The authority's duty to ensure land title ownership as per Section 3(2)(a) of the Haryana Urban Development and Regulation Act, 1975.

JUDGMENT

Harinder Singh Sidhu, J. - Since common questions are involved in both the aforesaid writ petitions, the same are decided together.

Facts are being extracted from CWP No.11661 of 2022.

2. The petitioners, which are Companies registered under the Companies Act, 1956, have filed this petition seeking directions to respondent No.2 - the Director General, Department of Town and Country Planning (for short 'the Director') to adjudicate their complaints dated 11.08.2021 (P.28) and 01.09.2021 (P.30) and to cancel Licence No.57 of 2021 (granted in the name of petitioner No.1). They have also sought directions to the official respondents to inquire into the fraud committed by the private respondents while submitting their applications for grant of licence and to take necessary action as per law. Directions have also been sought to restrain private respondent Nos.3 to 5 from creating any third party rights by allotment or otherwise under the licence by allotment/sale etc. till the complaints of the petitioners are adjudicated.

3. When the case came up for preliminary hearing on 27.05.2022, Mr. Bahri, Ld. Addl.A.G, Haryana stated that as per his instructions, the Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana would decide the representation of the petitioners within 4 to 6 weeks. Noticing the contentions of the petitioners and the statement of Mr. Bahri, it was directed that till the next date of hearing, no third party rights of any kind whatsoever be created qua the licence in question.

4. Thereafter, the case was adjourned on various dates awaiting the order of the Director.

5. On 29.11.2022 Mr. Bahri placed on record a copy of order dated 23.11.2022 passed by the Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. The same was taken on record. A copy was handed over to Sh.Sanjeev Sharma, Ld. Senior Counsel for the petitioners.

6. Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, has argued that order dated 23.11.2022 placed on record by Mr. Bahri does not finally dispose of the complaint of the petitioners and it is in the nature of an interim order. He argued that the Director has noticed the inter-se dispute between the petitioners and the private respondents. The Director has noticed that the share holding pattern of land owning company and its umbrella company is sub-judice before the Principal Bench of the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal. It has also been noticed in the order that an appeal filed by MGF Developments Ltd. against Emaar MGF Land Ltd. for non-compliance of order of NCLT dated 16.07.2018 in not transferring the assets to the resulting company i.e, MGF Developments Ltd. in accordance with the Demerged Frame Work Agreement dated 13.04.2016 as well as LIA and WIA dated 07.04.2016, is pending before the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal and its orders are awaited.

7. He then referred to that part of the order, wherein, it has been noted that both the companies i.e the Emmar MGF Land Ltd and MGF Land Development Ltd have not 'submitted the undertaking certifying that the orders of NCLT dated 16.07.2018 has been complied with in totality with respect to apportioning of the assets of both these companies in accordance with the Schedule of Agreement contained in the orders of NCLT, which ultimately decides the ownership of the subsidiary companies including the land owning company in the present case as well as in the case of Licence No.26 of 2021 dated 07.06.2021'. Both the companies were directed to submit an undertaking certifying therein that the assets are apportioned and claims are settled in compliance of the NCLAT dated 16.07.2018 so as to enable this Department to proceed for final decision on ownership of the land owning company.

8. He also made a reference to operative part of the order, which reads thus:

'In view of above aforesaid facts, it would not be appropriate for this authority at this juncture to either intervene or pass any order regarding the ownership of the subsidiary companies being not the competent authori