Delve into the depths of a legal case involving land acquisition and development disputes. Discover the intricate legal analysis carried out by the court, focusing on collaboration agreements, ownership rights, and compensation issues. Gain insights into the implications of license transfers and the rights of various parties involved. Stay tuned for a detailed exploration of the complex legal landscape surrounding this intriguing case.
Facts
- Paradise entered into a collaboration agreement with Green Heights for the development of lands, receiving ₹ 28.40 crores as consideration.
- License No. 59 of 2009 was granted to Paradise on 26.10.2009, and License No. 59 referred to in the collaboration agreement was valid until 25.10.2013.
- Another collaboration agreement was entered into with M/s. Green Heights Projects Pvt. Ltd. on 30.03.2013 for ₹ 75 lakhs as consideration, after which Paradise refunded all amounts received and annulled the transaction.
- Balbir Singh and Ram Pyari entered into a collaboration agreement with Earl Infotech Pvt. Ltd. on 24.08.2006 for the development of Lot 2.
- Funds paid for licenses and consideration for collaboration agreements were mentioned along with the agreements between the parties.
- Directions were given regarding refunds, acquisition of lands, and the rights of builders and landholders.
- Various license transfers, agreements, and acquisitions were discussed in relation to different parcels of land owned by different parties.
- Godrej Frontier developed a group housing colony and sold various units, disclosing the sales in an affidavit.
- The decisions dated 24-8-2007 and 29-1-2010 were annulled by the court as they were considered fraudulent exercises of power.
- No interest would be payable on amounts received, and the sale consideration paid by builders to landholders would be treated as compensation.
- Invalidation of all transfers made during the suspect period from 27.08.2004 to 29.01.2010
- Consideration paid by Godrej was ₹ 5.62 crores, with a 30% right in revenue for Frontier and 70% for Godrej
- Godrej paid Frontier ₹ 16 crores as an interest-free deposit, with ₹ 5.5 crores being non-refundable
- Prior commitments of land allotment by Frontier for owners and the J&K All India Service Officers Society
- Lands deliberately excluded from acquisition were deemed as ‘transfers’ in the main judgment
- Decision to withdraw from acquisition by Frontier was considered a fraud on power under the Acquisition Act
- Colab agreements made after the Section 4 notification with licenses granted by DTCP were viewed as using state machinery for private gains
- Frontier Home Developers Pvt. Ltd. originally purchased 8.568 acres of land at village Naurangpur on 16.08.2004
Also Read: Balancing Power and Transparency: Electoral Bonds Struck Down, Disclosure Mandated
Issue
- Third parties who paid money to the builder/private entities are entitled to refund from the amount payable to the builder/private entities by the State.
- Refunds will be given upon verification of claims.
- Alternatively, the third parties may be allotted plots or apartments at the agreed price or prevailing price, whichever is higher.
Also Read: Recall of Resolution Plan Approval: Legal Analysis
Arguments
- Express Green Home Owners Association represented by Mr. A. N. Nadkarni and Mr. Gopal Shankarnarayanan, senior advocates, argued for clear title rights and maintenance by DLF for home buyers who invested in the project.
- 207.11 acres designated for the golf course were excluded from acquisition because of a 1996 CLU, as argued by Mr. P.S. Patwalia, Ms. Kiran Suri, and Mr. Brijender Chahar representing the landowners.
- Karma’s land exclusion from the deemed award was contested by Mr. Brijender Chahar, who urged DLF to complete the project to high standards and maintain the colony effectively.
- HSIIDC and the State argued that development agreements impede owners’ title enjoyment and lead to the issuance of licenses, affecting land acquisition decisions.
- Collaboration agreements involving Paradise with Sunshine Telecom and Green Heights were deemed legitimate under specific policy conditions, with valuable consideration received.
- The real purpose behind transactions should be viewed holistically, not just the retention of title by landowners.
- Applicants seek exclusion of lands from deemed award, purchased from Angelique International Ltd. in 2007.
- HSIIDC took physical possession of Girnar’s land parcels based on District Revenue Officer’s letter.
- Speed Town demanded refund from Girnar for land along with interest.
- Karma justified seeking a license, as it would disturb peaceful enjoyment of legitimately entitled land.
- Speed Town, a bona fide purchaser, entered into collaboration and sale agreements with Girnar.
- DLF urged to utilize FAR as it chose and be entitled to balance sale consideration.
- State policy justified non-acquisition of non-CLU lands for development.
- Unitech’s land division noted unauthorized cultivation on residual land.
- Karma’s intentions were clear in seeking license even after Section 6 declaration.
- Godrej argued original landowners were not aggrieved and lands fell under valid transfers.
- Green Heights invested in project and constructed units, justifying exclusion from acquisition.
- Karma’s collaboration with Unitech predated notification under Section 4, indicating no ulterior motive.
- Karma’s applications sought release of specific area for development.
- State should be granted liberty to release lands subject to acquisition based on policy.
- HSIIDC and State argued effective control passed to colonizer in collaboration agreements, justifying award inclusion.
- Sunshine’s transaction with Green Heights exceeded compensation value under Acquisition Act.
- Landowners transacted voluntarily with colonizers/developers.
- DLF willing to undertake finishing work and associated expenses for development.
Analysis
- Ownership in the land will remain with the Owners until successful completion of the project complex.
- Developer can assign the agreement to a Third Party without objection from the Owners.
- Owners are not to interfere with the development work but can point out defects for rectification by the developer.
- Owners can retain, let out, or sell their share of the land in accordance with the agreement.
- Owners must not create any obstacles in the development process.
- Owners must hand over physical possession of the land to the developer for development purposes.
- Developer is responsible for financing and completing the development according to sanctioned plans.
- Developer has the option to match the highest offer from other buyers for the owners’ property and purchase it.
- Developer can enter into agreements to sell, lease, or dispose of its share and owners must cooperate in executing necessary documents.
- Owners and developer are mutually bound in all transactions related to the property.
- The Court interpreted Section 269-UA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 regarding transfer of rights enabling enjoyment of immovable property.
- A collaboration agreement between Vidarbha Engineering Industries and Unitech was discussed for a commercial project development.
- The agreement involved possession, use, and enjoyment rights, with consideration involved for construction.
- The agreement was considered a ‘transfer’ for tax purposes even though no title was passed to Unitech.
- Various types of development agreements were outlined, ranging from pure construction contracts to granting development rights for consideration.
- Ownership relationships were explained in the context of property development agreements.
- Illustrative examples were provided regarding development rights and considerations involved in different agreements.
Decision
- Allottees who have not obtained possession shall be disbursed the amounts they are entitled to within six months.
- Certain lands of ABW and other entities shall form part of the deemed award.
- Specific sums should be paid to HSIIDC for certain acres of land as per collaboration agreements.
- Verification of claims and handing over possession of units to individuals/entities who have paid substantial amounts but not been allotted spaces.
- Rights, title, and interest in certain properties shall vest in HSIIDC as part of the deemed award.
- Arbitration process to be initiated in case of disputes between Kalinga and HSIIDC.
- Directions for Handover of commercial units to allottees in Legend Heights and other projects.
- State directed to issue supplementary award for certain lands within six months.
- Compensation entitlement and benefits for Karma as per Acquisition Act.
- Rejection of contentions to exclude certain lands from the deemed award.
- Refund of amounts payable to allottees within specific timelines with interest for defaults.
- Compensation entitlement for Speed Town, Paramveer, and other entities as per specific calculations.
- Exclusion of lands from the deemed award upon compliance with specified directions.
- Rights of HSIIDC to be upheld in cases of incomplete payments by allottees.
- Submission of documents to HSIIDC for verification within two weeks.
- Concluding all proceedings in references and pronouncing awards within a year.
- Exclusive title vesting with HSIIDC for unallotted units and constructible areas.
- Enforcement of Master Plan and Zoning regulations by HSIIDC for specified areas.
- Deposits and refunds to be processed within specific timelines with consequences for defaults.
Case Title: RAMESHWAR Vs. THE STATE OF HARYANA (2022 INSC 738)
Case Number: MA-000050 / 2019
