Summary
In Rameshwar v. State of Haryana (2018), the Supreme Court set aside Haryana's withdrawal from the Manesar acquisition as a fraud on power. It deemed an award passed for lands 'transferred' between 27.08.2004 and 29.01.2010. Deciding many clarification applications, the Court held that 'transfer' is not limited to sale. It covers collaboration and development agreements, and development licences, by which owners gave up possession and development rights for large sums, keeping only bare title. Such lands fall within the deemed award. Two completed projects were excluded on payment of Rs 5 crore per acre to HSIIDC, and two owners who made no such transactions were excluded. All other claims for exclusion failed, with protection for verified allottees and directions on refunds, valuations and references.
Issues
- Whether 'transfer' in paragraph 42 of the main judgment covers only conveyance of title, or also collaboration and development agreements, and development licences, made during the suspect period.
- Whether particular projects and lands should be excluded from the award deemed to have been passed on 26.08.2007, and how the interests of allottees, developers, purchasers and HSIIDC should be balanced.
Provisions considered
- Sections 4, 6 and 18, Land Acquisition Act, 1894The suspect period runs from the Section 4 notification of 27.08.2004 to the State's decision of 29.01.2010 to withdraw. Lands covered by the Section 6 declaration and transferred during that period fall within the deemed award. Pending references are to be decided within one year. (¶¶ 2, 3, 39, 120)
- Article 142 (directions in the main judgment, para 42), Constitution of IndiaThe directions in paragraph 42 of the main judgment were clarified and applied project by project to balance the equities and protect bona fide third-party allottees. (¶¶ 3, 41, 42, 116, 117, 121)
Held
- Collaboration agreements made during the suspect period handed possession and full development rights to developers, with powers of attorney, rights to sell units, and consideration far above acquisition rates. Except for the empty husk of title, the owners parted with substantial rights. Such agreements, together with the licences they produced, are 'transfers' within the main judgment (Faqir Chand Gulati, Sushil Kumar Agarwal and Unitech v. Union considered). (¶¶ 31, 33, 34, 40, 119, 121)
- Licence applications made before the scheduled award date of 26.08.2007 showed foreknowledge that the lands would not be acquired. They were the 'smoking gun' showing complicity, and the agreements and licences formed the basis for the State's mala fide withdrawal. (¶¶ 38, 39)
- To balance equities and protect home buyers, the completed Green Heights project (2.681 acres) and Godrej Frontier project (13.743 acres) are excluded from the deemed award. This is subject to payment to HSIIDC of Rs 5 crore per acre within six months, with interest at 6% on default. (¶¶ 41, 42, 121)
- Karma Lakelands' 25.95 acres, where a supplementary agreement was made after the Section 6 declaration and a licence obtained but nothing developed, form part of the deemed award. A supplementary award is to issue within six months, with compensation as on the date of the Section 4 notification and statutory benefits. (¶¶ 43, 44)
- R.P. Estates and Subros did not part with title or development rights during the suspect period. Their lands are excluded from the deemed award. (¶¶ 46, 49, 50)
- DLF's Express Greens, acquired from ABW during the suspect period, is not excluded. HSIIDC must validate the titles of allottees and complete sale deeds within six months, and finish the club house and boundary wall within eighteen months. Unsold units, unbuilt areas and FAR vest in HSIIDC. (¶¶ 58, 59, 60, 62, 63)
- Kalinga's expenditure claim must be verified and valued by HSIIDC within six months, with any dispute going to arbitration through DIAC. Its allottees are to receive verified refunds, and other disputes go to civil or consumer fora. ABW's project, on which nothing was built, remains in the deemed award, and HSIIDC must refund all its allottees within twelve months. (¶¶ 71, 72, 73, 74, 86, 87)
- Speed Town's rights derive from Girnar's purchase during the suspect period and carry the same taint, so its land is not excluded and it gets compensation like others. For Innovative's Legend Heights, allottees in possession or holding conveyances keep their units and verified others may receive them, but Paramveer's unverified hotel-block claim fails and that portion vests in HSIIDC. (¶¶ 100, 108, 110, 111, 112, 113)
- Individuals who bought land during the suspect period and built houses on it are not protected. The main judgment protects only verifiable bona fide allottees of developed units. The High Court's dismissal of their petition was upheld, and HSIIDC may frame a non-discriminatory scheme for the roughly 27 acres involved. (¶¶ 116, 117, 118)
Result
The applications, contempt petitions and two SLPs were disposed of in terms of the conclusions in paragraph 121(a)-(p). HSIIDC holds the rights of the original developer against allottees who have not paid in full, and the reference courts must decide the 185 pending references within one year.