Supreme Court Sets Aside High Court Order Quashing De‑licensing; Stays NGT Action Pending High Court Review

A bench of Justices J. B. Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta heard consolidated civil appeals arising out of the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s judgment dated 10 July 2020 in Civil Writ Petition No. 20330 of 2015 and connected matters, as well as related appeals from orders of the National Green Tribunal. The appeals challenged the High Court’s quashing of de‑licensing and permissions granted for commercial development adjacent to the Ambience Lagoon residential project in Gurgaon and the NGT’s environmental directions.

The Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court judgment dated 10 July 2020 and directed that ongoing proceedings before other fora be unaffected. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had proceeded on an erroneous factual premise — namely that the residential colony was required to be developed over the entire 18.98 acres — when the Apartment Buyers’ Agreement and sanctioned layout plan consistently showed the Ambience Lagoon residential component on 10.98 acres. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “We are of the firm view that the High Court has proceeded on a totally erroneous assumption that the residential colony was required to be developed over the entire 18.98 acres and not 10.98 acres. The above conclusion drawn is ex facie erroneous in face of the contract executed between the parties and the approved layout plan.” The Court further recorded that “the impugned judgment dated 10th July, 2020 ... is, ex facie, unsustainable in facts and in law and hence, the same cannot be sustained. The same is, thus, set aside.” The Supreme Court also clarified that its observations would not prejudice Civil Writ Petition No. 6047 of 2025 pending before the High Court.

Background
The dispute concerned phased development of the Ambience Lagoon/ Ambience Island projects in Nathupur, Gurgaon. Developers (formerly M/s HLF Enterprises, later Ambience Developers) obtained License No.19 of 1993 for group housing on 18.98 acres; subsequent planning and approvals showed segmented parcels — 10.98 acres for Phase‑I residential, 8 acres reserved for later development, and 4 acres with separate uses. Developers applied in 2000–2001 to de‑license 8 acres for commercial use; DTCP issued related permissions in October 2001 and building activity for a mall and hotel commenced in the 2000s.

Flat‑owners (including Amitabha Sen and Dipika Sen) alleged tampering with the LC‑I application (omission of a mandatory layout plan clause), concealment and collusion with authorities, loss of open/green areas and breach of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act. The High Court quashed the de‑licensing (18.10.2001), related permissions and an approval of 1.9.2010, found possible “unjust enrichment” and directed a CBI investigation. The DTCP later examined the matter and passed a detailed order on 5 August 2021 upholding the licencing/ re‑licencing steps and directing certain corrections to the Deed of Declaration; that order was challenged and is pending in the High Court (CWP No. 6047/2025). The CBI registered/ investigated and filed a chargesheet which, while finding the de‑licensing procedurally in order, recorded allegations of concealment in the Builder‑Buyer Agreement and framed offences under Sections 420/120B IPC against the director(s). The NGT proceedings on environmental compensation also ran in parallel; the NGT directed interim compensation and constituted a Joint Expert Committee whose report proposed substantial fines and possible demolition.

Outcome: Appeals allowed; High Court judgment dated 10 July 2020 was set aside. The Supreme Court stayed action on the NGT Joint Expert Committee’s recommendations and directed that NGT proceedings remain in abeyance pending disposal of CWP No. 6047/2025 before the High Court. No order as to costs.

Case Details:
Case No.: 2026 INSC 77 (Civil Appeals arising out of SLP(C) Nos.11480 of 2020; 5971 of 2021; 14797 of 2020 and Civil Appeal Nos. 872–874 of 2021)
Case Title: Raj Singh Gehlot & Ors. v. Amitabha Sen & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Shri Abhishek Manu Singhvi, Sr. Adv.; Shri Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv.; Shri Pinaki Misra, Sr. Adv.; Shri Tushar Mehta, Solicitor General (and Shri Lokesh Sinhal, AAG) (as per pleading records)
For the Respondent(s): Ms. Uttara Babbar, Sr. Adv.; Ms. Kamini Jaiswal; Ms. Kanika Agnihotri; Ms. Madhavi Divan (for Kohler India Corporation) (as per pleading records)