As per case facts, the Petitioner, a developer, faced a dispute with PUDA over External Development Charges (EDC) despite a civil court decree favoring the petitioner, which is now in ... appeal. The Petitioner's land was acquired for a Master Plan road, and an award was passed, but compensation was not released. The Petitioner also claimed losses due to less saleable area and illegal transfer of land for EWS without compensation, requesting adjustment against outstanding EDC. The High Court was approached because respondents denied compensation based on a policy. The question arose whether respondents could withhold determined compensation and demand EDC, citing a policy that seemingly overrides statutory provisions and the petitioner's constitutional right to property, and if mandatory land reservation for EWS without compensation is valid. Finally, the High Court concluded that the policy relied upon by respondents was ill-founded, void, and usurped statutory and constitutional rights. The court declared the policy and relevant provisions of Section 3 of the PAPRA Act, mandating land reservation for EWS without compensation, as illegal, arbitrary, and constitutionally void. It directed the release of compensation, noting that existing EWS constructions remain, but vacant land must be compensated or returned.