M/S. D.L.F. QUTAB ENCLAVE COMPLEX EDUCATIONAL CHARITABLE TRUST versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 2 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 17-02-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 4 judgment(s) · cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

MIS. D.L.F. QUTAB ENCLAVE COMPLEX EDUCATIONAL 
CHARITABLE TRUST 
v. 
STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 17, 2003 
[S.S. SINHA AND DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, JJ.] 
Urban Development : 
A 
B 
Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 197 5; Section C 
3(3)(a)(iv): 
Grant of licence to colonizer-Colonizer earmarking certain sites for 
construction of Schools/community buildings-Transfer of sites to lessee-
Jssuance of instruction by State restricting colonizer's right to farther transfer- D 
High Court dismissed the writ petition of colonizer holding transfer of such 
sites/lands by the licensee illegal-On appeal, held: Right to transfer such 
sites/lands would be subject to the building laws/Regulating statutes-Purpose 
is to ensure establishment of schools/community buildings at its reserved places 
but such provision of law cannot put restrictions as to the person/persons who 
would run and manage these Institutions-A regulating statute must not be E 
construed to put a limitation prohibiting transfer of lands which does not 
affect its user-Right to transfer being incidental to the right a/ownership, 
having regard to Constitutional _provisions under Article 300A, cannot be 
taken away save by authority of law-Such right may be subject to the transfer 
of obligation of transferee as laid down in the Statute/Licence. 
'Development work' and 'Amenity '-Distinction between in the context 
of the Act-Discussed 
Interpretation of Statutes: 
'Rule of purposive constructions '-Discussed. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Institutions' and 'persons'-Meaning of-Jn the context of Haryana 
Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. 
F 
G 
H 
A 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] L. S.C.R. 
A colonizer purchased free hold lands in Haryana for setting up a 
colony and was granted licence as per provisions of the Haryana 
Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act. The colonizer created 
an Educational Charitable Trust (appellant) and marked certain sites for 
construction of schools/community buildings thereon. The Trust leased out 
B certain sites to the lessee who were granted building plans by the State/ 
respondents for construction on these sites. The State issued instructions 
c 
to the colonizer restricting transfer of these community sites, which was 
challenged by the Appellant-Trust by filing a writ petition. High Court 
dismissed the same. Hence the present appeal. 
It was contended for the appellants that neither the rules nor 
conditions of licence imposed any embargo on transfer of lands to third 
party by the colonizer; that since the terms and conditions of licence 
regulate user of the lands, these restrictions are to be operative qua the 
terms and conditions of the licence and not qua the owners of the property; 
that having regard to the fact that third parties/fourth parties had 
D undertaken to abide by the terms and conditions of the licence the purpose 
and object for enactment of the Act would not be violated; that the 
instructions issued by the State/Executives was not backed by any statute; 
that instructions/directions issued by the State could not have given 
retrospective effect/operation. 
E 
On behalf of the respondents, it was submitted that though there does 
not exist any express bar on transfer of lands but the same may be inferred 
impliedly having regard to the srhcme of the Act, by applying rules of 
interpretation ; that colonizer was regularised by restricting to enter into 
a profitable venture; and that by allowing the colonizer to create third-
F party/fourth party interest, the purpose and object of the Act would be 
defeated. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. Right of transfer of land is indisputably incidental to 
G the right of ownership. Such a right can be curtailed or taken away only 
by reason of a statute. An embargo upon the owner of the land to transfer 
the same should not be readily inferred. Section 3(3)(a)(iv) of the Haryana 
Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act does not expressly 
impose any restriction. The same is merely a part of an undertaking. 
Assuming that a prohibition to transfer the land can be read therein by 
H necessary implication, the consequence of violation of such undertaking 
( 
"' 
' 
.·\ 
-
D.L.F. QUTABENCLA VECOMPLEXEDUCATIONALCHARJT. TRUSTv. STATE 
3 
has not been specified. In other words, if a transfer is made in violation A 
of the undertaking, the statute does not provide that the same would be 
illegal or the transfe

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