M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD. versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 553 · Decided: 23-01-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.V. RAVEENDRAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

[2009] 1 S.C.R. 553 
-...... 
M/S. ANSAL PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8186 of 2001) 
JANUARY 23, 2009 
8 
[R.V. RAVEENDRAN AND DR. MUKUNDAKAM 
"-
;.. 
SHARMA, JJ.] 
Urban Development: 
c 
Haryana Development and Regulation ot Urban .Areas 
Act, 1975 - s. 3(3)(a)(iv) - Haryana Development and 
Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976 - rr.4, 5 and 11 -
Demand on account of construction cost of Internal 
- . 
community buildings, when land transferred by colonizer to 
D 
Government free of cost - Held: There is no requirement for 
the licensee to provide for or to make payment for the cost of 
construction of internal community buildings when the land 
is transferred to the Government free of cost either in the 
statute or in the licence agreement- Since the land was given 
E 
free of cost, it was open to the Government to get the 
remaining community buildings constructed either by 
themselves or through any agency or institution or individual 
,. i 
at its cost - Government cannot demand that the buildings 
on the said lands which were transferred to them free of cost 
should also be constructed by the colonizer/developer and 
F 
then transfer the land to them along with the construction 
thereon and on failure to construct, to pay for the cost of 
construction -
That would be illegal and unauthorised 
demand as it has no statutory mandate - Word used in s. 
3(3)(a)(iv) is "land" - The Government's claim is therefore 
G 
~ ......... 
restricted to lands which the colonizer failed to develop as 
community centres - On facts, colonizer on receipt of the 
demand letter raised objection regarding the charge -
Payment by colonizer was due to the threat of cancellation of 
553 
H 
554 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009) 1 S.C.R. 
A its licence - Payment was thus made under protest -
Therefore, principle of waiver and acquiescence would not be 
applicable - Waiver/acquiescence - Principle of. 
Interpretation of statutes: Reading a statute - Held: Court 
8 cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain 
and unambiguous - Language employed in a statute is 
determinative factor of legislative intent - When language of 
enactment is clear and unambiguous, it would not be proper 
for courts to add any words thereto and evolve some 
legislative intent, not found in the statute. 
c 
Waiver and acquiescence - Principle of - Applicability 
- Held: In order to constitute waiver, there must be voluntary 
and intentional relinquishment of a right - The essence of a 
waiver is an estoppel and where there is no estoppel, there is 
o no waiver- Estoppel and waiver are questions of conduct and 
must necessarily be determined on the facts of each case. 
The respondent No. 2, Director, Town and Country 
Planning by letter dated 11.01.1988 informed the appellant 
E Company that it was required to pay due amount of Rs. 
3.72 lacs per gross acre on account of external 
development charges. It was also mentioned in the said 
letter that an amount of Rs.3.72 lacs per gross acre, in 
fact included Rs. 61,000/- per gross acre on account of 
internal community buildings for which no recovery 
F should be made from the plot holders. Under letter dated 
7 .10.1993, the appellant- Company was informed that 
before its licence could be considered for renewal, the 
appellant Company was required to pay the charges. 
Subsequently on 4.05.1994, respondent No. 2 issued 
G letter to the appellant informing that the licence of the 
appellant would be renewed only after the deposit of the · 
amount demanded. Aggrieved by these letters, the 
appellant Company made several representations to 
respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contending that as per the 
H licence agreement and also as per the provisions of the 
, 
.. 
.,.... ' 
.. 
ANSAL PROPERTIES & INDUSTRIES LTD. v. STATE OF 555 
HARYANA & ANR. 
.. """!' 
Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas 
A 
Act, 1975 and the Haryana Development and Regulation 
of Urban Areas Rules, 1976, the appellant Company was 
not liable to pay the amount of Rs. 61,000/- per gross acre 
towards the construction of internal community 
buildings; and that the demand was not only unjust and 
B 
arbitrary but also contrary to licence agreement and also 
..... _ .. 
against the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed 
thereunder. As these representations were not favourably 
considered, the appellant Company filed a writ petition 
before the High Court challenging the demand

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