Gurugram court stays housing project in Sector 65

A Gurugram court has halted a 12-acre residential project, citing fraud in the construction license obtained by the developer, M/s Anant Raj Ltd.

A Gurugram court has stayed a 12-acre residential project in Sector 65, ruling that the Delhi-based developer and its three sister concerns allegedly secured the construction licence by committing fraud even when it didn’t have any valid land demarcation order for it.

In the order, the civil judge, Jyoti Grover, observed that the court can’t be barred from cancelling the licence since the question of fraud can only be dealt with by the civil courts. (Representational image)

In the order, the civil judge, Jyoti Grover, observed that the court can’t be barred from cancelling the licence granted under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1976, when it has been obtained by defrauding the licensing authority, as in this case, since the question of fraud can only be dealt with by the civil courts.

The hearing took place on October 8 and the order was uploaded on Tuesday.

The project, initiated by M/s Anant Raj Ltd, has come under scrutiny after landowners, including complainant Sushila Devi, came to know that the developer, after procuring DTCP licence, approached the Haryana Real Estate Regulatory Authority for further approval. The owners discovered that an ex-parte land demarcation order had been issued on May 9, 2018, without serving them any notice. The proceedings had been conducted by an assistant collector in Wazirabad.

The order was stayed by the sub-divisional magistrate (SDM) of Badshahpur on February 8, 2022, and fully set aside on April 25, 2023. The developer had challenged the SDM’s decision before the divisional commissioner, and the appeal remains pending.

However, the court pointed out that one of the key requirements for such a licence is the physical partitioning of the applicant’s share of the land. The court noted that the developers failed to disclose the stay order from February 2022 and the April 2023 SDM order to DTCP. “The defendant companies conveniently concealed the stay order dated February 8, 2022 from DTCP, for the obvious reason that it would have disqualified them for such licence right at the threshold,” the court said. M/s Anant Raj Ltd officials, including the firm’s vice president Akhil Kumar, declined to comment on the matter.

The court said that as of April 25, 2023, the demarcation of the land no longer existed, making the licence granted on October 18, 2023, invalid since it was issued for joint, undivided land, which is not permissible under the law. It was further observed in the order that to amplify the matter, they did not even disclose to DTCP the order of April 25, 2023, passed by the Badshahpur SDM, who had set aside the demarcation order of May 9, 2018.

“As a corollary, demarcation of the suit and defining share of defendant companies therein ceased to exist as of April 25, 2023, and licence bearing no. 211 of 2023 dated October 18, 2023, was subsequently granted qua a joint undivided land, which is not permissible under the law,” the court’s order said.

Tanuj Jaglan, the petitioner’s advocate, argued: “The licence had been obtained using fraudulent documents, as the ex-parte demarcation order had already been set aside.”

Meanwhile, the developer’s counsel, Ram Avtar Gupta, said that the company had sufficient grounds to proceed with the project as their appeal was pending before the divisional commissioner.However, the court rejected this argument, saying that there was no stay on the SDM’s ruling.

“The contention of defendants that pendency of their appeal against order dated 25.04.2023 (whereby demarcation order was set aside) before learned divisional commissioner was sufficient ground for them to continue with plotting and carving out colony on the suit land, is misplaced since operation of order dated 25.04.2023 has not been stayed in second appeal,” the court observed.

The court allowed the plaintiff’s petition saying that she had established a strong prima facie case and would suffer irreparable harm if the injunction were not granted. The court ordered a status quo on the land, barring the developers from creating third-party rights.

“The plaintiff has successfully established a prima-facie case in her favour, which is evident from discussion in the preceding paragraphs. Balance of convenience also tilts in her favour. And irreparable loss would be caused to the plaintiff if injunction is refused, since she would be deprived of a substantially large portion of undivided land, some of which may fall into her lap on partition,” said the court order.

The court observed that in view of foregoing discussion, the instant application is allowed. “Defendants no. 1 to 4 are consequently restrained from alienating or creating third party rights/interests/title in the suit land and are directed to maintain status quo regarding further proceedings for colonisation/plotting thereof during pendency of this suit,” it said.