New Delhi, Jan. 21 -- The Supreme Court on Tuesday set aside a Punjab and Haryana High Court order directing a Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) probe into the construction of Ambience Mall on land originally earmarked for a group housing project in Gurugram, holding that the high court's July 2020 direction was "unsustainable in law". In a detailed judgment, the apex court found that the high court had proceeded on "erroneous assumptions" regarding land use, contractual obligations, and alleged misrepresentation by the developer, Ambience Developers, while ignoring foundational pleadings, approved layout plans and gross delay on the part of the writ petitioners. A bench of justices JB Pardiwala and Sandeep Mehta held that the Apartment Buyers' Agreement executed in 2001 clearly stipulated that the Ambience Lagoon residential colony would be developed on 10.98 acres of the total licensed land of 18.98 acres in Phase I, with the remaining land earmarked for commercial development. The bench noted that the agreement unequivocally disclosed this arrangement and that the flat owners had never pleaded ignorance of its contents. The plea that the buyers had been compelled to sign on the "dotted line" or kept in the dark was raised for the first time only in a rejoinder and was found to be wholly unconvincing. "The finding recorded by the High Court that the flat owners were made to sign on the dotted line is ex facie conjectural and unsupported by any pleadings or credible material," said the court, holding that the conclusion that the agreement was executed under misrepresentation was unjustified and legally untenable. The Ambience Group and its promoter Raj Singh Gehlot were represented by a legal team comprising senior advocates Mukul Rohatgi and Abhishek Manu Singhvi, and assisted by lawyers from Karanjawala & Co. Setting aside the July 10, 2020 judgment in its entirety, the bench further faulted the high court for proceeding as if the residential colony was required to be developed over the entire 18.98 acres, when in fact the approved layout plan and contractual documents showed that the housing project was sanctioned only over 10.98 acres. Treating the residential colony as having been sanctioned over the full licensed area, the apex court said, led the high court to wrongly conclude that green areas and amenities had been reduced. The bench underscored that the construction of Ambience Mall and the Leela Ambience Hotel had commenced as early as 2002 and was completed by 2007-08, during which period the residential flats had already been occupied. In these circumstances, the court said, the flat owners could not plausibly claim ignorance of commercial construction activity in the adjoining land. "The rank silence and utter indifference shown by the flat owners for almost a decade raises serious doubt about the bona fides of the writ petition," emphasised the court, adding that the writ petition filed in 2015 suffered from gross delay, which by itself ought to have disentitled the petitioners to discretionary relief under Article 226. The judgment also placed reliance on a comprehensive order passed by the Director of Town and Country Planning (DTCP) on August 5, 2021, pursuant to earlier directions of the high court. That order had concluded that the de-licensing of eight acres reserved for Phase II expansion and its re-licensing for commercial use was legally permissible, supported by statutory powers and retrospectively validated by the 2020 amendment to the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act. The Supreme Court noted that the DTCP had found no illegality in the approval of building plans or the development of the commercial complex, subject only to corrective steps relating to disclosure deficiencies in the Deed of Declaration. These findings, the Supreme Court said, conclusively determined the controversy in favour of the developer. Coming down strongly on the high court's direction to order a CBI probe, the bench held that the direction was issued on "unverified and inconclusive material" and was therefore unwarranted. The court noted that although the CBI had, in the interim, registered an FIR and filed a charge sheet, the agency itself had found the de-licensing of land to be in accordance with law, attributing alleged illegality only to supposed misrepresentation in the Apartment Buyers' Agreement. Allowing the high court judgment to stand, the Supreme Court warned, could prejudice both the pending criminal trial and a separate writ petition challenging the DTCP's 2021 order, which is currently pending before the high court. The SC bench also stayed proceedings before the National Green Tribunal (NGT), holding that the environmental issues raised were intrinsically linked to the land-use dispute already under adjudication. The court stayed the NGT's order constituting a joint expert committee and the committee's report recommending penalties exceeding Rs.140 crore, environmental compensation, profit withholding and possible demolition. The bench clarified that NGT proceedings would remain in abeyance until the disposal of the pending writ petition before the high court, after which the parties would be free to seek revival of the matter, subject to the existence of substantial environmental questions under the NGT Act....