S.J. Vazifdar, J.

Civil Writ Petition Nos.12210 of 2013 and 4764 of 2015 are disposed of by this common order and judgment in the following circumstances. Civil Writ Petition No.12210 of 2013 was heard at considerable length and the judgment was reserved. Thereafter, the petitioner in Civil Writ Petition No.4764 of 2015 requested that his petition be heard before delivering the judgment in CWP No.12210 of 2013 stating that some of the important issues raised by him would be affected by the judgment in CWP No.12210 of 2013. The developers in CWP No.12210 of 2013, though not the developers or parties in CWP No.4764 of 2015, also requested us to hear CWP No.4764 of 2015 before delivering the judgment in CWP No.12210 of 2013. Accordingly, before pronouncing the judgment in CWP No.12210 of 2013, CWP No.4764 of 2015 was taken up for hearing by another Division Bench to which one of us (S.J. Vazifdar, C.J.) was a party. That Division Bench, however, acceded to the request made by all the counsels in both the writ petitions that CWP No.4764 of 2015 be heard by our Division Bench as we had heard CWP No.12210 of 2013. During this period, an application being C.M. No.8323 of 2016 in CWP No.12210 of 2013 was filed on behalf of several purchasers, who claim to be similarly situated as the petitioners, for intervention/impleadment.

It is in these circumstances that we heard CWP No.4764 of 2105 and we proceed to deliver our judgment in both the petitions.

2. We will first deal with CWP No. 12210 of 2013.

The petitioners claim to be an association of owners of apartments in a group housing society named ‘Park Place’ developed by respondent No.2 – M/s DLF Limited in Gurgaon, State of Haryana. Respondent No.3 is M/s DLF Home Developers Limited (Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are hereinafter referred to as the “developers”). Respondent No.1 is the Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana.

3. The petitioners have sought a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.1 to take action against the developers for violations of the conditions of the licence, zonal plan, site plan, applicable FAR and PPA norms and an order restraining the developers from creating any third party rights in respect of the building named ‘The Crest’ in the area falling within the FAR norms of Park Place and from putting up any construction except for building common area and facilities for Park Place. They have also sought an order quashing a deed of declaration filed by respondent No.2 and to ensure that the area in accordance with applicable FAR ratio of 1:1.75 is made available to the group housing project ‘Park Place’. Lastly, they seek an order directing that no third party rights be created on 46.20 acres of contiguous land falling within the FAR norms of the group housing project ‘Park Place’ and to restrain the developers from any further revision in plans which directly or indirectly affects the rights of the owners of ‘Park Place’.

4. The developers are engaged in a large development which they refer to as DLF Qutab Enclave Complex, Phase-V (hereinafter to be referred to as the “DLF Phase-V”) now comprising of about 500 acres. Within this area the developers have constructed various buildings including thirteen buildings which together are referred to as ‘Park Place’. The petitioners contended that each of these projects including ‘Park Place’, ‘Magnolias’ and ‘Belaire’ are independent group housing colonies. They contend that each of these group housing colonies is entitled to an area of land adjoining them commensurate with the FAR and density norms. Their grievance is that the land allotted by the developers in respect of Park Place, with which this petition is concerned, falls short of this requirement. The developers have accordingly violated the FAR and density norms on account of the land allotted to the group housing complex ‘Park Place’ not bein