Try out our Premium Member services: Virtual Legal Assistant, Query Alert Service and an ad-free experience. Free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
Swarnpreet Kaur And Others vs State Of Haryana And Others on 22 March, 2021 CWP No.6558 of 2021 #1#
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.6558 of 2021
Date of Decision:-22.03.2021
Smt. Swarnpreet Kaur &Ors.
……Petitioners.
Versus
State of Haryana & Ors.
……Respondents.
CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
Present:- Mr. Aman Pal, Advocate for the Petitioners.
***
JASWANT SINGH, J.
[The aforesaid presence is being recorded through video conferencing
since the proceedings are being conducted in virtual court.]
1. The Petitioner No. 1 & 2-residents of USA, through their power
of attorney holder and Petitioner No. 3-resident of Dwarka New Delhi have
collectively, as allottees of Residential Group Housing Complex, The
Primus at Gurugram, have filed the present writ petition against the State
Authorities – Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana Urban
Development Authority, State Registrar Firms and Society Haryana, the
developer / Colonizer etc. challenging the grant of Occupation Certificate
dated 19.06.2017 (P-13) and the Completion Certificate dated 28.11.2019
(P-21) by the DTCP Haryana (Respondent No. 3) in respect of the Project
For Subsequent orders see RA-CW-115-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH;
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
1 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 26-08-2021 04:00:49 :::
CWP No.6558 of 2021 #2#
developed by Colonizer / Developer DLF Home Developers Limited
(Respondent No. 12); seeking directions to the concerned officials to
conduct an enquiry into management of Project undertaken by Builder; as
also seeking further directions for providing civic amenities and facilities to
the Petitioners at the Project.
2. The Petitioners have relied on various documents regarding the
permission for occupation / completion of the Project in question which
reveal that the Occupation Certificate in respect of the development of
Residential Buildings in the Complex was granted on 07.10.2016 (P-12)
after considering NOC issued by Director Fire Services Haryana, NOC
regarding Environment Clearance, Structure Stability Certificate, Public
Health Functional Report from SE HUDA and Certificate of Registration of
Lifts. In the Certificate (P-12) it was mentioned that the colonizer will be
responsible for the supply of water as per norms till such time the colony is
handed over after final completion or the supply is made available to the
colony by HUDA and till then the potable water will be brought by the
colonizer through tankers, to be charged from the allottees at HUDA rates.
Thereafter, on 19.06.2017 (P-13), the impugned order was
passed wherein Occupation Certificate for community building, shops in
community building, shops and kiosk in the Complex was granted on the
same considerations, for the remaining area of the Complex as admitted by
the petitioners in Para 12 of the Writ Petition. The Occupation Certificate
dated 07.10.2016 (P-12) for the occupation of Residential buildings is not
under challenge in present Writ Petition.
3. The Petitioners have also raised the issue regarding the non
completion of 24 metre sector road outside the Complex and the approach
For Subsequent orders see RA-CW-115-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH;
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
2 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 26-08-2021 04:00:49 :::
CWP No.6558 of 2021 #3#
being provided for the Complex through a private road.
The issue regarding the Condominium Association constituted
in respect of the Complex has been raised with reference to the proceedings
before the District Registrar Firms and Societies Gurugram wherein
favorable orders are stated have been passed by the District Registrar in
favour of the Allottees which have been reversed by the State Registrar and
the matter has been remanded to the State Registrar for fresh consideration
after giving opportunity to the parties. The petitioners further mention that
an Administrator has been appointed in the complex for running the
condominium by the District Registrar Firms and Societies Gurugram,
though they are not satisfied even with the appointment of the administrator
referring to the grievances raised by some other allottee. The above orders
by District Registrar / State Registrar Firms and Societies being dealt with
under the provisions of Haryana Registration and Regulations of Societies
Act 2012 in the ordinary process of law are not the subject matter of the
present writ petition.
The Completion Certificate (P-21) is being impugned on the
grounds that there is no approach road by means of sector road, water
supply by HUDA, civic facilities which are stated to be the responsibility of
the private builder till the time the external services are provided by the
Government. The petitioners are questioning the site visits and the
satisfaction recorded by the field officers regarding the development works
present in the complex.
4. During the course of proceedings reference was also made to
the mechanism provided under the ‘Haryana Development and Regulation
of Urban Areas Act, 1975’ (for short “the Act”) wherein any order passed
For Subsequent orders see RA-CW-115-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH;
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
3 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 26-08-2021 04:00:49 :::
CWP No.6558 of 2021 #4#
by the Director Town and Country Planning can be appealed against by any
aggrieved person under Section 19 of the said Act. The petitioners
admittedly have not preferred any appeal against the impugned order passed
by the Director Town and Country Planning (Respondent No. 3) towards the
issuance of impugned Occupation Certificate and the impugned Completion
Certificate.
5. In the present case, in the detailed writ petition and the volume
of Annexures annexed therein, the petitioners have not referred to any
deficiency or shortcomings in respect of the execution of the layout plan
within the complex & the execution of the internal development works by
the Colonizer. Whereas, the impugned occupation certificate is a step
preceding the grant of completion certificate wherein the permission to
occupy the buildings based on the site reports rendered by the expert
officials fully aware of the norms and specifications as also the no objection
from the departments like Fire, Environment, Public Health etc. stand
testimony to the satisfaction arrived by the Respondent No. 3 to grant
permission to occupy the building and grant the completion of the project.
No challenge is made to the above reports / NOCs and it is also not disputed
that in terms of above condition, the Colonizer is providing the potable
water through tankers.
6. A reference in this regard to the provisions of relevant Rule 16
of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act 1976
reveals that the completion certificate, so far as the Colonizer is concerned,
refers to the laying of the Colony as per the layout plan and the execution of
the internal development works according to the approved design and
specifications. Rule 16 of the 1976 Rules provides as under :
For Subsequent orders see RA-CW-115-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH;
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
4 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 26-08-2021 04:00:49 :::
CWP No.6558 of 2021 #5#
16. Completion certificate / part completion certificate
[Section 24].-
(1) After the colony has been laid out according to
approved layout plans and internal development works
have been executed according to the approved design and
specifications, the coloniser shall make an application to the
Director in form LC-VIII alongwith a demand draft on account
of Infrastructure Augmentation Charges as per the rates
prescribed in the Schedule-B of these rules if not paid earlier in
accordance with the provision of Section 3(7) of the Act.
(2) After such scrutiny, as may be necessary, the Director
may issue a completion certificate/part completion certificate in
form LC-IX or refuse to issue such certificate stating the
reasons for such refusal :
Provided that the coloniser shall be afforded an opportunity of
being heard before such refusal.
The provision of Rule 16 of the 1976 also does not come to the support of
the Petitioners to press for the onus of the external services and the civic
amenities on the Colonizer so as to stall the grant of the Completion
Certificate once the Colony has been laid as per the layout Plans and the
internal development works have been completed. The said Rule rather
negates the argument of the Petitioners.
7. The petitioners except for the non execution of the external
services have failed to flaw the completion of the colony as per layout plan
and the execution of the internal development works by the Colonizer which
forms the basis for the grant of the Occupation and the Completion
Certificate.
8. The Group Housing Project, “The Primus” pertains to
development on 12.531 acres (P-13 refers) consisting of various towers and
will be having hundreds of allottees. The entire project, its functioning and
development cannot be kept at ransom through a few disgruntled allottees
by invoking the extraordinary writ jurisdiction by disputing the factum of
For Subsequent orders see RA-CW-115-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH;
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
5 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 26-08-2021 04:00:49 :::
CWP No.6558 of 2021 #6#
development by norms and specifications certified by the Competent
Authority DTCP Haryana Respondent No. 3 based on on-ground site
inspection reports and NOCs from other competent authorities.
We cannot be unmindful of the fact that the grant of occupation
certificate / completion certificate entails the handing over of the possession
of the apartments, the occupation of the apartments by the allottees, the
conveyance of the title of the apartments to the allottees. The occupation
certificate issued by consideration of the reports of different authorities /
departments cannot be easily interfered with upon the allegations of the
purported or actual violations as it results in serious and grave prejudice to
the settled rights of the residents / apartment owners (running into
hundreds) in their absence, and who perhaps are not even aggrieved by the
alleged / imagined violation, as canvassed by disgruntled elements in
equitable Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India,
1950.
9. The counsel for the Petitioners has referred to the judgment of
the Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Balkrishna Ram versus Union of India
and others” (2020) 2 SCC 442, regarding the power of the Judicial Review
of the High Court inspite of the availability of alternative remedy. The issue
in the referred case pertained to the jurisdiction of the High Court under
Article 226 against the decisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal and the facts
as such of the said judgment in the facts of the present case are clearly
distinguishable. Furthermore, the question of adequacy and efficacy of the
alternative remedy would also depend upon the nature of issues involved
and the requirement to go into establishing of facts (as in present case to
establish by intricate and technical aspects if the construction /
For Subsequent orders see RA-CW-115-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH;
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
6 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 26-08-2021 04:00:49 :::
CWP No.6558 of 2021 #7#
development has been completed with approved norms and specifications
as certified by the competent authority) as against the complex questions of
law and statutory interpretation being involved. The former has bearing on
the present case in hand as also towards the efficacy and adequacy of the
alternative remedy.
The reliance of the petitioners further on the judgment of this
Hon’ble Court in “Dr Amitabha Sen and Anr versus Raj Singh Gehlot
and others” 2020 (3) RCR (Civil) 145 is on entirely different facts wherein
the alteration of the layout plan of the Colony was questioned and
delicensing of the part of the Complex for another use was held to be
without statutory power and authority. No such issue is being raised or
argued in the present Writ Petition.
10. Faced with the afore-stated observations, the counsel for the
petitioners do not press the present writ petition in respect of the impugned
Occupation and the Completion Certificate granted to the project and sought
liberty to approach the Respondent Authority DTCP and HUDA for the
external services, civil amenities i.e. in respect of the external development
works around the Complex.
11. The oral prayer is accepted and the Writ Petition is disposed of
with liberty to the petitioners in the aforementioned terms. The Petitioners
shall be at liberty to approach the DTCP Haryana, Respondent No. 3 /
HUDA Respondent No. 4 regarding their grievances of the external
services, civil amenities in the general area in question. In case the
petitioners approach said authorities with their aforementioned grievances,
the Respondent No. 3 & 4 authorities are directed to look in the grievances
and consider the same expeditiously, preferably, within a period of four
For Subsequent orders see RA-CW-115-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH;
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
7 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 26-08-2021 04:00:49 :::
CWP No.6558 of 2021 #8#
months from the receipt of such representation.
12. Disposed of in the above terms. No orders as to the costs.
( JASWANT SINGH )
JUDGE
( JASGURPREET SINGH PURI )
JUDGE
March 22, 2021
Vinay
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether Reportable Yes/No
For Subsequent orders see RA-CW-115-2021 Decided by HON’BLE MR JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH;
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI
8 of 8
::: Downloaded on – 26-08-2021 04:00:49 :::
Comments