Can a licence under the 1975 Act be ‘de-licensed’ without express statutory authority?

LawSikho
January 21, 2026
Category: Supreme Court of India

Summary

Category	Data
Court	Supreme Court of India
Case Number	C.A. No.-000385-000385 – 2026
Diary Number	20041/2020
Judge Name	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH
Bench	HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM NATH HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
Precedent Value	Binding on all subordinate courts and tribunals under the same Act
Overrules / Affirms	Overrules the practice of ‘de-licensing’ under the 1975 Act in absence of express power Affirms statutory requirement for license modification only by specific authority and provision
Type of Law	Statutory interpretation of urban-planning legislation Administrative law
Questions of Law	Does the power to grant a licence under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 include an implied power to de-licence land already under licence? Can a licensee revise land-use allocations without express statutory sanction, layout-plan approval, or Amendment to the 1975 Act? Did the National Green Tribunal exceed its jurisdiction when it entertained disputed questions of fact already pending before the High Court?
Ratio Decidendi	The 1975 Act does not contain any express or implied power to ‘de-licence’ land once a licence for a specified purpose has been granted. Any withdrawal or modification of licence must proceed under the explicit cancellation power (Section 8) or by legislative amendment. General reference to “withdrawal” under the General Clauses Act, 1897 does not override the statutory scheme. The High Court’s direction for CBI investigation and NGT’s jurisdiction over overlapping factual disputes were unsustainable. Issues pending before the High Court on licence validity and building-plan compliance cannot be re-opened by a parallel NGT petition.
Judgments Relied Upon	Auroville Foundation v. Navroz Kersasp Mody (2025) 4 SCC 150 State of M.P. v. Centre for Enviro-Legal Action and Development (2020) 9 SCC 781 H.P. Bus-Stand Management & Dev. Authority v. Central Empowered Committee (2021) 4 SCC 309 Bharat Singh v. State of Haryana AIR 1988 SC 534 Gurdial Singh v. State of Punjab (1980) 2 SCC 471 Uddar Gagan Properties Ltd. v. Sant Singh (2016) 11 SCC 378 Kerala State Coastal Zone Management Authority v. State of Kerala (2019) 7 SCC 248 Rameshwar & Ors. v. State of Haryana & Ors. (2018) 6 SCC 215
Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by Court	Strict construction of statutory powers under the 1975 Act (Section 3, Section 8) No statutory basis to amend licenses by ‘de-licensing’—only cancellation under Section 8 or legislative enactment may alter licence Section 6 of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 mandates fixed “common areas” and “undivided interests” irremovable without unanimous consent Fraud vitiates state action principles, requiring investigation only after legal invalidation of exercises of power NGT cannot re-open fact-intensive licence disputes pending in High Court when substantial questions of environment law are not prima facie raised
Facts as Summarised by the Court	M/s HLF (later Ambience Developers) obtained License No. 19 of 1993 to develop a group housing colony on 18.98 acres under the 1975 Act; a layout plan for Phase I (10.98 acres) was approved in 1995; the balance 8 acres were ‘de-licensed’ in October 2001 and re-licensed for commercial use two days prior; apartment buyers entered into agreements in October 2001 referring only to the 10.98 acres licensed for housing; multiple civil suits, consumer complaints, writ petitions and NGT Original Applications ensued over alleged illicit construction, open-space violations and ‘de-licensing’; the High Court quashed the de-licensing and related approvals in July 2020 and directed CBI probe; DTCP later passed a reasoned order validating de-licensing after legislative amendment (2020), now pending appeal.

Practical Impact

Category	Impact
Binding On	All subordinate courts, tribunals and planning authorities interpreting the 1975 Act
Persuasive For	High Courts, NGT benches confronted with ‘implicit licence-modification’ challenges
Overrules	Practice of de-licensing land under the 1975 Act without express statutory power
Distinguishes	Implied “withdrawal” under the General Clauses Act (1897) vs. specific cancellation/variation under Section 8 of the 1975 Act
Follows	Auroville Foundation v. Mody (2025) on limiting NGT’s jurisdiction where overlapping writ petition is pending over disputed facts

What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note

Clarifies that once a licence to develop a colony is granted under the 1975 Act, modifying it by “de-licensing” land requires express statutory sanction or recourse to Section 8 only.
Reaffirms that s. 6 of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983 fixes the undivided interest in common areas permanently—cannot be reduced or diverted without unanimous vote and amended declaration.
Invalidates reliance on Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to imply power to ‘de-license’—legislative amendment (2020) was required to validate prior exercises.
Stresses that NGT must not entertain fact-intensive licence disputes already pending in High Court; environment-law petitions require a “substantial question” under s. 2(1)(m) & s. 14 of the NGT Act.
SC’s quashing of de-licensing orders renders DTCP validations post-2020 Amendment susceptible to challenge in appeal under Section 19 of the 1975 Act.

Summary of Legal Reasoning

Statutory Text & Scheme: 1975 Act contains no express “de-licensing” provision—licences are inviolable except under Section 8 (cancellation).
General Clauses Act Inapplicable: Implied powers under GCA 1897 do not override specific statutory framework.
Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983: s. 6(1)/(2) mandates permanent undivided interest in common areas; s. 2 and 24-A prescribe time-bound deed of declaration—failure attracts criminal penalties.
Fraud vitiates State Action: Active connivance and interpolations in application form, if any, call for independent probe but do not validate unlawful approval.
NGT Jurisdiction Check: Under s. 14 of NGT Act, environment-law matters must raise “substantial questions” arising from enactments in Schedule I—not purely licence-dispute facts; overlap with pending High Court writ bars NGT intervention.
Validation by Amendment: 2020 Amendment inserting s. 3(3A) in 1975 Act retrospectively validates licence-modification powers, but challengeable in appropriate appeal.

Arguments by the Parties

Petitioners (Appellants–Developers & State):

No power exists in 1975 Act to de-licence once a licence is granted—only cancellation under s. 8.
Layout plan for Phase I (10.98 acres) always existed; apartment buyers contractually bound to that scope.
Apartment Buyers’ Agreements reaffirmed only Phase I licensing—flat owners were fully aware.
NGT wrongly entertained fact-intensive licence disputes already before High Court; review application denied as belated.
DTCP’s detailed order (5 Aug 2021) upholding licence-modification under prior legal opinion and validated by 2020 Amendment remains pending in appeal.

Respondents (Flat-Owners & NGT Applicants):

Original licence covered entire 18.98 acres; de-licensing diverted land earmarked for open/community use into commercial buildings in collusion with officials.
Green Areas Nos. 10 & 11 obliterated by illegal constructions—Court Commissioner’s unchallenged report confirms violations.
Undivided common areas cannot be repurposed without apartment-owners’ consent under s. 6 of 1983 Act.
NGT validly quantified environmental compensation; review application lacked merit.

Factual Background

M/s HLF Enterprises (renamed Ambience Developers) acquired licence for a group-housing colony on 18.98 acres in 1993. Phase I layout on 10.98 acres was approved in 1995 and flats sold via Buyers’ Agreements in 2001. The remaining 8 acres were ‘de-licensed’ in October 2001 and re-licensed for a mall/hotel. Disputes over open-space losses and statutory approvals triggered consumer suits, civil writs before the Punjab & Haryana High Court, an NGT Original Application, and successive proceedings, culminating in the Supreme Court quashing the de-licensing and curbing NGT’s collateral jurisdiction.

Statutory Analysis

Haryana Development & Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975:

s. 3(2)/(3) – mandatory enquiry into title, layout, development plans
s. 8 – explicit licence cancellation power
1976 Rules r. 3(1) – Form LC-I requirements (layout plan mandatory)
r. 4 – minimum 45% area reserved for roads/open spaces

General Clauses Act, 1897: s. 21 on implied power does not override special statute.

Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983:

s. 2 – deed of declaration within 90 days of part-completion
s. 6(1)/(2) – permanent undivided interest in common areas
s. 24-A – penalty for delay in declaration

NGT Act, 2010:

s. 2(1)(m) – “substantial question relating to environment”
s. 14 – jurisdiction limited to such questions under Schedule I enactments

Haryana Amendment Act, 2020: inserted s. 3(3A) validating retrospective modifications of licences including de-licensing.

Procedural Innovations

Supreme Court curbs parallel NGT petitions raising collateral licence disputes pending before High Court—emphasizes primacy of substantive writ remedy under Article 226 for fact-intensive disputes.
Highlights need for NGT to satisfy “substantial question relating to environment” under s. 2(1)(m) & not entertain pure land-use contract conflicts.

Alert Indicators

🚨 Breaking Precedent – implicit ‘de-licensing’ power under a special Act held ultra vires.
✔ Precedent Followed – Auroville Foundation on NGT’s jurisdiction limits.