IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M)

Reserved on: 09.04.2025. 

Pronounced on: 14.05.2025

M/s Bajwa Developers Limited

...Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:  HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present:- Mr. Sunil Chadha, Sr. Advocate, with 

Mr. Akshay Chadha, Advocate and 

Ms. Tanvi Dhull, Advocate, for the petitioner. 

Mr. Mohit Kapoor, Sr. DAG, Punjab. 

Mr. Prateek Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

*****

SURESHWAR THAKUR    , J.   

1. Petitioner-Bajwa Developers Limited has knocked the door of

this Court for the accordings of the hereinafter extracted reliefs:-

“Civil Writ Petition under Articles 226/227 of the

Constitution of India for issuance of an appropriate Writ,

Order or Direction, especially in the nature of a Writ of

Certiorari for quashing the Notices (Annexures P-12 &

P-14), whereby the respondents are demanding the

External Development Charges etc. from the petitioner

Company, so long the amount of compensation due to the

petitioner Company on account of its land which has

been acquired by the respondents to carve out/construct

200' wide Master Plan Road PR7) that passes through the

same very projects (for which EDC etc. is being claimed)

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 2-

is not paid/adjusted and further the claims of the

petitioner Company qua providing less saleable area and

illegal taking over 16.19 Acres land of the petitioner

Company free of cost for EWS are redressed, total of

which would exceed much more than the alleged EDC

amount being claimed.”

2.1 Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a developer and

has developed a residential colony (Sunny Enclave) in Sectors 123, 124 and

125, which falls within the jurisdiction of Greater Mohali Area Development

Authority   (hereinafter   referred   to   as   ‘GMADA’).  As  per   master   plan

approved by respondent No.1, a road measuring 200' wide, passes through

the aforesaid Sectors 123, 124 and 125.   The petitioner Company earlier

developed two residential colonies in the area of Villages Desu Majra,

Fatehullpur and Jhungian, out of which one residential colony was of an area

measuring 31.13 acres, in respect of which Letter of Intent was issued on

04.07.2006 and License was issued on 29.12.2006. The second colony was

of an area measuring 150 acres, in respect of which Letter of Intent was

issued on 03.05.2006 and subsequently an agreement came to be executed

on 22.06.2006 (Annexure P-2) between the petitioner and the competent

authority.   In terms of Annexure P-2, the Government of Punjab, was to

facilitate   provisionings   of   power   supply,   road   accessibility,   water   and

infrastructure required for the project, after the same is applied to the

concerned Department/Agency/Authority/Local Body, but on fulfilment on

various terms and conditions required in the said regard, at such rates/fees

etc., which shall not be less favourable to them compared to similarly placed

projects/customers.

2.2 Thereafter, a dispute arose between the petitioner and PUDA

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 3-

qua   the   payment   of   External   Development   Charges   in  respect   of   the

aforesaid colonies and the petitioner filed a civil suit in this regard, which

was decreed on 06.10.2012 by holding that PUDA cannot charge EDC from

the petitioner, rather more than Rs.1.50 Lakh per Acre, as per Letter of Intent

dated 04.07.2006.  The said judgment and decree was challenged by PUDA

but the same was dismissed vide judgment and decree dated 09.02.2016

(Annexure P-3. Challenging both the judgments and decrees, PUDA has

filed a Regular Second Appeal No. 4594 of 2017 before this Court, which is

pending consideration.

2.3 The petitioner applied for a Mega Housing Project for 205.54

acres of land, which was approved by the Empowered Committee on

22.06.2011. Letter of Intent for the said project was issued on 21.07.2011

and on 16.09.2011, an agreement (Annexure P-4) came to be executed

between the petitioner and the respondents. The permission qua change of

land user was issued on 26.04.2013 in respect of land measuring 159.28125

Acres out of the aforesaid land measuring 205.54 Acres and consequently,

on 18.06.2013, a notification was issued by respondent no. 1 in respect of

the said area of 159.28125 acres.  The said notification was issued in terms

of the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act,

1995 (hereinafter referred to as PAPRA).

2.4 The petitioner applied for the licence on 05.07.2013 for setting

up   a   residential   colony   over   land   measuring   139.376 Acres,   pursuant

whereto, a Letter of Intent was issued to the petitioner on 19.05.2014 and

thereafter, on 23.12.2014, the petitioner was issued Licence No. 22 of 2014,

on   27.05.2015,   whereafter   an   agreement   (Annexure   P-5)   came   to   be

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 4-

executed between the competent authority and the petitioner.

2.5 There was a provision of PR7, which is 200' wide road, in the

Master Plan, which was to be constructed by the GMADA. The land owned

by the petitioner measuring 30.22 acres falls under the said 200' wide road.

On 04.10.2013, the respondents issued a notification under Section 4 of the

Land Acquisition Act, for acquisition of land measuring 5460.65 acres, to

construct the said 200' wide road passing through Sectors 123, 124 and 125.

In view of coming into force of the Right to Fair and Transparency in Land

Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (hereinafter referred

to as the Act of 2013), the aforesaid notification dated 04.10.2013, issued

under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act, rather was withdrawn.

2.6 On  03.01.2017,  the  respondents  issued  a   fresh  notification

under Section 11 of the aforesaid Act of 2013, thus, for acquiring the land

for constructing 200' wide PR-7 road and part of PR-6. Thereafter, vide

notification No. 6/22/2016-6HG/1145237/1 dated 12.01.2018, declaration

under Sections 19 and 24, as carried in the Act of 2013, was also issued with

regard to the land in dispute.   The Land Acquisition Collector of the

Department of Housing & Urban Development, Punjab, passed an Award

bearing No. 569 on 18.05.2018, wherebys market rate for the land acquired

in villages Jandpur, Desu Majra, Rani Majra, Panheri, Bahalpur, Dau,

Hussainpur, Sinhpur, has been determined, respectively as Rs. 31,910,589/-,

as   Rs.   54,654,904/-,   as   Rs.   32,559,047/-,   as   Rs.   26,733,925/-   as   Rs.

8,547,308/-,   as   Rs.   29,403,043/-,     as   Rs.   20,487,329/-,   and   as   Rs.

36,463,639/- per acre, respectively. The said rates have been determined by

taking the nature of land as Chahi, whereas, the petitioner has alleged the

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 5-

acquired land as ‘Gair Mumkin’.  

2.7 The petitioner has not been paid any compensation amount

towards acquisition of its land measuring 30.22 Acres, despite the passing of

the aforesaid Award bearing No. 569 dated 18.05.2018, whereupons, the

thereunderrs determined compensation amount comprising of more than

Rs.295.73 Crores (approximately) along with other benefits i.e. solatium etc.

and interest, thus, is receivable by the petitioner Company. The petitioner

has filed four separate applications/references, before the learned Reference

Court, under Section 64 of the Act of 2013 in respect of each of the aforesaid

villages i.e. Jandpur, Desu Majra, Husainpur, and Jandpur, claiming thereby

enhancement in the compensation amount to the tune of Rs. 25 Crores per

Acre.   The said petitions are still subjudice, as extantly there exists no

material on record, thus, suggestive that the said reference petitions are

decided and thereafters, thus, the apposite RFAs become raised thereagainst

by the aggrieved therefroms, rather before this Court. 

2.8  The petitioner filed a civil suit in the court of the learned Civil

Judge (Senior Division), Kharar, seeking a declaration that the petitioner is

entitled to the claim, the apposite settings off, qua the amounts towards the

EDC charges, thus, as raised by the GMADA.  The said settings off become

rested   upon   the   supra   determined   compensation   amount   viz-a-viz   the

petitioner company, through the passing of Award bearing No. 569 dated

18.05.2018. Moreover, in the supra suit, the rendition  of a decree of

injunction became espoused, thus, for restraining the respondents from

raising the EDC demands, till the espoused claim qua the determination of

compensation   to   the   petitioner   for   its   aforesaid   acquired   land,   rather,

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 6-

becomes finally settled, and also thereins a claim became raised viz-a-viz

rendition   of   a   decree   of   mandatory   injunction,   thus,   directing   the

respondents to release the property of the petitioner, from hypothecation

against the demand of EDC and to direct the respondents to allow approval

of the lay out plans, zoning plans, and other plans in Sectors 123, 124 and

125. However, the said suit was dismissed as withdrawn by the petitioner

with liberty to file a fresh one.

2.9 Thereafter,   a  notice  dated   11.07.2016  (Annexure  P-7)   was

served upon the petitioner informing that as per the record, an amount of Rs.

1578.71 Lakhs, is overdue towards the EDC and Rs. 480.85 Lakhs, is

overdue towards the licence fee as on 30.06.2016, against the aforesaid

residential project for which license no. 22/2014 was issued to the petitioner.

To the said notice, the petitioner submitted its reply dated 27.02.2017

(Annexure P-8). The petitioner received another notice dated 17.02.2017

(Annexure P-9) from respondent no.3, whereins, the total defaulted amount

of EDC as on 31.12.2016, was shown to be Rs. 2581.41 Lakhs, and in

addition thereto, an amount of Rs. 558.89 Lakh, was shown as defaulted

amounts towards licence fee. On 13.06.2017, petitioner was called upon to

pay the defaulted amount of Rs. 2287.12 Lakhs towards EDC. Then the

petitioner sent its reply dated 27.06.2017 (Annexure P-11), whereins, the

stand was taken that the claim of the petitioner towards the receivable

compensation amounting to Rs. 308 crores excluding solatium, be adjusted

towards the outstanding EDC and licence fee; and it was also requested to

waive off the interest as well as penal interest on the outstanding EDC and

licence fee, after the period of purchase of the land for sectoral roads, as

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 7-

there had been no default on the part of the petitioner. Thereafter, a notice

dated 20.10.2020 (Annexure P-12) became issued, wherein, the tentative

amounts of Rs. 8468.66 Lakh (including penal interest) has been shown to

be due from the petitioner as on 30.09.2020.

2.10 Thereafter,   the   petitioner   served   a   demand   notice   dated

08/10.03.2021   (Annexure   P-13)   upon   respondent   no.3  for   releasing

compensation towards acquisition of its land but no response thereto has

been received.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER

3. (A) Learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits, that the

entirety of the compensation amounts as becomes determined under Award

bearing No.569 dated 18.05.2018, but becomes amenable to be released to

the present petitioner.

(B) It is argued that as per the guidelines (Annexure P-6) issued by

GMADA in respect of Mega Projects, the State Government becomes

enjoined, to ensure the purveyings of basic amenities appertaining to

powers, road accessibility, communication, civic and other infrastructure to

the licensed projects, subject to issuance of completion certificate(s).

(C) It is further argued that despite there being a provision in the

Master Plan, qua theirs becoming constructed a 200’ wide PR-7 road, yet the

GMADA failed to provide land sufficient to carve out the said road.

Therefore, left with no other choice, the petitioner company had to purchase

the requisite land which falls under the 200’ wide PR-7 road, from its

erstwhile owner so as to provide accessibility. The total land which the

petitioner company purchased for the aforesaid purpose comes to 30.22

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 8-

acres. Even after buying the aforesaid land, the respondent-GMADA, did

not construct the required road and rather, it is only on 04.10.2013, that the

respondent No.1 issued notification under Section 4 of the Land Acquisition

Act, which was withdrawn subsequently, thus, in view qua then the

provisions of the Right to Fair and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, rather had come into force.

Resultantly, on 03.01.2017, the respondent No.1 issued a fresh notification

under the aforesaid Act, thus, for the aforesaid public purpose.

(D) Ultimately, it is submitted that the benefit of the Award bearing

No.569 dated 18.05.2018 as became pronounced in respect of land

measuring 30.22 acres, owned and possessed by the petitioner company,

thus, is required to be endowed to the petitioner, to the extent, that the

compensation amount embodied thereins, and comprised in a sum of

Rs.295.73/- crores (approximately) along with all the statutory benefits,

rather becoming conditionally released to the present petitioner.

(E) With regard to less saleable area having been made available to

the petitioner company, it is submitted that the petitioner company is further

entitled for the loss suffered by it. The GMADA has carved out too many

sector roads, streets/passages in all the aforesaid three colonies set up by the

petitioner-company, owing to which it has suffered a huge monetary loss,

which as per Annexure P-16, thus, comes to Rs.1035/- crores

(approximately).

(F) It is further submitted that as per notifications dated 07.11.2008

and 18.06.2009 (Annexure P-17 colly), the petitioner company was required

to reserve 5% qua the purpose of creating the dwelling units for housing

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 9-

thereins the financially weaker sections of society. However, vide a later

notification dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure P-18), the respondents imposed an

absolutely illegal condition upon the petitioner-company for mandatory

transfer of 5% area for EWS free of costs for the authority i.e. GMADA.

(G) The abovesaid letter could not have been implemented against

petitioner-company at least with regard to two of the aforesaid three

projects/colonies, thus, for the reason, that the licence as well as the

agreement as became already executed in respect of two projects, rather,

both did respectively, come to be executed prior to 31.12.2013, Therefore,

the respondents are liable to return an area of 16.19 acres or to monetarily

compensate the petitioner company qua the said land, which was, rather free

of cost, thus transferred for the aforesaid purpose by the petitioner.

REPLY

4. Pursuant   to   notice   of   motion   becoming   issued   to   the

respondents, reply by way of an affidavit sworn by the Land Acquisition

Collector,   Urban   Development   Department,   SAS   Nagar,  on   behalf   of

respondent Nos.1 and 3, has been filed.   The relevant contents, as borne in

the said affidavit, are embodied in para 6 thereof, para whereof become

extracted hereinafter:-

“6. That in this regard, it is humbly submitted that the

Promoter had got approved Lay Out Plan of its Mega

Housing   Project   of   205.54  Acres   falling   in  Villages

Jandpur, Sihanpur and Hasanpur (forming part of Sectors

120,123-125, Sahibjada Ajit Singh Nagar), by including

the area falling under sector roads in the calculation of

saleable   area.   As   per   the   Policy   dated   06.02.2015

(Annexure P-19) issued by the Government of Punjab,

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 10-

Department of Housing and Urban Development, the

Promoters, who have included in overall calculation, the

area falling GO under sector roads for calculation of

saleable area, such Promoters will not be entitled to any

compensation for the land falling under sector roads

acquired by the Government. Hence, the Petitioner is not

entitled to any compensation for his land acquired vide

Award No. 569 dated 18.05.2018 for construction of

Master   Plan   Road   (PR7)   and   hence   the   Petitioner

Company cannot seek adjustment of any amount in the

outstanding   dues   of   External   Development   Charges

(EDC) claimed through demand notice dated 11.03.2019

(Annexure P-14).”

5. A keen perusal of the above extracted para unfolds, that the

respondents have taken the shelter of the policy of the Government of

Punjab,   dated   06.02.2015   (Annexure   P-19),   for   not   releasing   qua   the

petitioner, rather the compensation amount as became determined through

the making of an  Award bearing No.569 dated 18.05.2018.    The relevant

contents, as borne in the policy dated 06.02.2025 (Annexure P-19), are

embodied in para (ii) thereof, para whereof become extracted hereinafter:-

ii. Regarding immediate adjust(ment)/payment of the

compensation amount as per the Collector rate in

respect of the said land of the project of the promoters

which comes under the Sector Dividing Road against

the due E.D.C. and licence fee:

A. Those promoters who do not include the land

falling under the Sector Dividing Road in the overall

calculation while calculating the saleable area:-The

promoter/developer shall be allowed without charges

(CLU, EDC, LF/PF, SIF) an additional saleable area of

2.5% i.e., upto 57.5% in his/her project in the same ratio

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 11-

in residential (plotted & group housing) and commercial

component as provided in the project in lieu of his/her

2.5 acres of land for every 100 acres of the project area or

on pro-rata basis as per the size of the project, if acquired

for construction of Master Plan Roads, as compensation.

He will be entitled to have extra density for utilization of

additional saleable area and can compensate this

additional saleable area from the public and semi public

area. However, the area required for parks and open

spaces shall not be compromised.

The above said benefit of additional saleable area

shall be limited to maximum upto 2.5 acres of land

falling in Master Plan Roads for every 100 acres of

the project area or in proportion to the project area.

The above benefit shall be on pro-rata basis of the

area utilized for group housing, commercial,

residential plotted in the project of the promoter.

No compensation shall be given for the area falling

in Master Plan Road maximum upto 2.5 acres for

every 100 acres of the project area or in proportion

to the project area utilized for achieving additional

saleable area, even if promoter does not utilize or

achieve this benefit of additional saleable

area/FAR. This land will be transferred free of cost

by the promoter to the Deptt. of Housing & Urban

Development, Punjab by executing a conveyance

deed. However, if area under Master Plan Road

exceeds the limit of 2.5 acres for 100 acre of

project area or in proportion to the project area

than compensation shall be given on the excess

area at the rate of 1.25 times of the collector rate at

the time of possession of land. This land will also

be transferred by the promoter to the Deptt. of

Housing & Urban Development Punjab by

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 12-

executing a conveyance deed.

B. Those promoters have include the land falling

under the Sector Dividing Road in the overall

calculation while calculating the saleable area:- Since

these promoters have already included the land falling

under the Sector Dividing Road at the time of calculating

the saleable area in the overall calculation, meaning

thereby that they have taken the benefit of the saleable

area, therefore, such promoters shall not be covered

under the aforesaid policy.

C. Those promoters who have already executed an

agreement in respect of land-(sic) falling under the Sector

Dividing Road under the present policy, they will also be

treated under the aforesaid policy.

UNDERTAKING OF DEVELOPER

6. An affidavit has been filed duly sworn by Shri Jarnail Singh

Bajwa, Managing Director of M/s Bajwa Developers Limited, thus, has been

taken on record, through an unobjected order becoming passed on

03.05.2025 upon the apposite miscellaneous application, the relevant

contents whereof are extracted hereinafter:-

“16. That the deponent being the Managing Director of

the petitioner company undertakes that he or the

petitioner company has no objection if after adjusting the

amount of compensation receivable by the petitioner

company against the land in dispute (approximately

30.22 Acres) in terms of the aforesaid Award No.569

dated 18.05.2018 (Annexure A-1) and Award dated

22.12.2023 (Annexure A-2) against the EDC and Licence

Fee due along with reasonable interest, is paid back to the

petitioner company.”

INFERENCES OF THIS COURT

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 13-

7. For the reasons to be assigned hereinafter, the dependence as

made by the respondents upon the apposite policy, thus, in denying to the

present petitioner, the benefit of Award bearing No.569 dated 18.05.2018,

along with all the accruing thereovers statutory benefits, rather is an ill made

dependence thereons.

8. Importantly, the issuance of a notification on 03.01.2017 under

the relevant provisions as carried in the Act of 2013, but is deemed to be

made through a profound contemplation becoming made by the acquiring

authority viz-a-viz  the necessity of acquisition of the subject lands, thus, for

subserving the relevant public purpose. The said application of mind, thus, is

not required to succumb to the pressure of the policy issued on 06.02.2015.

The reasons for so concluding generates from:-

A.  In none of the project licences, as became respectively

endowed viz-a-viz the petitioner,  respectively, in the years

2006, 2014, thus, occurs any condition, wherebys, there was

denial to the present petitioner, the benefit of the compensation

amount as becomes so determined pursuant to an award, thus,

becoming rendered in terms of the relevant statutory provisions.

B. Since after the espoused licences becoming accorded to the

licensee   concerned,   by   the   licensor,   therebys,   a  concluded

contract came into existence  inter se  both. Resultantly, the

covenants embodied in the license, but assumed the colour of

contractual obligations, as created thereunders viz-a-viz the

contracting   parties.   Therefore,   in   case,   any   covenant,   did

become embodied in the apposite licences, whereunders, the

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 14-

licensee abandoned or waived his claim for compensation as

became determined qua the acquisition of his lands, therebys,

prima facie, the said covenant, thus, was required to become

enforced   against   the   petitioner.     Resultantly,   therebys,   the

present   petitioner   may   have   to   relent   from   either   seeking

determination of compensation or assumingly, in case an award

became passed, he may be required to relent from espousing

that the amounts of compensation, as determined thereunders,

being released to him. 

C. Reiteratedly, the absence of the said covenant in the licenses,

as became issued to the present petitioner, thus, begets an

inference, qua thereupons, a right becoming endowed in the

petitioner, to claim that the compensation amount, as became

determined through the passing of Award bearing No.569 dated

18.05.2018, thus, becoming released in favour of the Managing

Director of the company, who has filed a sworn affidavit, which

is  taken  on  record  through  an  unobjected  order   becoming

passed   on   03.05.2025   upon   an   apposite   miscellaneous

application.

D. The further effect qua the absence of the requisite covenant

in   the   respectively  issued  licences   viz-a-viz   the   petitioner,

wherebys the petitioner purportedly forfeited his rights to claim

compensation, but naturally is that, the respondent concerned,

on anvil of the policy dated 06.02.2015 (Annexure P-19), thus,

cannot ill-stall the present petitioner, rather from claiming the

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 15-

determined compensation amounts viz-a-viz the acquired lands,

as became so determined, through the passing of an  Award

bearing No.569 dated 18.05.2018.

E. The relevant statutory provisions, as embodied in Section 5

of the Punjab Apartment and Property Registration Act, 1995

(hereinafter referred to as ‘the PAPRA Act’) become extracted

hereinafter:-

“[5. Development of land into colony. - (1) Any

promoter, who desires to develop a land into a colony

having the prescribed qualifications, shall make an

application in the prescribed form alongwith his title of

minimum twenty five per cent of project land and

irrevocable consent for the rest of land, if it is owned by

other persons, permission for conversion of land use from

the competent authority and the prescribed information,

with the prescribed fee and charges, to the competent

authority for grant of permission for the same and

separate permission shall be necessary for each colony.

(2) On receipt of the application under sub-section (1),

the competent authority, after making enquiry into the

title of the land, extent and situation of the land, capacity

of the promoter to develop the colony, layout of the

colony, conformity of the development of the colony with

the neighboring areas, plan of development works to be

executed in the colony, and in case of apartment

buildings, design, specification of material to be used,

common areas and facilities to be provided, structural

safety and fire safety and such other matters as it may

specify, and after affording the applicant an opportunity

of being heard and also taking into consideration the

opinion of the prescribed authority, shall pass an order, in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 16-

writing recording reasons either granting or refusing to

grant such permission.

(3) Where an order is passed granting permission under

sub-section (2), the competent authority shall grant a

license in the prescribed form after the promoter has

complied with the following conditions, namely: -

(i) the promoter shall acquire the title of land not

owned by him, within the time period given in the

terms and conditions of the licence, and shall not

make any sale or transfer of land which is not

under his title;

(ii) furnish a bank guarantee equal to thirty five

percent of the estimated cost of the development

works certified by the competent authority, or

mortgage plots falling in the same project equal to

thirty five percent value of estimated cost of

development by equitable mortgage deed to the

satisfaction of the competent authority in the

manner prescribed, which shall be marked on the

layout plan and entered in the revenue record;

(iii) has entered into an agreement with the

competent authority in the prescribed form for

carrying out the development works in accordance

with the conditions of the licence;

(iv) has paid, subject to the provisions of sub-

section (6), the Change of Land Use Charges,

External Development Charges and such other

charges, as may be notified by the Government

from time to time.

(4) In case, a promoter intends to revise the layout plan

or zoning plan of the approved colony or building plan,

he shall be required to obtain a revised permission,

subject to fulfilment of all liabilities created due to prior

permission, on payment of such charges and such fee and

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 17-

on such terms and conditions, as may be specified after

giving due notice to the plot or apartment holders.

However, the said revision shall not extend the period of

validity of the license granted under sub-section (3).

(5) The license granted under sub-section (3), shall be

valid for a period of five years and shall be renewable for

a further period of two years on payment of such fee and

charges, and on such terms and conditions, as may be

specified by the competent authority.

(6) The promoter shall enter into agreement give

undertaking to pay development charges for external

development works carried out or to be carried out by the

Government or a local authority.

(7) The State Government shall determine the

development charges and the time within which such

development charges as referred to in subsection (6),

shall be paid to the State Government or to such

authority, as may be notified by the State Government.

(8) The Government may allow payment of external

development charges and other charges mentioned in

such installments, as may be notified by it from time to

time. In such case, the first installment shall be deposited

before the grant of licence and the promoter shall furnish

and give undertaking to pay the balance installments as

per notified schedule supported by such additional bank

guarantee or mortgage of such additional property, as

may be necessary to secure payment of the balance

installments.

(9) The promoter shall carry out and complete the

development of the land in accordance with the

provisions of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning

and Development Act, 1995 (Punjab Act 11 of 1995).

(10) The promoter shall construct or get constructed at

his own cost, schools, hospitals, parks, community

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 18-

centers and other community buildings, on the land set

apart for this purpose or promoter may sell or transfer

land meant for schools and hospital etc. on such terms

and conditions, as may be specified by the Government.

Further, the area under roads, open spaces, parks and

other public utilities shall be transferred to the local

authority before issue of completion certificate.

(11) The promoter shall, reserve five percent area of the

gross project area in the case of colony and ten percent of

the apartments in the case of apartments in the manner, as

may be specified by the Government for reservation and

disposal of such plots/apartments for economically

weaker section of the society.

(12) The promoter shall carry out all directions issued by

the competent authority for ensuring due compliance of

the execution of the layout and the development works

therein and to permit the competent authority or any

officer authorized by it to inspect such execution

(13) The promoter shall be responsible for the

maintenance and upkeep of all roads, open spaces, public

parks and public health services for a period of five years

from the date of issue of completion certificate or till the

date of transfer the same, free of cost to the State

Government or the local authority:

Provided that after the completion of development works

in the colony, in all respects, the competent authority,

may allow the promoter to hand over the maintenance of

the infrastructure and services mentioned in this sub-

section to an association of residents formed under

section 17-A, which shall be responsible for

management, maintenance, upkeep of common areas,

infrastructure and common services of the colony.

(14) In the event of the promoter contravening any

provisions of this Act, or rules made thereunder or any

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 19-

conditions of the licence granted under sub-section (3),

the competent authority may, after giving an opportunity

of being heard, suspend or cancel the licence and enforce

the bank guarantee or mortgage property furnished by the

promoter under subsection (3).

(15) When a licence is suspended or cancelled under sub-

section (14), the competent authority may itself carry out

or cause to be carried out the development works, and

after adjusting the amount received as a result of

enforcement of bank guarantee or by disposal of

mortgaged property, recover such charges, as the

competent authority may have to incur on the said

development works from the promoter and the allottees

in the manner prescribed as arrears of land revenue.

(16) The liability of the promoter for payment of

development charges referred to in sub-section (15), shall

not exceed the amount the promoter has actually

recovered from the allottees less the amount actually

spent on such development works, and that of the

allottees shall not exceed the amount, which they would

have to pay to the promoter towards the expenses of the

said development works under the terms and conditions

of the agreement of the sale or transfer entered into

between them: Provided that the competent authority

may, recover from the allottees with their consent, an

amount in excess or what may be admissible under the

aforesaid terms of agreement of sale or transfer.

(17) Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act,

after development works have been carried out under

sub-section (15), the competent authority may, with a

view to enabling the promoter, to transfer the possession

of, and the title of, the land to the allottees within a

specified time, authorize the promoter by an order to

receive the balance amount, if any, due from the allottees

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 20-

after adjustment of the amount which may have been

recovered by the competent authority towards the cost of

the development works and also transfer the possession

of, and the title of, the land to the allottees within

aforesaid time and if the promoter fails to do so, the

competent authority shall on behalf of the promoter

transfer the possession of, and title of, the land to the

allottees on receipt of the amount which was due from

them.

(18) After meeting the expenses on development works

under subsection (15), the balance amount shall be

payable to the promoter.]”

F. The above extracted provisions, do not, excepting the

envisaged therein contemplations, rather create any fetter

against the releasings of determined compensation amounts viz-

a-viz the land owner. As such, the policy cannot derogate from

the supra extracted statutory mandates, whereunders the

licences became issued. Since the policy has derogated from the

supra statutory provisions, therebys, the policy is ex facie void,

on the ground that it transgresses the specific mandates, as

become enclosed in the supra extracted statutory provisions.

G. Moreover, since no notification became issued by the

acquiring authority, thus, denotifying the acquired lands from

acquisition nor when any writ petition became filed by the

acquiring authority, wherebys, thus, on the basis of the supra

policy, rather the acquiring authority sought the annulling of the

appositely passed award(s). Therefore, the omission supra

leads this Court to firmly conclude, that the policy was made in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 21-

usurpation of the supra statutory provision, besides is made

without the same being well anvilled upon any statutory

provision, as contemplated in the Act of 2013.

9. Be that as it may, the further underpinnings stemming, from the

absence of the existence of the said covenants in the licenses, as became

issued to the present petitioner, wherebys, this Court has made an inference,

that as such, rather than the petitioner becoming estopped to claim the

releases   of   the   determined   compensation   amounts,   thus,   under  Award

bearing No.569 dated 18.05.2018, viz-a-viz   its   Managing   Director,

contrarily rather the respondents becoming estopped to deter the petitioner

from   claiming   the   releases   of   the   compensation   amount   as   became

determined viz-a-viz the petitioner through passing of an  Award bearing

No.569 dated 18.05.2018, thus, inter alia, are:-

i.That the relevant policy being unnecessarily brought to

the   forefront   so   that   therebys,   the   GMADA   untenably

endeavours to escheat the subject estates, which rather become

owned by the lawful owner i.e. the Managing Director of M/s

Bajwa   Developer   Ltd.   and   that   too,   through   unnecessary

obstacles  or  hurdles  rather  being  created  by  the  acquiring

authority against the releases of sums of moneys, as become

determined as compensation under Award bearing No.569 dated

18.05.2018, thus,  qua the Managing Director of M/s Bajwa

Developer Ltd.

iiThat since a constitutional right of property as enunciated

in Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, becomes endowed

to any lawful owner.   Moreover, since the said enunciated

constitutional right to property as endowed viz-a-viz any lawful

owner of any estate, thus, is the cornerstone for protecting the

usurpations of validly vested right, title and interest upon any

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 22-

estate holder, rather at the instance of the sovereign, through the

misemployment(s)   of   the   doctrine   of   eminent   domain.

However, in the instant case, despite the Managing Director of

M/s Bajwa Developer Ltd., being the lawful owner of the

subject lands, wherebys, in terms of well  employments in

respect thereofs qua the doctrine of eminent domain by the

acquiring   authority,   thus,  Award bearing No.569 dated

18.05.2018, became passed. 

(iii)  Nonetheless,   despite   the   well   employments   of   the

doctrine of eminent domain viz-a-viz the subject lands, yet on

the basis of the policy supra, policy whereof for the reasons

supra becomes grossly misapplied by the respondent concerned,

thus,   releases   of   the   appositely   determined   compensation

amounts, rather, has not been made in respect of land, owned by

the   Managing   Director   of   M/s   Bajwa   Developer   Ltd.

Resultantly, therebys, the well employed doctrine of eminent

domain viz-a-viz the present subject estates, has been attempted

to   become   ill-subjugated   to   the   policy  dated   06.02.2015

(Annexure   P-19)   issued   by   the   Government   of   Punjab.

Furthermore, assuming qua the apposite policy did carry some

relevance and also assuming that the stipulations supra as made

in the supra policy, were also embodied in the licenses as

became issued to the present petitioner, but yet, unless in the

relevant acquiring statute, as instantly is the Act of 2013, there

occurred such statutory provisions which, but endowed a right

viz-a-viz the acquiring authority, to despite the makings of the

apposite   lawful   acquisitions,   besides   such   appositely   made

lawful acquisitions resulting in the passing of an award, rather,

to yet obstruct the releasings of the determined compensation

amounts viz-a-viz the lawful owner of the acquired estates.

Therefore, since only on the supra anchor, rather the respondent

could well negate the claim of the present petitioner from

espousing   qua   the   appositely   determined   compensation

amounts becoming released viz-a-viz the lawful owner of the

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 23-

relevant acquired estate.   However, since the said statutory

provisions are absent or do not find existence in the Act of

2013, resultantly, the policy is meaningless, the same being

outside the provisions of the Act of 2013, whereunders the

acquisition of the relevant estate was made. 

10 Reiteratedly, a closest scrutiny of the provisions embodied in

the Act of 2013, whereunders the award became passed reveals, that thereins

exists no statutory provisions, wherebys, after the passing of an award, viz-

a-viz  the  lawfully  owned  estate of the  concerned,   thus,  the  acquiring

authority rather could well deny to the concerned, thus, the releasings of the

determined   compensation   amount   under  Award bearing No.569 dated

18.05.2018, unless, of course, there was no lawful vestings of right, title or

interest over the subject lands, thus, in the present petitioner or its Managing

Director.  

11. Now the effective import of no apposite deterring provision

becoming carried in the Act of 2013, thus, covering the instant situation,

appertaining to the respondents purportedly declining to cause releases of

the   determined   compensation   amount   viz-a-viz   the   present   petitioner

through, theirs making reliance upon the policy dated 06.02.2015, naturally

is that, the said policy is but an ill-contemplated policy.  Moreovers, when

there is no evidence existing on record suggestive, that the present petitioner

held no lawful right, title or interest viz-a-viz the subject lands, therebys,

also on anvil of the policy, which otherwise is beyond the contractual

covenants, besides is beyond the supra statutory provisions, as also is

beyond the embodiments, as made in the letters of intent/licenses issued by

the licensing authority, to the present licensee, thereupons, thus, the apposite

denials could not be made to the owner concerned. If the said are made on

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 24-

the basis of the policy, thereby, the said created hurdles are invented and

spurious and have no effective force in the eyes of law. 

12. Reiteratedly,   and   emphasizingly   the   constitutional   right   to

property as endowed to the lawful owner, and which becomes enunciated in

Article 300-A of the Constitution of India, but naturally required forthright

application theretos, to the lawfully acquired estate of the owner concerned.

After the makings of lawful acquisition of the estate of the present petitioner,

thus, the acquired estate could not be escheated, rather through denying the

determined compensation amounts to the lawful owner and that too, merely

on account of an ill-dependence being made upon the policy supra. Article

300-A of the Constitution of India is extracted hereinafter:-

“300A. Persons not to be deprived of property save by

authority of law:-

No person shall be deprived of his property save by

authority of law.”

13. Now assuming that even if some covenants became carried in

the letter of intent, wherebys the licensee has forfeited his claim qua the

determinations of the compensation amounts viz-a-viz his lawful estate, yet

the said covenant but would also be void, unless pursuant thereto, there was

lawful partings of title by the lawful estate holder viz-a-viz the acquiring

authority. The covenant, as such, on its own strength, without evident lawful

passings of title through the modes envisaged in the Transfer of Property

Act, by the petitioner to the respondent concerned, but cannot naturally ill

tinker with the right of a lawful estate holder to ensure, that its/his lawfully

owned estate becomes not expropriated by the sovereign.  As such, therebys,

the covenant, if any, wherebys the licensee assumingly forfeited his right to

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 25-

claim compensation, thus, to the considered mind of the Court, would be

also void on the ground, that it militates viz-a-viz the constitutional right of

property, as endowed viz-a-viz the lawful owner. Naturally, when the said

right cannot be curtailed, but by any void covenant becoming carried in the

licence concerned,  more especially also, when the embodiment of the said

covenant may rather, be on account of the superior bargaining power of the

licensor/licensing authority concerned, wherebys also, it has no validity

besides the same is unconscionable. 

14. Though  the statute,  in  terms whereof   the  licenses became

respectively endowed viz-a-viz the petitioner, did require, that covenants

becoming borne therein, thus, aligning with the provisions, as embodied in

Section 3 of the PAPRA Act.  The relevant provisions to Section 3 of the

PAPRA Act become extracted hereinafter:- 

“(i) in the case of residential apartments, ten percent

of the total apartments be reserved for economically

weaker section of society; and 

(ii) in the case of colony, five percent area of the gross

area of the project, be reserved for plots to be allotted

to   the   persons   belonging   to   economically   weaker

sections of society, in such manner and on terms and

conditions, as may be specified.”

15. The supra extracted provisions envisage qua in respect of the

residential apartments, 10% of the total apartments is to be reserved and in

respect of colony, 5% of the gross area of project area is required to be

reserved, but such reserved plots being subsequently allotted to the persons

belonging to the marginalized sections of the society. The said provisions are

also to the considered mind of this Court, rather, expropriatory as unless and

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 26-

of course, in the relevant statute, whereunders acquisitions were made i.e.

the Act of 2013, there existed an apposite ousting clause, wherebys the

acquiring authority, thus, in terms of purveyings of the espoused licence,

thus, pursuant to Section 3 of the PAPRA Act, hence, viz-a-viz the licencee,

rather, became barred to make lawful acquisitions of the estate concerned.

Rather since, no such apposite ousting clause exists in the Act of 2013 nor

also when in the supra Article carried in the Constitution of India, thus, any

provisioning   is   made,   wherebys   the   Legislature   concerned   becomes

conferred with the latitude, to but to the obvious financial detriment of the

land loser concerned, rather expropriate the apposite estate nor also when

obviously the competent authority concerned can be said to become vested

with the jurisdiction, thus, for stalling the lawful estate holder, rather from

receiving compensation.   As such, in the absence of such provisionings

occurring   in   the   supra   Article   carried   in   the   Constitution   of   India.

Resultantly, this Court is led to conclude that the said supra extracted

provisions in Section 3 of the PAPRA Act, are naturally constitutionally

void, as they infringe the constitutionally endowed right to property viz-a-

viz   the   lawful   owner.   Since   the   cornerstone   of   the  said   endowed

constitutional right viz-a-viz the lawful owner of any estate, though is that,

without determination of compensation viz-a-viz the property owned by the

estate holder concerned, thus, the respondent as sovereign cannot naturally

expropriate the land loser’s estate.

16. However, yet in the instant case, through the supra provisions,

the estate of the lawful owner has been expropriated, as the lawful owner,

through a statutory  ultra vires  diktat, but  force majeure  has been led to

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 27-

reserve some portions of lands lawfully owned by him for, thereovers, plots

being created for subsequently theirs being allotted to the marginalized

sections of society.

17. The said has occurred without determination of compensation

and as such, the said provisions are expropriatory, besides are outside the

mandate enclosed in the supra Article as carried in the Constitution of India,

as neither thereins nor in any other Article carried in the Constitution of

India, rather is any empowerment vested in any Legislature, to engraft a

mandate, wherebys, the  effective workability of the said constitutional

provision becomes limited or becomes curtailed, as has ill-happened in the

instant case.

18. The only exception to the said endowed constitutional right to

property qua a lawful estate holder, is when the sovereign intends to, through

a competently passed Legislature, thus forward agrarian reforms, wherebys

naturally it proceeds to achieve the apposite constitutional objective as

underlined in Article 31-A of the Constitution of India.   In the instant case,

the supra extracted statutory provisions palpably do not forward agrarian

reforms, as the underpinning of agrarian reforms, thus is to make the tillers

of the subject lands concerned, thus, as owners thereofs.   However, the

marginalized sections of society to whom the reserved plots would become

ultimately allotted, rather are not tillers over the subject lands, therebys, the

provisions of Article 31-A of the Constitution of India, do not come to the

forefront, wherebys, the said exception to Article 300-A of the Constitution

of India,  also cannot protect the supra extracted void provisions as carried in

Section 3 of the PAPRA Act.

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 28-

19. More   emphasisingly,   the   State   is   under   a   Constitutional

obligation to cater to the housing needs, of the economically weaker sections

of society. In that regard, various provisions occur either in the Central or in

the State statutes, whereunders pools of land are reserved, for, therebys the

said reserved pools of lands becoming allotted to the marginalized sections

of the society.

20. It appears that the State instead of satisfying the constitutional

requirement   appertaining   to   its   catering   to   the   housing   needs   of   the

marginalized sections of the society, through releasing to the concerned,

thus,   lands   from   the   relevant   legitimate   pools,   rather   has   through

incorporating the supra proviso(s) of Section 3 of the PAPRA Act, but has

naturally expropriated the lawfully owned estate of the lawful owners.  

21. The apposite pools of lands, wherefrom allotments can be made

to the persons belonging to the marginalised sections of the society, become

so   created   through   applying   the   provisions   of   East  Punjab   Holdings

(Consolidation   and   Prevention   of   Fragmentation)  Act,   1948.   The   said

apposite pools also become created after enforcing such statutes which

prohibit the holdings of lands beyond the ceiling limits prescribed thereins.

As such, the supra created apposite allotable pools, thus, over the lands

owned by the Government or by the Panchayat concerned, when do subserve

the housing needs of the marginalized sections of society, through allotments

thereof being made to the concerned. Resultantly, the instantly created pools

of land for theirs subserving the housing needs of the marginalized sections

of society, and that too, without determination of any compensation being

made to the lawful estate holder concerned, but naturally effectively eclipses

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 29-

the endowment of the constitutional right supra viz-a-viz land owners

concerned, therebys too, it is constitutionally void.   

20. In the light of the supra inference made by this Court, the policy

dated 06.02.2015 is found to be illegal and arbitrary and, thus, is quashed

and set aside. Moreover, the supra provisions engrafted in Section 3 of the

PAPRA Act, which are re-extracted hereinafter, but are also declared to be

void and are quashed.

“(i) in the case of residential apartments, ten percent of

the total apartments be reserved for economically weaker

section of society; and 

(ii) in the case of colony, five percent area of the gross

area of the project, be reserved for plots to be allotted to

the persons belonging to economically weaker sections of

society, in such manner and on terms and conditions, as

may be specified.”

23. However, it is made clear that constructions and consequential

allotments, if any, made over the 5% land reserved for economically weaker

sections, shall remain unaffected by the supra made declaration by this

Court.     Nonetheless   compensation   in   respect   of   the  lands   whereover

constructions are made, be determined through lawful acquisitions thereofs

become  made.     In  case  the  subject  lands  are  vacant, therebys,  either

compensation in respect thereof be determined or the said lands be forthwith

returned to the lawful owner. 

24. The writ petition is allowed and the Reference Court/Executing

Court/Land Acquisition Collector concerned  is directed to, in accordance

with law, thus, conditionally release forthwith the compensation amount

determined under  Award bearing No.569 dated 18.05.2018 viz-a-viz the

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) - 30-

Managing Director of the petitioner-company, M/s Bajwa Developers Ltd.

Moreover, in terms of the affidavit sworn by Shri Jarnail Singh Bajwa,

Managing Director of M/s Bajwa Developers Limited, he is to file an

apposite application before the learned Reference Court concerned, stating

thereins the account number of the GMADA, whereinto the compensation

amount is to be remitted.

25. It is also directed that the fullest complement of the determined

compensation amounts will be forthwith deposited by the respondent

concerned, before the Court concerned and the same shall be, also in the

supra manner, thus, released to the GMADA. It is clarified that the said

deposit shall be, in the manner detailed in connected writ petition bearing

No.CWP-20106-2021, thus, become utilized for the executions of the

incomplete/left over developmental works at the sites of the colonies

concerned.

26. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.

( SURESHWAR THAKUR )

JUDGE

( VIKAS SURI )

May 14, 2025 JUDGE

harish

      Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No

              Whether reportable Yes/No