IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

104

Decided on : 22.08.2025

CM-7877-CWP-2025;

CM-9171-CWP-2025 in

RA-CW-240-2025 and

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M)

M/S BAJWA DEVELOPERS LIMITED . .Petitioner

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

. . . Respondents

RA-CW-242-2025 in

CWP-8941-2022 (O&M)

SUKHJINDER SINGH AND OTHERS . .Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

. . . Respondents

RA-CW-252-2025 in

CWP-20106-2021 (O&M)

NEW SUNNY ENCLAVE RESIDENTS SOCIAL WELFARE

ASSOCIATION REGD AND ANOTHER

. .Petitioners

Versus

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS

. . . Respondents

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-2-

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

PRESENT: Mr. Gurminder Singh, Sr. Advocate

Mr. Maninderjit Singh Bedi, Advocate General, Punjab

Mr. T.P.S. Chawla, Sr. D.A.G. Punjab

for review-applicant/respondent No.1 (in CM-7877-CWP-2025

in RA-CW-240-2025 in CWP-13350-2021).

Ms. Anu Chatrath, Senior Advocate with

Ms. Dhamanpreet Kaur, Advocate,

Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate

Ms. Deepti Singh, Advocate

Mr. Sudhir Nar, Advocate

Mr. Nishant Maini, Advocate

for review-applicant/respondent No.2 (GMADA)

(in RA-CW-243-2025 in CWP-13350-2021).

Mr. Rakesh Dhiman, Advocate for the applicants

(in CM-9171-CWP-2025 in RA-CW-240-2025

in CWP-13350-2021).

Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Aman Sharma, Advocate,

Mr. Yogender Verma, Advocate,

Mr. Chirag Suri, Advocate

for review-applicant/respondent No.3

(in RA-CW-252-2025 in CWP-20106-2021).

Mr. Vijay Kumar Jindal, Senior Advocate with

Mr. Akshay Jindal, Advocate,

Mr. Pankaj Gautam, Advocate

Mr. Navjot Singh, Advocate

for non-applicants/petitioners (in CWP-13350-2021) and

for respondent No.7 (in CWP-8941-2022).

Ms. Puja Chopra, Petitioner in person in CWP-20106-2021.

Mr. Pawan Kumar, Advocate for

Mr. Saurabh Arora, Advcoate for non-applicant/petitioners

in RA-CW-242-2025.

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-3-

****

HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral)

1. Present bunch of review applications involve common point of

law and common set of facts, hence, they are being dealt together.

2. The present review applications have been filed f or the

reviewing of the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Division

Bench of this Court, by which, the proviso of Section 3 of the Punjab

Apartment and Property Regulation, Act, 1995 (herein after referred to ‘1995

Act’) has been held ultra-virus and same has been set-aside.

3. Learned Senior counsel for the review-applicants/State submits

that in the main writ petitions, as there was no challenge to the provisions

of Sections 3 and 5 of the 1995 Act and even no opportunity has been

granted to the State to defend the same, but still vide order dated 14.05.2025,

Co-ordinate Bench of this Court has set-aside the proviso of law, hence, the

order dated 14.05.2025 is liable to be reviewed.

Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the review-

applicant/State argues that the contentions which were actually raised by

the non-applicant/petitioners in CWP No. 13350 of 2021 titled as ‘M/S

Bajwa Develpers Limited versus State of Punjab and others’ was that the

land for building 200 feet wide road which was actually constructed by

GMADA, and the said road was within the area owned by the petitioner,

whether the petitioner is entitled for the compensation of the said land as

the same had been acquired by the GMADA and further whether such

compensation for the land taken for constructing the road by GMADA is to

be adjusted qua the External Development Charges which were payable by

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-4-

the petitioner i.e. Bajwa Developers.

4. Learned Senior counsel for the review applicant submits that any

findings given by the Co-ordinate Bench on the said issue was within the

jurisdiction of the Court as to arrive at a decision but the Co-ordinate Bench

went beyond the pleadings while setting aside the proviso of Section 3 of

1995 Act by declaring the same as ultra-virus and that too without giving

opportunity to the State to defend the proviso of Section 3 of the 1995.

5. Learned Senior counsel for the review applicant further submits

that the same amounts to apparent error in the judgment dated 14.05.2025

itself which needs to be rectified by exercising the jurisdiction under Section

114 of the CPC by reviewing the judgment dated 14.05.2025.

6. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the non-

applicant/petitioners submits that though the primary contention was with

regard to the adjustment of the compensation which the petitioners were

entitled for upon acquisition of the land which was in the ownership of the

petitioner on which land 200 feet wide road has been constructed by

GAMADA and adjusting the said payable towards External Development

Charges, license fee etc. payable by the petitioner, but, the prayer was also

made in the petition that the land which has been taken away from the

petitioner under instructions dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure P-18) is incorrect

and the said land should also reverted back to the petitioner hence, while

adjudicating the said plea, proviso of Section 3 of 1995 Act has been set-

aside and it is incorrect on the part of the review applicant to argue that

without there being any such pleading, the proviso of Section 3 of 1995 Act

has been set-aside.

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-5-

7. Learned Senior counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner though

concedes the fact that there was no challenge to Sections 3 and 5 of the 1995

Act or even with regard to the instructions dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure P-

18) but while considering the plea that the land taken from the petitioner to

construct the housing scheme for the Economically Weaker Section should

be reverted, the said issue was dealt with and the decision dated 14.05.2025

arrived at by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court cannot be made

subject matter of the review and in case, the applicant-respondents are

aggrieved with the order dated 14.05.2025 passed by Co-ordinate Division

Bench of this Court, they can only have the remedy of filing the appeal

against the said order.

8. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the non-

applicant/petitioner while placing reliance upon the judgment passed by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (c ) No. 18983 of

2023 titled as ‘Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh

Division) versus State of Bihar and others’, decided on 19.03.2025, submits

that the Court has power to set aside the provisions of law, if found

unconstitutional even without there-being any such challenge and in case,

the same has been set-aside while exercising the jurisdiction by the

competent Court of law, the only remedy of filing of appeal is available with

the aggrieved party and not the review, hence, the present review application

may kindly be dismissed.

9. We have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and

have gone through the case file with their able assistance.

10. Before proceeding further, it may be noticed that the Co-ordinate

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-6-

Bench while hearing the review applications, has already stayed the

judgment dated 14.05.2025, the review of which has been sought.

11. The question which has been raised before this Court in the

review application is whether, without giving any opportunity of hearing to

the State, the Court had the jurisdiction to set-aside the proviso of Section 3

of 1995 Act, which relates to binding the developers to reserve 15 % of the

total area of the land for the Economically Weaker Section.

12. Further, it needs to be seen as to what was the issue raised by the

petitioner before this Court which lead to the passing of the judgment dated

14.05.2025, the review of which order has been sought.

13. It may be noticed that the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this

Court decided the question of law which was posed before the Court

keeping in view the respective pleadings by the parties qua the said question

of law.

14. In the present case, as per the petitioner itself, on the basis of

pleadings, the following question of law was raised to be decided by the

Court and the same was mentioned in paragraph No. 4 which is as under:-

“4. That keeping in view the facts and circumstances

mentioned above, the solitary question of law which arises for

kind consideration of this Hon'ble Court in the present writ

petition as to whether the respondents, who are a welfare State,

can force its citizen to pay the dues without paying the dues

outstanding towards such a citizen.”

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-7-

16. A bare perusal of the above reproduction would show that the

question of law which arose before the Court was whether, a welfare state

can force the citizen to pay the dues without paying the dues/compensation

which is admissible to such a citizen.

17. Hence, the only question raised before the Court was whether,

without paying the compensation for which the petitioner was entitled for

upon acquisition of certain area of land belonging to the petitioner by

GMADA for constructing 200 feet wide road, the petitioner can be forced to

pay the External Development Charges, license fee etc. which the petitioner

was liable to pay keeping in view the agreement between the petitioner and

the State-GMADA.

18. The said question is not even remotely connected with the

validity of proviso of Section 3 of 1995 Act. Once, a particular question

which arose for determination did not had any direct or even indirect relation

to Section 3 of 1995 Act, the Court could not have decided the same while

adjudicating the lis between the parties.

19. Though , it cannot be said that the Court does not have power to

frame a question in case, the court feels that the particular question of law

needs to be decided but the same has to be decided by framing a question of

law by a judicial order and then giving an opportunity to all the parties to

submit their pleadings before deciding the said question of law.

20. In the present case, the pleadings does not relate to the challenge

to proviso of Section 3 of 1995 Act and there is no rebuttal with regard to

the validity of such provisions i.e. Section 3 of 1995 Act at the hands of the

State or even the GMADA.

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-8-

21. At this Stage, learned Senior Counsel for the

non-applicant/petitioner submits that it is also incorrect that the State was

not given opportunity to defend Section 3 of 1995 Act and submits that in the

counter affidavit dated 24.04.2025 filed by the Sanjeev Kumar, Land

Acquisition Collector, Urban Development Department S. A. S. Nagar,

PUDA Bhawan, Sector, 62 SAS Nagar, the same has been dealt with by

respondents themselves hence, it is incorrect on the part of the State to

contend that without giving any opportunity to the State, the proviso of

Section 3 of 1995 Act has been set-aside.

22. In order to appreciate the said contention, the averments made in

paragraph No. 9 of the affidavit dated 24.04.2025 which is being relied upon

by learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicant/petitioner is as under:-

“9. That further with regard to contention of the Petitioner

that 16.19 acres of land has been got transferred by GMADA for

EWS, it is humbly submitted that as per Industrial Policy -2009

and provisions of the Punjab Apartment and Property

Regulation Act, 1995, the Petitioner Company was bound to

reserve 5% area for providing housing to Economically Weaker

Sections (EWS) in Its Mega Housing Project and 10% area

under residential plots in case of Plotted colony and 10% of

total number of apartments In case of Group Housing Colony

Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). Since the Petitioner

falled to comply with this policy/provision by providing

developed houses to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) of

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-9-

Soclety nor the developed residential plots/ apartments reserved

for this category, were allotted to the eligible persons of this

category, therefore, as per Policy issued by the Government of

Punjab, Housing and Urban Development vide *notification no.

4255 dated 31.12.2013 (Annexure P-18), Petitioner Company is

bound to transfer the area kept reserved as EWS in the approved

Lay Out Plans in Its projects free of cost to GMADA and no land

cost is payable to the Petitioner Company.”

23. A bare perusal of the above reproduction would show that the

reliance has been placed upon the provisions of 1995 Act to rebut the

contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was not bound to reserve the

land for providing housing to Economically Weaker Sections (EWS).

Nothing has come on record with regard to the validity of provisions of

Section 3 of 1995 Act which was put to the respondents to explain before the

Court.

24. With regard to the contention of learned Senior Counsel for the

non-applicant/petitioner, that there was an another affidavit dated 02.09.2022

filed by Jasleen Kaur Sandhu, Land Acquisition Collector, Urban

Development Department, PUDA Bhawan, Section 62, SAS Nagar.

25. It may be noticed that the paragraph No. 9 of the affidavit dated

02.09.2022 is verbatim to the paragraph No. 9 of affidavit dated 24.04.2025

as reproduced herein above, hence, it cannot be said that there was a

challenge to the validity of Section 3 of 1995 act which was being discussed

rather, justification was being given by the State as to why the agreement

between the petitioner and the State contained a clause for reserving 15 % of

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-10-

the total area of land for housing to EWS.

26. Learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicant /petitioner submits

that the said issue was argued and thereafter, the findings have been

recorded by the Competent Court of Law on Section 3 of 1995 Act.

27. Learned Senior Counsel for the non-applicant-petitioner has

further submitted that the Court had the jurisdiction to set-aside a provisions

of law even if the same has not been challenged and the reliance is being

placed upon the judgment passed by Honorable Supreme Court of India in

Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division)’s case

(supra).

28. It may be noticed that the argument can only be based upon the

pleadings and not general argument especially when the validity of a

legislation is to be decided. The State has to be given due opportunity to

defend the same before any finding is recorded on the said issue. Nothing has

come on record that at any given point of time before passing the order dated

14.05.2025, the State was given the opportunity to present its view with

regard to the reserving of 15 % of area by a developers in favour of the

economical weaker section, which provisions relates to uplifting a particular

section of a society, which was being done as per Sections 3 &5 of 1995

Act.

29. Further, with regard to the reliance being placed onBihar Rajya

Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division)’s case (supra), it may be

noticed that the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the above mentioned case

has dealt with a contention as to whether any provision which has not been

challenged can be set-aside by the Court or not.

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-11-

30 In this regard, the relevant observations/paragraphs of the

judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar Rajya

Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division)’s case (supra) are as

under:-

“28. The next contention that the offending proviso was

not under challenge in the writ petition and, therefore, the

Division Bench ought not to have struck it down is liable to be

rejected for the reason that follows.

29. Several decisions have been cited in support

of the aforesaid contention. We need not refer to them

individually.

30. Law is well settled that a law, be it a primary

legislation or a subordinate legislation (rules, regulations or

orders made under the authority of a primary legislation),

cannot be struck down by a court unless there is a direct

challenge to such legislation. It is also a well-established

principle of Constitutional Law that constitutional questions

should not be decided in vacuum and that they must be decided

only if and when they arise properly on the pleadings of a given

case and where it is found necessary to decide them for a proper

decision of the case.

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-12-

31. However, the common thread that runs through all

these precedents laying down such law is that the party

aggrieved in each case, seeking relief from the court, omitted to

lay a challenge to the law and the said omission impeded the

grant of relief to such party.

32. The situation here is completely different. The

respondent no.7 was seeking relief from the High Court relying

on the offending proviso. In a case where the party aggrieved

seeks enforcement of a provision of a rule, which is seemingly

unconstitutional, would he raise the plea of its 18

unconstitutionality? It would be imprudent for him to do so and

hence, the answer cannot but be in the negative. While

considering the plea of the respondent no.7, the Division Bench

found the offending proviso to be so obtrusively unconstitutional

that notwithstanding absence of a specific challenge thereto, it

proceeded to declare the same as void. Although the Division

Bench had no occasion to refer to the decisions that we have

referred to above, nothing much turns on it. The Division Bench

must be presumed to be aware of the law on the subject that

appointment cannot be claimed as a hereditary right and, thus,

without even a challenge being laid to the offending proviso

thought of striking it down. We do not see any illegality in such

an approach.

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-13-

33. However, a caution needs to be sounded.

While not suggesting for a moment that the course of action

which the Division Bench adopted in this case can routinely be

adopted, we see no reason as to why the power to suo motu

declare a subordinate legislation invalid, on the ground of its

being manifestly contrary to a Fundamental Right read with

binding precedents in terms of Article 141, should not be

conceded to be within the vast reserve of powers of the

Constitutional Courts. Though exercise of powers, suo motu, in

an appropriate case in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226

of the Constitution cannot be doubted, it is indubitable that such

power has to be exercised sparingly and with due care, caution

and circumspection. We are minded and do hold that, a writ

court, when it finds its conscience to be pricked in a rare and

very exceptional case by the patent unconstitutionality of a

subordinate legislation connected 19 with the issue it is seized

of, may, upon grant of full opportunity to the State to defend the

subordinate legislation and after hearing it, grant a declaration

as to unconstitutionality and/or invalidity of such legislation.

After all, as the sentinel on the qui vive, it is not only the duty of

the writ courts in the country to enforce Fundamental Rights of

individuals, who approach them, but it is equally the duty of the

writ courts to guard against breach of Fundamental Rights of

others by the three organs of the State. This power is a plenary

power resident in all the Constitutional Courts. Should, in a

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-14-

given case, it be found that there has been an egregious

violation of a Fundamental Right as a result of operation of a

subordinate legislation and the issue is concluded by a binding

decision of this Court, we consider it the duty of the writ courts

to deliver justice by declaring the subordinate legislation void to

safeguard rights of others who might not still have been affected

thereby. We reiterate, it can only be done rarely and in cases

which stand out from the ordinary.

34. Consciously, we have deliberately kept primary

legislation out of the sweep of such power firstly, in deference to

legislative actions, which are presumed to be constitutional,

secondly, because of the position it holds in the hierarchy of

laws, and thirdly, because we know of no decision of this Court

where a primary legislation was outlawed without a formal

challenge being laid or a decision of a writ court striking down

a primary legislation not under challenge being upheld.

35. It is not that a presumption of

constitutionality is not to be drawn qua subordinate legislation;

but, when a challenge to the constitutionality of 20 a

subordinate legislation is examined, like a rule framed not in

exercise of conferment of power by a statute but in terms of the

proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution (as in the present

case), it is open to the court to apply a more nuanced approach.

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-15-

After all, a subordinate legislation is seen as removed from the

democratic process that is closely knit with primary legislation

and hence, a more rigorous scrutiny in appropriate cases may

not be inapt. The level of presumption may indeed vary,

depending on factors such as (i) the nature of the subordinate

legislation; (ii) the extent it is found to be in derogation either of

the Constitution or the parent legislation which is its source;

(iii) the exigencies and the manner in which the subordinate

legislation is brought into force; and (iv) the potential impact on

individual rights as well as public interest.

36. We are more than certain that should the

State, in such a case of declaration of a subordinate legislation

as void without a direct challenge being laid, consider itself

aggrieved, it would surely approach the superior court to have

such declaration annulled. Interestingly, in the present case, it is

not the State but the beneficiaries of the offending proviso who

seek annulment of the declaration made by the Division Bench,

giving us good reason to believe that the respondent no. 1 is not

aggrieved. In the absence of a challenge from the respondent no.

1 and its acceptance of the impugned judgment and order, the

members of the petitioning union who are mere beneficiaries do

not have a better claim.”

31. A bare perusal of the above reproduction would show that the

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-16-

observation has been given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India while

passing judgment in Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh

Division)’s case (supra) with regard to the setting aside of the provisions of

law which was being relied upon a particular party to claim a relief and the

Court has come to the conclusion that the relief cannot be granted based

upon such law, which according to the Court is ultra-virus.

32. It is further clear from the said reproduction that even while

doing such exercise due opportunity is to be given to the State or the

Authority, which has brought into such rules, regulations and legislation.

Hence, the observations made by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Bihar

Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh Division)’s case (supra) is

on an entirely different facts especially when, in the present case, the setting

aside of the provisions of Section 3 of 1995 Act and the consequential

polices which have been issued by the State including Annexure P-19 is

by accepting the plea of the non-applicant/petitioner that the same is causing

prejudice to the developers hence, the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme

Court of India in Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar Panchayat (Magadh

Division)’s case (supra) in paragraphs No. 31 and 32 are on the particular

facts and not a general principle i.e. without granting of opportunity to the

agency which enacted the particular provisions which is being set aside, due

opportunity has to be given to the State.

33. From the facts which have been narrated herein before with

regard to the validity of Section 3 of 1995, it is clear that no opportunity had

been afforded to the respondents by the Court before recording the findings

in the order dated 14.05.2025 and rather, from a bare perusal of the order

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-17-

passed it can be seen that no stand of the State is even noticed in the

impugned order while adjudicating the validity of proviso of Section 3 of

1995 Act.

34. The last argument of the learned Senior counsel for the non-

applicant/petitioner is that even where legislation has been set-aside, the

only remedy available is to file an appeal and not review and the reliance is

being placed upon paragraph No. 36 of the Bihar Rajya Dafadar Chaukidar

Panchayat (Magadh Division)’s case (supra) passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court of India, which paragraph has already been reproduced

herein above.

35. It may be noticed that it is only in the case where after due

opportunity to the State, any provisions enacted by the State has been set-

aside, the remedy will be appeal but where, any provisions of law has been

set-aside, which is beyond the pleading or without giving due opportunity to

the State to defend, the remedy of review will be open keeping in view the

judgment passed by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No.

5798-99 of 2008 titled as Bachhaj Nahar versus Nilima Mandal and

Another, decided on 23.09.2008. The relevant paragraph No. 13 of the said

judgment is as under:-

“13.

The object of issues is to identify from the pleadings the

questions or points required to be decided by the courts so as

to enable parties to let in evidence thereon. When the facts

necessary to make out a particular claim, or to seek a

particular relief, are not found in the plaint, the court cannot

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-18-

focus the attention of the parties, or its own attention on that

claim or relief, by framing an appropriate issue. As a result

the defendant does not get an opportunity to place the facts

and contentions necessary to repudiate or challenge such a

claim or relief. Therefore, the court cannot, on finding that the

plaintiff has not made out the case put forth by him, grant

some other relief. The question before a court is not whether

there is some material on the basis of which some relief can be

granted. The question is whether any relief can be granted,

when the defendant had no opportunity to show that the relief

proposed by the court could not be granted. When there is no

prayer for a particular relief and no pleadings to support such

a relief, and when defendant has no opportunity to resist or

oppose such a relief, if the court considers and grants such a

relief, it will lead to miscarriage of justice. Thus it is said that

no amount of evidence, on a plea that is not put forward in the

pleadings, can be looked into to grant any relief.

”

36. Not only this, another aspect has to be looked into as to whether.

on the date of the decision dated 14.05.2025, Sections 3 & 5 of the 1995 Act

which have been set-aside was in the Rule Book or not?

37. It may be noticed that proviso of Section 3 of 1995 Act, which

has been noticed in the judgment dated 14.05.2025 was not the part of the

Statute on the date of the order passed by Co-ordinate Bench as the same

had already been amended in the year 2021 which fact has been ignored by

the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court while passing the order dated

14.05.2025. The amended provision has not been noticed by learned Co-

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-19-

ordinate Bench. Once, Section 3 of the 1995 Act had already been amended

and the amended Statute has not been looked into, setting aside the un-

amended section 3 of the 1995 Act, it will be a mistake apparent on record

so as to give the power of review to the Court.

38. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of th e non-

applicant/petitioner concedes that the provisions of Section 3 of 1995 Act

noticed in the judgment dated 14.05.2025 stood amended in the year 2021

and the amended provisions have not been taken into consideration but the

Division Bench, which clearly shows that there is an apparent mistake in the

judgment itself which needs to be looked into and will be within the

parameters of Section 114 of CPC as well Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC.

39. Further, it may be noticed that the setting aside of the Proviso of

Section 3 of the 1995 Act has a ramification qua the whole of the State Of

Punjab and the license given not only to the petitioner but to all other

developers qua the reservation of land for the Community of Economically

Weaker Section at a subsidized rates by invoking Sections 3 & 5 of 1995

Act. Hence, the view of the State was very necessary and the State was

required to be given due opportunity to defend the provisions of law before

any consideration to be given qua the provisions of Section 3 of 1995 Act as

the said issue is not only related to the petitioner but to all the developers in

the State of Punjab.

40. Keeping in view the totality of facts and circumstances noticed

herein above as there is an apparent mistake on facts i.e. unamended Section

3 of 1995 Act but has been considered and set-aside and that too without

noticing the amended provisions which exist on the date of judgment passed

RA-CW-243-2025 in

CWP-13350-2021 (O&M) and connected cases

-20-

by learned Co-ordinate Bench, the review applications are allowed.

Consequently, the order dated 14.05.2025 is re-called and the main writ

petitions are restored to its original number and status.

CWP-13350-2021

CWP-8941-2022

CWP-20106-2021

To be listed as per Roster.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected

case.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI)

JUDGE

( VIKAS SURI )

JUDGE

22.08.2025

Riya

Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No

Whether Reportable: Yes/No