Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R. BANUMATHI, A.S. BOPANNA, JJ.
Okhla Enclave Plot Holders’ Welfare Association – Appellant
Versus
Union Of India And Others – Respondents
Writ Petition © No.876 of 1996
Decided on : 03-10-2019
(a) Administration of justice - Real estate development - Town and country planning - Petitioners applying to respondent 6 for allotment of plots - Respondent 6 not renewing its licence - Dispute regarding share of Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd. in the seven licences - Shall be examined with reference to documents and only on payment of due licence fee - However this issue shall not come in the way of claim of the petitioners. (Para 16, 17, 18)
(b) Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 - Section 5 r/w Rules 24, 26(2), 27 and 28 of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976 - Respondent 6-coloniser not complying with requirements - Alleging default by petitioner in depositing amounts directed by Supreme Court - Petitioners claiming to have deposited the amount with respondent 6 - Needs to be verified - Defaulters shall pay interest of 6%. (Para 20)
(c) Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 - Section 5 r/w Rules 24, 26(2), 27 and 28 of Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Rules, 1976 - Internal and external development charges amounting to Rs.1,28,70,00,000/- not paid to State Government - Arbitrator directed to determine pro rata amount per allottee considering the total area and area allotted to individual plot owners - Plot owners directed to pay the same within stipulated time. (Para 33, 34)
(d) Town and Country Planning - Coloniser not paying licence fee and licence renewal fee - Directed to pay with 6% interest - Expenses on watch and ward by DTPC also payable by Coloniser - If not paid, recoverable as land revenue. (Para 47, 50)
(e) Town and Country Planning - Surplus land, if any after allotment to allottees - Shall go to respondent 6-coloniser - Any allottee already living in licenced area will not be entitled to claim any further allotment - Any allottee failing to clear his dues and shows his willingness to quit, the plot shall be deemed to be allotted to respondent 6. (Para 51, 53)
(f) Administration of justice - Settlement of disputes - Supreme Court appointing an arbitrator for settling disputes between coloniser and allottees - Clarified that the proceedings are not in the nature of arbitration under Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996, but a in the nature of a Special Committee of the Supreme Court. (Para 55)
Facts of the case:
Respondent No.6-Colonizer purchased approximately 235 acres tract of land for the purpose of large-scale settlement in Sector 91 of Faridabad-Ballabgarh Complex, Haryana in the year 1985. Respondent No.6-Colonizer entered into agreement with number of allottees. In the year 1991, the State of Haryana enforced its colonization policy and respondent No.6-Colonizer accordingly obtained seven colonization licences. In the year 1996, writ petitions were filed by the members of the petitioner-Association before the Supreme Court contending that respondent No.6-Colonizer had not adhered to the terms of the agreement in allotment of plots to the allottees who had booked the plots with respondent No.6-Colonizer. Vide order dated 02.12.1999, the Court noted that there seems to be a dispute as to the amount payable by each allottee to respondent No.6-Colonizer as well as to the government. Stating that it is not possible to fix the exact figure payable by each allottee to the government and to respondent No.6-Colonizer, the Court directed each allottee to pay a sum of Rs.50/-per sq. yd. towards development charges to the Director, Town and Country Planning within four weeks. The balance amount, if any, was to be worked out and fixed later.
The Supreme Court vide order dated 27.01.2016 referred the matter to arbitration. Justice Vikramajit Sen, former Judge of the Supreme Court was appointed as the sole Arbitrator for resolving the terms of reference and the dispute between the parties. The learned Arbitrator has identified three categories of the eligible allottees, onbe of them being No profit no loss (NPNL) category.
The learned Arbitrator has sought for direction on the following questions:-
(i) In light of the fact that Durga Builders Private Limited is claiming succession only with respect to two licences (out of total seven licences) making it necessary to also determine which portions of the land compositely held by seven licences falls to its share?
(ii) Given that the State of Haryana has categorically stated that it cannot take over the project and make allotments, even in view of the fact that the Colonizer has intentionally not paid the Licence Fee, who will undertake the development of the Project and subsequently make allotments?
(iii) In view of the fact that around 2690 claims were received in the NPNL category, the State of Haryana will have to devise a policy for relaxing density norms for the Project.
(iv) The Hon’ble Supreme Court may pass appropriate directions for converting these proceedings to that of a Special Committee.
Finding of the Court:
The colonizer, unless he pays licence fee and licence renewal fee shall not be entitled to any relief.
ORDER :
Re: Directions sought for by the learned Arbitrator Justice Vikramjit Sen, former Judge of the Supreme Court of India.
R. BANUMATHI, J.
The present dispute pertains to claim of number of allottees who have not been allotted plots on land owned by respondent No.6-Colonizer and not paid the amount to the Town and Country Planning for internal and external development. As per respondent No.6-Colonizer, in the year 1985, it purchased approximately 235 acres tract of land for the purpose of large-scale settlement in Section 91 of Faridabad-Ballabgarh Complex, Haryana. At that time, there was no State policy in place to regulate the colonization of land for settlement purposes. Respondent No.6-Colonizer entered into agreement with number of allottees who approached respondent No.6-Colonizer for the purpose of purchasing plots of land. In the year 1991, the State of Haryana enforced its colonization policy and respondent No.6-Colonizer accordingly obtained seven colonization licences. In the year 1996, writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India were filed by the members of the petitioner-Association before the Supreme Court contending that respondent No.6-Colonizer had not adhered to the terms of the agreement in allotment of plots to the allottees who had booked the plots with respondent No.6-Colonizer. In the writ petition, number of orders came to be passed. Vide order dated 02.12.1999, the Court noted that there seems to be a dispute as to the amount payable by each allottee to respondent No.6-Colonizer as well as to the government. Stating that it is not possible to fix the exact figure payable by each allottee to the government and to respondent No.6-Colonizer, the Court directed each allottee to pay a sum of Rs.50/-per sq. yd. towards development charges to the Director, Town and Country Planning within four weeks. The balance amount, if any, was to be worked out and fixed later.
2. Pursuant to the order dated 02.12.1999, the allottees are said to have deposited the amount with Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana (DTCP). Some of the allottees have not complied with the order of the Court by depositing the amount with DTCP. On 15.11.2013, the Director, Town and Country Planning (DTCP) has filed affidavit to the effect that whatever Internal Development Work has been done has become defunct with passage of time. It was also submitted that an estimate of the cost likely to be incurred on execution of remaining Internal Development Work will have to be worked out afresh and will have to be borne by the plot holders or licensee. It was also categorically stated that such cost cannot be borne by the government since public funds cannot be diverted for this purpose.
3. The Court vide order dated 13.01.2015 appointed Mr. Raju Ramachandran, senior advocate as amicus curiae to go into the detailed facts of the case and prepare a report. The Supreme Court vide order dated 27.01.2016 referred the matter to arbitration. Justice Vikramajit Sen, former Judge of the Supreme Court was appointed as the sole Arbitrator for resolving the terms of reference and the dispute between the parties. The learned Arbitrator held around twenty-two hearings in the matter to resolve the dispute among the parties. The learned Arbitrator has completed the mammoth task of identifying the eligible allottees. The learned Arbitrator noted that there are three categories of allottees for the purpose of allotment which are as under:- [(Pg. No.44D and 55(4) of Proceedings of the Supreme Court dated 13.01.2015 and 27.01.2016 and Pg.20 of the paperbook regarding Letter dated 21.03.2018 by Arbitrator)]
I. General
II. Economically Weaker Sections (EWS)
III. No profit no loss (NPNL)
4. The Scrutiny Committee consisting of Senior Town Planner, Faridabad (Chairman), District Town Planner, Faridabad (Member), Representative of Deputy Commissione
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
