.
Consequently, the HSIIDC and several developers, transferees, licence holders as well as associations of allottees of flats or commercial plots, and consumers filed applications before the SC. The primary question which the apex court was called upon to answer was as to the nature of the term ‘transfer’, adverted to in para 42 of the main judgment. The developers and licence holders on the one hand submitted that so long as the lands were not ‘transferred’ by their owners (who continued to hold title), mere grant of developmental rights or other associated rights by instruments such as builder development agreements, collaboration agreements, and other contracts would not amount to ‘transfer’ within the meaning of the main judgment. The stand of the HSIIDC and the state on the other hand was that entering into such development agreements or contracts was in fact a ‘transfer’ as it impeded the enjoyment of title by the owners. It was further submitted that such agreements led to the issuance of licences, which were the basis for ultimately deciding not to acquire such lands
During the hearing, it was submitted that out of the 688 acres finally notified under Section 6, 420 acres were finally included as part of the deemed award.
Out of the 912 acres originally notified under Section 4 for the deemed consideration of objections under Section 5A, only 688 acres were apparently notified under Section 6. The entire acquisition was abandoned by the state government.
“This court, in its main judgment, has in many places held that the state’s decision not to go ahead with the acquisition was mala fide and amounting to a fraud under the Land Acquisition Act,’’ said the SC bench headed by Justice UU Lalit on Thursday.
The bench said the expression ‘transfer’ has to be interpreted widely and not in a narrow or technical manner. Thus, in all cases where collaboration agreements were entered into or developmental rights were parted for valuable consideration or where licences were applied for during the suspect period whether in favor of the original land owner who might have entered into a collaboration agreement and received monies, the transactions would fall within the mischief of transfer, it said.
Land not excluded from the deemed award
The SC said that as a corollary to its interpretation, lands covered by licences issued to Paradise (transferred to Green Heights); Karma Lakeland (for which collaboration was entered into with Unitech); Ram Pyari, Balbir Singh, Earl and Frontier (used by Godrej); Express Greens (DLF); Kalinga and Innovative amounted to transfer.
“With respect to Karma, the 25.95 acres (subject of licence No. 206 of 2008) forms part of the deemed award. The state shall take appropriate steps and issue a supplementary award in respect of these lands within six months of the date of this judgment. Karma is entitled to compensation in accordance with the Acquisition Act as on the date of the notification under Section 4, and is entitled to statutory benefits such as interest, solatium etc. on such determined compensation,” the bench said.
‘Validate title of allottees in Express Greens in 6 months’
Rejecting the contentions of Express Greens (DLF), to exclude the project from the deemed award, the SC directed that HSIIDC to complete the process of validating the title of allottees, including the title to the undivided and proportionate land share, within six months.
With regards to Express Greens (DLF), the apex court ordered HSIIDC to notify the balance allottees about the execution of the sale deed - the process of execution and registration of the sale deed to be completed within six months. It directed HSIIDC to deploy a designated nodal officer to scrutinise documents and facilitate the execution of sale deeds. “All rights, title and interest in respect of the unsold 39 townhouses in the independent floors vests with the HSIIDC, which shall deal with them in accordance with its policies and laws. In the case of unsold apartments, all rights, title and interest shall vest with the HSIIDC. With respect to 96 apartments on the 15th tower which have been completed but no occupation certificate has yet been issued, the DTCP shall ensure due inspection and decision on the pending occupation certificates. All unconstructed and unallotted portions as well as construction rights (such as FAR) in respect of unconstructed, unallotted plots etc., including two school sites, shall vest absolutely with HSIIDC,’’ the SC said.
Land excluded from the deemed award
The court held that the lands covered by Green Heights (2.68 acres) and Godrej project (13.74 acre) shall be excluded from the deemed award upon payment of about ₹13.40 crore and ₹67.36 crore, respectively, to the HSIIDC within six months from July 21, failing which interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be levied from the date of default, the SC said. It also ordered that land belonging to R.P. Estates (2.98 acres) and Subros (10.88 acres) are excluded from the deemed award.
‘Refund amount to allottees for ABW project’
Ordering that the lands of ABW shall form part of the deemed award, the SC directed the HSIIDC to refund the amounts payable to the allottees of the entire project (residential units, plots, commercial or shop space), within the next 12 months failing which interest at the rate of 6% per annum shall be levied from the date of default.
