ORDER :

1. Leave granted.

2. These appeals arise from the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in CWP No.18657/2021(O&M) dated 22-9-2021 and CM-16277-CWP-2021 in CWP No.18657/2021 dated 3-12-2021 respectively, by which the High Court rejected the petitions filed by the appellant - herein and thereby declined to grant the reliefs as prayed for in the Petitions.

3. We heard this matter over a period of few months. It is possible for us to put an end to this dispute today.

4. We do not intend to delve much into the facts giving rise to this litigation as with the assistance of both the sides, we have been able to find a way out to resolve the entire controversy.

5. We first take notice of our order dated 21-1-2025. The same reads thus:-

1. We have heard Ms. Meenakshi Arora, the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Rajat Sangwan, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

2. We have been able to get a fair idea about the dispute in the present litigation. To put it very briefly the petitioner herein is a Private Limited Company. The petitioner owned the piece of land comprising 3.5 acres situated at IFFCO Chowk, Gurugram Haryana.

3. The authorities concerned granted the petitioner permission to construct commercial complex thereon.

4. As the materials on record reveal, the Department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana-respondent no.1 herein granted License No.116/2004 dated 6.8.2004 for setting up a commercial colony on 2.4 acres area of the land.

5. The problem cropped up when the petitioner entered into a collaboration agreement with one Atul Bansal, Director of M/s Uppal Infrastructure Projects Ltd. for the purpose of development of project.

6. The understanding between the parties was that they would raise a commercial complex by name Delta Square(block B) within the 2 SLP(C) Nos.5904-5905/2022 contours of the terms and license documents.

7. The further understanding was that the infrastructure company would construct block A and the same would be kept by them whereas the same company would also construct block B & block B was to be handed over to the petitioner herein so that the petitioner can put it to sale or enter into a lease agreement with any other party.

8. It is not in dispute that blocks A and B respectively came up almost 15 years back.

9. It is not in dispute that the infrastructure company sold out all the flats in block A and people are occupying the entire block.

10. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner herein sold some of the flats in block B, whereas have entered into lease agreements with few parties.

11. However, both these buildings i.e. blocks A and B respectively do not have a valid completion certificate.

12. This entire litigation is for the purpose of obtaining a valid completion certificate.

13. According to the respondents the license which was granted expired way back in the year 2009. With the Expiry of the license nothing, further, could have been done in the matter.

14. The position prevailing as on date is what we have said aforesaid.

15. It appears that the respondents are ready and willing to issue 3 SLP(C) Nos.5904-5905/2022 the necessary completion certificate, subject to the petitioner herein paying towards (i) infrastructure and argumentation charges, (ii) composition fee and (iii) composition fee for delay and submission of bank guarantee. The sum of all this is coming to around Rs.2.66 crore.

16. This entire amount is for both the blocks i.e. A and B.

17. We take notice of the fact that the infrastructure company with whom the petitioner entered into an agreement, has gone into