The Supreme Court on Wednesday sought a response from the Haryana government on real estate firm DLF’s plea claiming the refund of Rs 584 crore it spent on the construction of community projects like schools, hospitals and community centres in housing societies developed by it in the last 37 years.

A bench headed by justice Vikramajit Sen sought a reply from the Haryana government on the builder’s appeal challenging the state government’s 2012 amendment to Haryana urban development laws that allowed municipal bodies to charge internal community building charges for the construction of community buildings, like hospitals, schools, police posts, parks and community centres, among others.

Stating Ansal Properties and Investment has been explicitly protected by an apex court ruling in its favour, senior counsel Abhishek Manu Singhvi, appearing for DLF, argued that the builders had constructed projects worth R61,000 crore in the last 37 years and is seeking a refund of R584 crore that it had spent in construction of community projects during the period.

Challenging the constitutionality of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2012, he said that the amendment in the laws was arbitrary and specifically intended to stop a “windfall” to DLF and to protect Ansal, which is armed with the SC ruling.

DLF further stated that the legislature had enacted the 2012 amendment Act with the singular aim to overrule the Supreme Court judgment, which is impermissible. The counsel further alleged that the amendment was a colourable exercise of legislative power with a hidden motive to over-rule the cited decision when the “statement of objects and reasons” of the amendments had reference to both DLF and Ansal.

The Haryana government had brought in amendments to the urban development laws after a Supreme Court judgement in 2009 exempted Ansal Properties from footing the entire bill of construction of community projects.

The 2009 ruling held that transferring of land for such projects free of cost to the government itself was enough. Under the un-amended provision, the licensee was required to transfer the land to the state government free of costs. Post-amendment, if the licensee-coloniser failed to construct or get the community buildings constructed within the stipulated period, such licensees were asked to pay the proportionate cost of construction of those community buildings; besides the land set apart for those buildings would also vest with the state government.

DLF had moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court against the amendment. However, the high court in February this year turned down its plea, saying there is no constitutional inhibition against the state legislature from curing the lacuna or removing the defect in the Principal Act of 1975 with retrospective effect, i.e., from the date such defect or lacuna had occurred.