DLF LIMITED versus MANMOHAN LOWE AND OTHERS

Citation: [2013] 16 S.C.R. 979 · Decided: 10-12-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2013] 16 S.C.R. 979 
DLF LIMITED 
v. 
MANMOHAN LOWE AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No. 10930 of 2013) 
DECEMBER 10, 2013 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] 
Urban Development - Haryana Apartment Ownership 
A 
B 
Act, 1983 - ss. 3(i), 3(f), 11 (2) - Haryana Development and 
Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975- ss. 3(3)(a)(iv) - Rights 
C 
of the apartment owners vis-a-vis the colonizers - Apartment 
owners filed writ petition. seeking writ of certiorari to quash 
declaration filed by appellant-colonizer, on the ground that the 
same was not in conformity with s.3(f) of the Apartment Act 
since the appellant failed to include certain areas of the 
D 
complex as "common areas and facilities" within the 
declaration, thereby effectively depriving the apaltment 
owners of their rights over the same - High Court held in 
favour of the apartment owners - On appeal, held: In a given 
case if the developer does not provide common areas or 
E 
facilities like corridors, lobbies, staircases, lifts and fire 
escape etc. the Competent Authority can look into the 
objections of the apartment owners but when statute has given 
a discretion to the colonizer to provide or not to provide as 
per s.3(f)(7) of the Apartment Act the community and 
F 
commercial facilities referred to in s. 3(3)(a)(iv) of 
Development Act, no objection could be raised by the 
apartment owners and they cannot claim any undivided 
interest over those facilities except the right of user - High 
Court erred in directing the DTCP (Director, Town and Country 
G 
Planning) to decide the objections of the apartment owners 
with regard to the declaration made by the appellant-colonizer. 
The Apartment owners of Silver Oaks Apartments, 
DLF Qutub Enclave, Phase-1, Gurgaon, filed writ petition 
979 
H 
980 
SUPREME COURT REPC~TS 
[2013] 16 S.C.R. 
A seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the declaration dated 
19.04.2001 filed by the appellant-colonizer, on the ground 
that the same was not in conformity with Section 3(f) of 
the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 since the 
appellant failed to include certain areas of the complex 
B as "common areas and facilities" within the declaration, 
thereby effectively depriving the apartment owners of 
their rights over the same. 
While the Apartments owners maintained the stand 
C that "community and commercial facilities", like providing 
community centre, schools, shops etc., would fall within 
the statutory definition of "common areas and facilities" 
under Section 3(f) of the Apartment Act, the colonizers 
maintained the stand that it can be so only if the colonizer 
has provided so in the statutory declaration filed by it 
D under Section 3(f) of the Apartment Act. 
The High Court held that the apartment owners are 
entitled to undivided interest in common areas and 
common facilities under Section 6 of the Apartment Act 
E and would be vitally affected if those areas are not 
declared as common areas. The High Court also held, 
inter alia, that the competent authority under Section 3(i) 
of the Apartment Act is under an obligation to decide the 
objections of the apartment owners to the declaration 
F filed by the colonizer-appellant. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. The expression "colonizer" is defined 
under Section 2(d) of the Haryana Development and 
G Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (Development Act). 
As per Section 3(3)(a)(iv) of the Development Act obliges 
the colonizer to construct at his own cost schools, 
hospitals, community centers and other buildings on the 
lands set apart for that purpose, or also can get them 
H constructed by any other institution or an individual, at 
DLF LIMITED v. MANMOHAN LOWE AND OTHERS 
981 
its own cost, but the ownership of land set apart for the A 
said purpose continues with the colonizer. Option is also 
provided under Section 3(3)(a)(iv) to the colonizer to 
transfer to the Government, at any time, if so desired by 
the Government, free of cost, the land set apart for 
schools, hospitals, community centers and community B 
buildings, in which case, the Government shall be at 
liberty to transfer such land to any person or institution, 
including a local authority on such terms and conditions 
as it may deem fit. But, the ownership of the Colonizer 
cannot be transferred or divested, unless the colonizer c 
volunteers to transfer the same free of cost to the 
Government. Community and other facilities like schools, 
hospitals, community centers, shops e

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.