1. Property developers allegedly constructed a commercial complex on land designated for a residential project, leading to allegations of statutory violations, misrepresentation to buyers, and unauthorized development. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(SC) 78
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
J. B. PARDIWALA, SANDEEP MEHTA, JJ.
Raj Singh Gehlot & Ors. – Appellant
Versus
Amitabha Sen & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No(S). 385 of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 11480 of 2020) With Civil Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s). 5971 of 2021) Civil Appeal No(s). of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (Civil) No(s).14797 of 2020) And Civil Appeal No(s).872-874 of 2021
Decided On : 20-01-2026
Advocates appeared:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Ansh Rajauria, Adv. M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Ansh Rajauria, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, AOR Ms. Rani Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aditi Pandey, Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Noopur Singhal, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ishika Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Arya, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Ms. Ashta Singh, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. T.S. Sabarish, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, AOR Mr. Varun Chaug, Adv. Ms. Shagun Shahi, Adv. Ms. Meera Chugh, Adv. Ms. Aisha Singh, Adv. Mr. Yash Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Vikash Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan, Adv. Mr. Saurav Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ruchita Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Ms. Megha Karanwal, Adv. Ms. Preeti Rani, Adv. Ms. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Ms. Raman Yadav, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Sushil Tekriwal, Adv. Dr. Mamta Tekriwal, Adv. Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, AOR Ms. Uttara Babbar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Guneet Singh Sidhu, Adv. Mr. Ayush Shah, Adv. Mr. Aakash Deep Singh, Adv. Mr. Jasmeet Singh, AOR
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Ansh Rajauria, Adv. M/S. Karanjawala & Co., AOR
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Preetika Dwivedi, AOR Mr. Abhisek Mohanty, Adv. Mr. Ansh Rajauria, Adv. Ms. Kamini Jaiswal, AOR Ms. Rani Mishra, Adv. Ms. Aditi Pandey, Adv. Ms. Niharika Ahluwalia, AOR Ms. Kanika Agnihotri, Adv. Mr. Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General Mr. Lokesh Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G. Ms. Noopur Singhal, Adv. Mr. Samar Vijay Singh, AOR Mr. Madhav Sinhal, Adv. Ms. Sabarni Som, Adv. Mr. Nikunj Gupta, Adv. Mr. Aman Dev Sharma, Adv. Ms. Ishika Gupta, Adv. Mr. Sarthak Arya, Adv. Mr. Gaj Singh, Adv. Ms. Ashta Singh, Adv. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Makker, AOR Mr. K.M. Nataraj, A.S.G. Mr. Shailesh Madiyal, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Maroria, AOR Mr. Anmol Chandan, Adv. Mr. Sharath Nambiar, Adv. Mr. Balaji Srinivasan, Adv. Mr. T.S. Sabarish, Adv. Mr. Piyush Beriwal, AOR Mr. Varun Chaug, Adv. Ms. Shagun Shahi, Adv. Ms. Meera Chugh, Adv. Ms. Aisha Singh, Adv. Mr. Yash Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Vikash Tyagi, Adv. Mr. Kartik Sharma, Adv. Mr. Ali Mohammed Khan, Adv. Mr. Saurav Kumar, Adv. Ms. Ruchita Srivastava, Adv. Ms. Aishwarya Bhati, A.S.G. Ms. Ruchi Kohli, Adv. Ms. Megha Karanwal, Adv. Ms. Preeti Rani, Adv. Ms. Digvijay Dam, Adv. Ms. Raman Yadav, Adv. Dr. N. Visakamurthy, AOR Mr. Arvind Kumar Sharma, AOR Mr. Sushil Tekriwal, Adv. Dr. Mamta Tekriwal, Adv. Mr. Venkateswara Rao Anumolu, AOR Ms. Uttara Babbar, Sr. Adv. Mr. Guneet Singh Sidhu, Adv. Mr. Ayush Shah, Adv. Mr. Aakash Deep Singh, Adv. Mr. Jasmeet Singh, AOR
Important Points
Judgment underscores the need for regulatory compliance in urban development, confirming that unauthorized de-licensing and changes in land-use violate statutory framework, necessitating CBI investigation for potential collusion and fraud.
Subject
Civil Law - Urban Development and Environmental Regulation
Act Referred
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE: O.1 R.10, O.39 R.2
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226, Art.32
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.173(2)
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT: S.21
HARYANA APARTMENT OWNERSHIP ACT: S.11, S.2
HARYANA DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION OF URBAN AREAS ACT: S.19, S.2, S.24, S.3, S.6, S.8
HARYANA DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION OF URBAN AREAS RULES: R.3(1)
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.120(b), S.420
NATIONAL GREENS TRIBUNAL ACT: S.14, S.2(1)(m)
PUNJAB GENERAL CLAUSES ACT: S.20
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT: S.34
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226, Art.32
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE: S.173(2)
GENERAL CLAUSES ACT: S.21
HARYANA APARTMENT OWNERSHIP ACT: S.11, S.2
HARYANA DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION OF URBAN AREAS ACT: S.19, S.2, S.24, S.3, S.6, S.8
HARYANA DEVELOPMENT AND REGULATION OF URBAN AREAS RULES: R.3(1)
INDIAN PENAL CODE: S.120(b), S.420
NATIONAL GREENS TRIBUNAL ACT: S.14, S.2(1)(m)
PUNJAB GENERAL CLAUSES ACT: S.20
SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT: S.34
Headnote
(A) Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 - Jurisdiction of National Green Tribunal - Supreme Court found that the High Court erroneously entertained claims of unlawful de-licensing and subsequent commercial development which were substantially linked with ongoing appeals under the 1975 Act - Disparate treatment of property rights and environmental obligations led to CBI investigation for potential collusion and fraud. (Paras 10-12, 54-109)
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Writ jurisdiction - The necessity for a detailed evidentiary record alongside consistent claims regarding the purported negligence of the builder and public authorities highlighted the writ’s limitations in settling disputes involving serious contested facts. (Paras 82-106)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from disputes originally concerning the lawful development of a residential colony and subsequent unauthorized commercial advancements in the region designated for housing, leading to a reappraisal of the contentious interplay between statutory rights, environmental law, and the entitlements of involved parties.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed previous decisions facilitating the commercial project under circumstances indicating premature approvals that potentially undermined legal norms regarding urban development, specifically addressing mismanagement of public land use.
Issues: The primary questions included the legitimacy of de-licensing the original area for residential development and the consequential commercial projects’ compliance with statutory regulations governing the land's use.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that statutory obligations cannot be overridden by private agreements or intermediate approvals unless substantiated by sufficient lawful backing, thus reaffirming the interplay of jurisprudence pertaining to property rights, regulatory oversight, and environmental stewardship.
Result: Appeals allowed.
(B) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Writ jurisdiction - The necessity for a detailed evidentiary record alongside consistent claims regarding the purported negligence of the builder and public authorities highlighted the writ’s limitations in settling disputes involving serious contested facts. (Paras 82-106)
Facts of the case:
The appeals arose from disputes originally concerning the lawful development of a residential colony and subsequent unauthorized commercial advancements in the region designated for housing, leading to a reappraisal of the contentious interplay between statutory rights, environmental law, and the entitlements of involved parties.
Findings of Court:
The court quashed previous decisions facilitating the commercial project under circumstances indicating premature approvals that potentially undermined legal norms regarding urban development, specifically addressing mismanagement of public land use.
Issues: The primary questions included the legitimacy of de-licensing the original area for residential development and the consequential commercial projects’ compliance with statutory regulations governing the land's use.
Ratio Decidendi: The court asserted that statutory obligations cannot be overridden by private agreements or intermediate approvals unless substantiated by sufficient lawful backing, thus reaffirming the interplay of jurisprudence pertaining to property rights, regulatory oversight, and environmental stewardship.
Result: Appeals allowed.
Judgement Key Points
इस निर्णय में शहरी विकास, पर्यावरण नियमों और भूमि उपयोग से संबंधित प्रावधानों का उल्लंघन करने वाले मामलों पर चर्चा की गई है। न्यायालय ने स्पष्ट किया है कि बिना अधिकृत अनुमति के भूमि का लाइसेंस रद्द करना या भूमि के उपयोग में बदलाव करना कानून का उल्लंघन है और यह अवैध है (!) (!) ।
यह भी माना गया है कि जब किसी भूमि के लाइसेंस को रद्द करने या उसमें बदलाव करने के लिए कोई स्पष्ट प्रावधान मौजूद नहीं है, तो ऐसी कार्रवाई कानून के विरुद्ध मानी जाएगी (!) । इसके अतिरिक्त, यह भी तय किया गया है कि यदि कोई सरकारी अधिकारी या संस्था नियमों का उल्लंघन करता है, तो उनके खिलाफ उचित जांच और कार्रवाई की जानी चाहिए, और इस प्रक्रिया में किसी भी तरह का षड्यंत्र या मिलीभगत पाए जाने पर संबंधित एजेंसियों को जांच करने का निर्देश दिया गया है (!) (!) ।
साथ ही, यह भी कहा गया है कि बिना उचित प्रक्रिया और नियमों का पालन किए भूमि का उपयोग बदलना या लाइसेंस रद्द करना, कानून का उल्लंघन है और इस तरह की कार्रवाई को कोर्ट रद्द कर सकती है (!) । न्यायालय ने यह भी माना है कि किसी भी परियोजना के निर्माण, भूमि के उपयोग या पर्यावरण से संबंधित विवादों का समाधान करने के लिए उचित प्रक्रिया और पर्याप्त दस्तावेज़ होना आवश्यक है, और बिना इन नियमों का पालन किए कोई भी निर्णय अवैध माना जाएगा (!) ।
अंत में, यह निर्णय स्पष्ट करता है कि यदि किसी भी प्रकार का अनुचित या अवैध कदम उठाया गया है, तो इसकी जांच स्वतंत्र एजेंसी से कराई जानी चाहिए और यदि आवश्यक हो तो संबंधित कार्रवाई को रद्द किया जाना चाहिए (!) (!) ।
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Appellants contend project developments were legally sanctioned and consistent with agreements, while respondents argue the developers colluded with authorities to bypass statutory norms and misappropriate residential project areas. (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 )
3. The High Court erroneously ignored the approved layout plans and contractual agreements while relying on conjectural findings of fraud, despite the absence of foundational evidence or timely challenges. (Para 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 )
4. Writ jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be invoked to reopen settled factual disputes or challenge agreements after inordinate delay, especially without clear evidence of bias or illegality. (Para 61 , 66 , 70 )
5. The High Court judgment is set aside and the appeals are allowed, with National Green Tribunal proceedings stayed pending resolution of the related High Court writ petition. (Para 77 , 78 , 79 , 109 , 110 , 111 )
6. Can land usage license, once granted for a specific purpose, be modified through de-licensing and fresh licensing under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975?
Yes. The court observed that the licensing authority possesses the inherent power to grant, modify, or withdraw licenses, particularly when validated by subsequent legislative amendments and interpretations of the General Clauses Act. (Para 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 71 , 72 )
7. To what extent can a High Court examine disputed factual issues and allegations of fraud in a writ petition under Article 226?
Writ courts should not entertain petitions involving disputed factual questions that require evaluation of evidence, especially when there is significant delay in challenging actions or agreements between private parties. (Para 41 , 66 , 70 )
8. Does the National Green Tribunal possess jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes regarding deviations from building plans that are not substantially related to environmental statutory obligations?
No. The Tribunal must restrict its jurisdiction to substantial questions of law relating to environmental statutory obligations and cannot interfere in civil disputes and building plan deviations properly situated under state planning laws. (Para 104 , 105 , 106 , 107 )
JUDGMENT
Mehta, J.
| A. | CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP(C) NO(S). 11480 OF 2020; SLP(C) NO(S). 5971 OF 2021; SLP(C) NO(S). 14797 OF 2020 |
| I. | BRIEF FACTS |
| LIST OF DATES AND EVENTS | |
| II. | ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF APPELLANTS |
| III. | ARGUMENTS ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENTS |
| IV. | DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS |
| V. | CONCLUSION |
| B. | CIVIL APPEAL NO(S).872-874 OF 2021 |
| I. | BRIEF FACTS |
| II. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT |
| III. | SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS |
| IV. | DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS |
| V. | CONCLUSION |
A. CIVIL APPEALS @ SLP(C) NO(S). 11480 OF 2020; SLP(C) NO(S). 5971 OF 2021; SLP(C) NO(S). 14797 OF 2020
1. Heard.
2. Leave granted.
3. At the outset, it would be apposite to clarify that Civil Appeal Nos. 872–874 of 2021, though tagged together, emanate from the orders passed by the National Green Tribunal in Original Application No. 238 of 2015. The said appeals pertain exclusively to allegations of environmental violations and issues falling within the specialised jurisdiction of the National Green Tribunal. In view thereof, and having regard to the distinct factual matrix and legal considerations involved, the said appeals have been examined independently and are being dealt with separately from the present batch of matters.
4. The above captioned appeals arise out of judgment and order dated 10th July, 2020 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh1 [Hereinafter, referred to as “High Court”] in Civil Writ Petition No. 20330 of 2015 and involve overlapping questions of facts and law and hence, the same have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
5. The tabular chart of parties in these appeals is noted hereinbelow for the sake of convenience:-
| S. No. | NAME OF PARTY | POSITION OF PARTIES | |||||
| Before High Court | Before this Court | ||||||
| A. Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No(s). 11480 of 2020 | |||||||
| 1. | Mr. Raj Singh Gehlot | Respondent No. 1 | Appellant No. 1 | ||||
| 2. | M/s Ambience Private Limited (Formerly Ambience Limited) through its Managing Director Mr. Raj Singh Gehlot | Respondent No. 2 | Appellant No. 2 | ||||
| 3. | M/s Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited through its Authorized Person Mr. Raj Singh Gehlot | Respondent No. 3 | Appellant No. 3 | ||||
| Vs. | |||||||
| 1. | Mr. Amitabha Sen | Petitioner No. 1 | Respondent No. 1 | ||||
| 2. | Mrs. Dipika Sen | Petitioner No. 2 | Respondent No. 2 | ||||
| 3. | The Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Vice- Chairman, Haryana Development Urban Authority | Respondent No. 8 | Respondent No. 3 | ||||
| 4. | The Chief Administrator Haryana Urban Development Authority | Respondent No. 9 | Respondent No. 4 | ||||
| 5. | The Chief Town Planner Town and Country Planning Department, | Respondent No. 10 | Respondent No. 5 | ||||
| 6. | Mr. A.K. Ganju | Respondent No. 4 | Respondent No. 6 | ||||
| 7. | A.K. Ganju & Associate | Respondent No. 5 | Respondent No. 7 | ||||
| 8. | Mr. Rajeev Khanna | Respondent No. 6 | Respondent No. 8 | ||||
| 9. | Grid Architecture Interiors Private Limited | Respondent No. 7 | Respondent No. 9 | ||||
| B. Civil Appeal @ SLP(C) No(s). 5971 of 2021 | |||||||
| 1. | Kohler India Corporation Private Limited, through its Authorized Signatory Sh. Dhiraj Mishra | Not a party | Appellant | ||||
| Vs | |||||||
| 1. | The Chief Secretary, Government of Haryana, Vice- Chairman, Haryana Development Urban Authority | Respondent No. 8 | Respondent No. 1 | ||||
| 2. | M/s Ambience Developers and Infrastructure Private Limited through its Authorized Person Mr. Raj Singh Gehlot | Respondent No. 3 | Respondent No. 2 | ||||
| 3. | Mr. Raj Singh Gehlot | Respondent No. 1 |
| ||||
