Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1291
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRA ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017
RAVI PRAKASH
SRIVASTAVA & ORS. ….PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH & ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 15548 OF 2017
O R D E R
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.11.07
16:19:39 IST
Reason:
1
1
2. The present special leave petitions have been
preferred against the impugned judgment and final
th
order dated 17 May, 2016 passed by the High Court
2
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No. 22576 of
2016. Vide the said order, the High Court disposed of
the writ petition without granting any substantive
relief as sought for by the petitioners. However, the
petitioners were given liberty to approach the
Housing Commissioner in respect of the affairs of the
Housing Society and to file a civil suit in respect of
the loan availed by the petitioners to finance the
purchase of the flats.
3. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that the
petitioners claim to be the allottees in a Group
Housing Project undertaken by Golf Course Sahkari
1
Petitioners in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9792 of 2017 were also
the petitioners in Writ-C No. 22576 of 2016 filed before the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad whereas Petitioners in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 15548 of 2017 were not party to the above-stated writ petition.
2
Hereinafter, being referred to as the “High Court”.
2
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
3
Awas Samiti (previously, JP Greens Employees
Sahkari Awas Samiti), which was formed in 2004 and
registered as a housing co-operative society under
Section 7 of Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act,
1965. The Samiti filed an application with Greater
4
Noida Industrial Development Authority seeking
th
allotment of land. GNIDA vide letter dated 9
September, 2004 allotted Plot No. 7, Sector PI-2,
Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar
Pradesh, 201308 admeasuring 10,000 sq. meters @
Rs. 2975/- per sq. meter in favour of the Samiti, for
flat-based development, stipulating payment of 30%
of the lease amount within 60 days and the balance
70% in eight half-yearly instalments.
4. Pursuant thereto, GNIDA executed a lease deed
th
dated 29 March, 2005 in favour of the Samiti which
3
Hereinafter, being referred to as the “Samiti” or “Society”.
4
For short “GNIDA”.
3
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
in turn, submitted a layout plan which was approved
by GNIDA in 2005 itself. The approved plan of the
Housing Society envisaged four towers (Ground+10
st th
floors) with two towers (1 and 4 ) having 4 flats on
nd rd
each floor and other two towers (2 and 3 ) having 3
flats on each floor. In total, the Housing Society was
to comprise approximately 140 (±5%) flats along with
2 shops.
5. Thereafter, the construction of the project was
purportedly entrusted to M/s Shiv Kala Developers
Pvt. Ltd., of which Mr. Mahim Mittal (respondent No.
20) is the Director. Advertisements were issued in the
newspapers and brochures were circulated,
projecting the development of a luxury residential
5
complex under the name of “Shiv Kala Charms” on
the aforesaid plot. The petitioners herein applied for
the allotment of flats in the said project. It is stated
5
Hereinafter, being referred to as the “Housing Project”.
4
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
that although cheques were collected from
prospective allottees in the name of the Samiti, the
corresponding receipts were issued in the name of
either M/s Shiv Kala Developers Pvt. Ltd. or M/s
6
Advantage Engineers and Developers Pvt. Ltd .
6. The Housing Project was pre-approved for
housing loan by various banks. Influenced thereby,
the petitioners availed housing loan facilities,
pursuant to which, tri-partite agreements were
executed between the petitioners, the
Samiti/developer, and the respective banks. Under
the said agreements, the sanctioned loan amount
was directly disbursed to the Samiti.
th
7. It is stated that after 14 October, 2007, no
payment in respect of lease amount was received by
GNIDA. Consequently, GNIDA issued a letter in July,
2010, calling upon the Samiti to pay Rs.
6
Hereinafter, being referred to as the “Developer”.
5
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
3,14,42,238/- (Rupees Three Crore Fourteen Lakh
Forty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Eight
st
only) by 31 July, 2010. Since the Samiti failed to
comply, GNIDA issued a final show cause notice
st
dated 21 February, 2011, requiring the Samiti to
explain why the lease deed should not be cancelled.
th
Ultimately, vide order dated 9 September, 2011,
GNIDA cancelled the lease deed executed in favour of
the Samiti.
8. Several complaints were lodged by the
homebuyers with the authorities alleging large-scale
siphoning and diversion of funds by the office bearers
of the Samiti in collusion with the developer. Taking
cognizance of the said complaints, District
Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar vide order dated
nd
2 December, 2011 constituted an inquiry
committee to examine the affairs of the Samiti. The
th
committee submitted its report on 5 March, 2012
6
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
highlighting grave irregularities in the affairs of the
Samiti and recording, inter alia , the following
findings: -
• The construction of the Housing Society is not
complete and at present, the entire work has
been stopped due to cancellation of lease deed.
• The lease deed was cancelled owing to the failure
7 8
of Mr. SU Jafar and Mr. Mahim Mittal to make
the requisite payment to GNIDA.
• It is clear that the funds received by the Samiti
from the homebuyers have been
misappropriated.
• The office bearers of the Samiti have failed to
furnish the information sought by the Committee
regarding the list of allottees and the amounts
deposited by each of them towards their
7
Respondent No. 22- Secretary of the Samiti
8
Respondent No. 20- Director of M/s Shiv Kala Developers Pvt. Ltd.
7
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
respective flats, thereby deliberately withholding
material information.
• The Samiti was being run in an arbitrary manner
and in contravention of the provisions of the UP
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965; the UP
Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968; and bye-laws
framed thereunder.
• It was found that the same flat has been allotted
multiple times to more than one allottee/s and in
many cases, multiple loans have been availed in
respect of the same flat.
• It has also been found that Mr. SU Jafar and Mr.
Mahim Mittal have allotted fictitious flats which
have never existed to certain allottees, and loans
have also been sanctioned in respect of the said
flats.
8
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
9. Based on the aforesaid conclusions/findings,
the committee made the following
recommendations:-
1. That a letter shall be forwarded to Governor,
Reserve Bank of India for initiating an inquiry
into the involvement of banks/financial
institutions in the fraud committed by the office
bearers of the Samiti.
2. That an enquiry be conducted by the Housing
Commissioner, UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad in
respect of the Housing Project.
3. That legal action/proceedings shall be initiated
against all those persons who were involved in
the fraudulent housing scheme.
10. The homebuyers filed a criminal complaint
against the office bearers of the Shiv Kala Group and
the Samiti before the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi.
The said complaint led to the registration of FIR No.
9
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
62 of 2012 against SU Jafar, Mahim Mittal and 8
other co-accused persons. After investigation,
chargesheet came to be filed by the Economic
Offences Wing, Delhi for offences punishable under
Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 472 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
th
11. On 27 December 2013, UP Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad appointed an administrator to look into the
affairs of the society. Additional Housing
Commissioner, UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vide
th th
letters dated 7 April, 2014 and 27 May, 2015,
directed the Cooperative Officers (Housing) to lodge
an FIR against Mahim Mittal and other concerned
persons.
12. Petitioners claiming to be the allottees of the
9
Housing Project filed writ petition before the High
Court seeking several reliefs/directions against the
9
Writ-C No. 22576 of 2016.
10
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
Samiti, the developer and the financial
institutions/banks. For sake of ready reference, the
reliefs sought in the writ petition are reproduced
hereinbelow:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow
this petition and issue;
a) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in
the nature of Certiorari to quash the
order dated 09.09.201l (Annexure 9 to
the writ petition) issued by the Greater
Noida Industrial Development Authority
whereby the lease deed of Plot No.7,
Sector PI-2, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh
Nagar, U.P.- 201308 was terminated;
b) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus to the
Authorities to take appropriate action in
terms of letter dated 04.02.2014 and
27.05.2015 (Annexure 16 to the writ
petition) issued by UP Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad against GCSAS Society office
bearer;
c) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus to the Housing
Commissioner of UP Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad, Lucknow to form a committee till
the conduction of fresh society elections;
d) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus to the Housing
Commissioner of UP Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad, Lucknow, to identify the genuine
members in the GCSAS society and direct
UP Sahkari Samiti Nirvachan Ayog to
conduct fresh society election;
11
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
e) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus to the
Respondent Authorities to recover the
amount misappropriated/diverted by Mr.
Mahim Mittal, Mr. Asit Mittal, Mr. SU
Zaffar, Mr. Pankaj Jindal and Mr. Umesh
Garg from the coffers of the Golf Course
Sahkari Awas Samiti and to return the
same to the samiti;
f) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus to the Greater
Noida Industrial Development Authority
to restore the lease deed dated
29.03.2005 with respect to Plot No. 7,
Sector PI-2, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh
Nagar, U.P.- 201308;
g) An appropriate Writ, Order to restore the
lease deed dated 29.03.2.005 with
respect to Plot No. 7, Sector PI-2, Greater
Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.- 201308;
h) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction to
the National Housing Bank and Reserve
Bank of India to conduct an enquiry against
the bank/financial institution involved in
the project GCSAS;
i) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction to
the Respondents LICHFL, HDFC Bank,
AXIS Bank, India Bulls HFL, DHFL,
PNBHFL, Indian Bank, Oriental Bank of
Commerce, and Syndicate Bank
prohibiting them to recover the loan from
the petitioners till the possession of the
respective flats in question is not handed
over to the petitioners;
j) Any other writ, order or direction in the
circumstances of the case that this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper; and
k) award the costs of the writ petition.”
(Emphasis supplied)
12
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
th
13. The High Court, vide final order dated 17 May,
2016, disposed of the writ petition without granting
any substantive relief as sought for by the petitioners.
The High Court took note of the fact that the lease
deed has already been cancelled due to the non-
payment of lease rent and criminal proceedings have
also been initiated and chargesheet has been filed
against the office bearers of the Samiti and the
developer whereas the role played by the officers of
the bank is still under investigation. In this view of
the matter, the High Court expressed its
disinclination to issue any writ or pass any
substantive directions in the writ petition.
Nevertheless, it was observed that if any adverse
report is submitted to the concerned authority, i.e.,
the Reserve Bank of India and National Housing
Bank by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi,
appropriate action, as permissible in law, shall be
13
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
taken against the concerned individuals. The High
Court further granted liberty to the petitioners to
approach the Housing Commissioner for redressal of
the grievances concerning the affairs of the Housing
Society and to file civil suits seeking appropriate relief
in relation to repayment of the loans availed by the
petitioners for financing the purchase of the flats. For
ease of reference. operative portion of the order
passed by the High Court is reproduced hereinbelow:
“The records reflect that the petitioners have taken
loan from the respondent banks for the purposes of
purchase of flats offered by a Housing Cooperative
Society.
From the records we find that the land, subject
matter of controversy, was provided to the Housing
Society by Greater Noida Industrial Development
Authority (respondent no. 4) and because of non-
payment of lease rent and other dues, the allotment
was cancelled as early as on 09.09.2011. We further
find that a first information report has already been
registered against the Directors of the Housing
Society and further that the role played by financial
institutions is under examination of the Economic
Offences Wing, final report whereof is still to be
submitted. It has been stated that the Economic
Offences Wing has submitted a charge-sheet against
the Directors of the Housing Society while the role of
the officers of the bank is still under consideration.
We, in the facts of the present case, do not find any
14
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
good ground to interfere with the order dated
09.09.2011 cancelling the lease of the land settled
with the Housing Society specifically when there is
hardly any deposit of lease rent and other dues by
the Housing Society. Since a first information report
has already been lodged against the Housing
Society, no further direction against the office
bearers of the Housing Society is called for at this
stage nor is this Court required to issue any other
mandamus in the matter of running of the said
Housing Society. The petitioners are at liberty to
approach the Housing Commissioner for the said
purpose.
So far as the enquiry against the officers of the bank
and other officers is concerned, the matter is already
under examination of the Economic Offences Wing.
If any adverse report is submitted to the concerned
authority namely the Reserve Bank of India and
National Housing Bank by the Economic Offences
Wing, all action as permissible under law, shall be
taken against them. We do not find any good reason
to interfere with the repayment of the loan which has
been availed of by the petitioners from the bank.
However, it is always open to the petitioners to file a
civil suit for avoiding the agreement. We hope and
trust that the proceedings in respect of involvement
of the officers of the banks shall be concluded at the
earliest by the agency concerned.
With the aforesaid observations the present writ
petition is disposed of.”
14. The aforesaid order passed by the High Court is
the subject matter of challenge in the instant batch
of special leave petitions filed at the instance of the
members of the society claiming to be the original
allottees of the flats-in-question.
15
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
th
15. This Court vide order dated 14 July, 2021
observed that the primary issue to be dealt with in
the present proceedings is in reference to prayer
Clause (f) of the writ petition. The said clause is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“(f) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus to the Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority to restore the
lease deed dated 29.03.2005 with respect to plot
No. 7, Sector PI-2, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh
Nagar, U.P.- 201308.”
(Emphasis supplied)
16. During the pendency of the special leave
petitions before this Court, several intervention
applications came to be filed by individuals claiming
to be the allottees in the Housing Project. Considering
th
the same, this Court vide order dated 29 July, 2021
directed Registrar, Cooperative Societies to disclose
by way of an affidavit, the details of the genuine
members of the Society along with their known postal
16
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
addresses/contact numbers/email addresses and
whether the proceedings for winding up of the Society
had been taken to its logical end and stage thereof.
17.
In compliance of the aforesaid order, an affidavit
th
dated 11 August, 2021 came to be filed by Housing
Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
10
Uttar Pradesh (respondent No. 5) . The petitioners
were granted an opportunity to file their response to
11
the said affidavit.
st
18. On 1 September, 2021, when the case came up
for consideration, this Court, upon perusing the said
affidavit and the response filed by the petitioners,
placing on record details about the membership and
allotment of the concerned flat(s) to them, was of the
opinion that the claims of petitioners as well as the
applicants have to be verified by respondent No. 5-
10
Hereinafter, being referred to as the “respondent No. 5-Commissioner”.
11 th
Order dated 17 August, 2021.
17
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
Commissioner. Hence, respondent No. 5-
Commissioner was directed to conduct a limited
enquiry regarding the genuineness of the documents
and the claims set up by the concerned
petitioners/applicants and to place on record list of
such members whose claims were found to be
genuine. The relevant extract of the said order is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“We have perused the affidavit dated 11.08.2021
filed by respondent No.5-Housing Commissioner-
cum-Registrar, Cooperative Housing Society, Uttar
Pradesh.
In response to that affidavit, the
petitioners/applicants have filed further
affidavit placing on record details about the
membership and allotment of the concerned
flat(s) to the respective petitioners/applicants.
That claim will have to be verified by the Housing
Commissioner-cum-Registrar, in the first place
within four weeks from today.
We permit the Housing Commissioner-cum-
Registrar to conduct that limited enquiry about
the genuineness of the documents and the claim
set up by the concerned petitioners/applicants
and if satisfied, that they were bonafide members
of the society, list of such members can be
produced along with affidavit before the next
date of hearing.
The petitioners/applicants who have not furnished
the documents are free to do so within one week
from today. They shall submit their claim
18
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
documents to respondent No. 5 directly within one
week.”
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Respondent No. 5-Commissioner filed an
rd
affidavit dated 3 October, 2021 stating that in total
53 applications had been received from the
concerned allottees. A chart was annexed to the said
affidavit detailing: (i) the amounts deposited by each
applicant in the account of the Samiti; (ii) the flat
number against which such deposits were made; and
(iii) the particulars of the bank/financial institutions
from which loan had been taken by the respective
applicants. However, respondent No. 5-
Commissioner sought further time to place on record
a comprehensive affidavit after due verification of the
claims of the aforesaid 53 applicants, in view of the
fact that additional information had been
requisitioned from the concerned banks/financial
institutions, which was essential for ascertaining the
19
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
genuineness of the documents/claims furnished by
the applicants.
th
20. This Court, vide order dated 19 May, 2022
recorded that respondent No. 5-Commissioner had
identified 42 allottees having credible documentary
evidence to indicate that they were original members
of the Housing Project and further noted that the
claim of two additional persons had also been
verified. In view of the same, respondent No. 5-
Commissioner was directed to file a revised report.
The Court further recorded that Tower-1, in respect
of which the petitioners had set up their claim, is
occupying around 3243.92 sq. meters approximately
whereas the total area of the plot was about 9731.76
sq. meters. Counsel for GNIDA submitted that a sum
of Rs. 12 Crores remained outstanding in respect of
price of the plot. This Court observed that in the
event, GNIDA were to restore the lease in respect of
20
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
the portion of land on which the said tower stands,
the outstanding dues would stand proportionately
reduced with reference to the area occupied by the
subject tower. Counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners are willing to abide by all the
conditions to be specified by GNIDA, especially
regarding payment of outstanding dues. Accordingly,
GNIDA was directed to submit a plan concerning the
restoration of the lease upon payment of the
outstanding dues. Liberty was also granted to all
persons claiming to be the original allottees to submit
their claims before respondent No. 5-Commissioner
for due verification. The relevant extract of the said
order is reproduced hereinbelow:
“Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the
Registrar has verified the claim of the petitioners and
other persons who had submitted to such
verification. The Registrar has identified 42
applicants having sufficient documentary evidence
to indicate that they were original members in
respect of the subject project.
The tower has been constructed on plot No. 7
admeasuring 9731.76 square meters; lease
21
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
whereof has been cancelled by the authority. The
structure standing on the said plot, in respect of
which the petitioners have set up their claim, is
occupying around 3243.92 square meters
approximately. In all, 44 flats have been
constructed, whereas only 35 petitioners are before
this Court. The Registrar has identified 42 persons
as original members while making it clear that 10
applications could not be verified due to non-
cooperation by the bank and other agencies.
Today, during the course of hearing, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No. 13 (India
Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.) has confirmed
payment made by Ravi Prakash Shrivastava.
Similarly, in the case of Jamila Ansari, the
Housing Commissioner (respondent No.5)
submits that confirmation has been received
from the concerned Agency.
The Registrar may submit a revised report giving
further break-up of eligible persons before the
next date of hearing.
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent No.4 (Greater
NOIDA) submits that as per his instructions
around Rs.12 crore amount had remained
outstanding in respect of plot No. 7.
In the event, the said authority has to restore the
lease in respect of land on which subject tower is
standing being plot No. 7, the outstanding
amount would stand proportionately reduced in
the context of area underneath the subject
tower. The authority shall produce a plan in
respect of which lease can be restored on
payment of such outstanding dues. That be
placed on record along with affidavit of
authorized official.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner(s), on instructions,
submits that the petitioners are willing to abide
by all the conditions to be specified by the
22
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
Greater NOIDA, especially regarding payment of
outstanding dues.
For the time being, we do not wish to dilate on the
manner in which the 44 flats can be allotted — as
the number of claimants seem to be more than 44.
That issue can be deliberated on the next date.
It will be open to the concerned applicants and
interested persons to furnish further
documents/evidence before the Registrar for
confirmation of their original membership.”
(Emphasis supplied)
nd
21. On 22 July, 2022, when the matter was placed
before the Court, it was noted that respondent No. 5-
Commissioner filed a compliance report stating that
he had verified the claims of 52 applicants and also
found that 50 applicants (including the petitioners
herein) were able to substantiate their claims of
having made the payment to developer/society for
flats in the Housing Project. It was further submitted
by learned counsel for India Bulls Housing Finance
Ltd. (respondent No. 13) as well as by counsel for the
intervenors that there exist more individuals who
have not yet approached respondent No. 5-
23
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
Commissioner for the verification of their claims.
Accordingly, respondent No. 5-Commissioner was
directed to verify the claims of all such persons and
submit a fresh status report as to their eligibility or
otherwise. It was also clarified that until the
outstanding dues pertaining to the plot are fully
discharged, GNIDA cannot be compelled either to
revive the lease or to grant any further permissions,
including permissions for construction in deviation of
the prevailing regulations and building bye-laws.
22. Respondent No. 5-Commissioner submitted
th
compliance report dated 8 August, 2022 wherein it
nd
was stated that that in terms of order dated 22 July,
2022, claims of 15 more applicants were scrutinized
and it was found that 7 of the said applicants were
able to substantiate their claims. It was further
stated that out of 67 applicants/allottees, claims of
57 applicants could be verified by way of
24
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
documentary evidence. However, it was stated that
out of the said 67 applicants, names of only 19
applicants had been found included in the detailed
list of members prepared in the year 2010 by the
Secretary/President, Sahkari Awas Samiti and
furnished to respondent No. 5-Commissioner for the
purpose of election to the office of the management
committee. Hence, only 19 applicants were entitled to
be considered as the actual members of the
Samiti/Society. The petitioners were afforded an
opportunity to submit their objections to the said
12
affidavit.
th
23. This Court vide order dated 9 January, 2024,
noted the submissions advanced by the counsel
appearing for GNIDA and UP Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad regarding the need for a structural audit, to
be conducted by an expert agency and granted eight
12 th
Order dated 17 August, 2022.
25
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
weeks’ time for the conduct of audit of the structure
constructed thus far. The relevant extract of the said
order is reproduced hereinbelow:
“Pursuant to our order 18.10.2023 and the
subsequent order dated 21.11.2023, extending the
time, Mr. Ravindra Kumar and Mr. Vishwajit Singh,
learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the
Greater NOIDA and Uttar Pradesh Awas Vikas
Parishad, respectively, have stated that the said
respondents have already inspected the site, and
technically, they feel it appropriate that there should
be a structural audit to be conducted by an expert
agency, like Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi or
any other institute of equal competence for that
matter, and for the said purpose, they would require
eight weeks’ time.
Although, there is opposition by Ms. Meenakshi
Arora, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the petitioner(s) with respect to the
time sought before us, but considering the nature
of expert report, which is sought to be obtained,
we deem it appropriate to grant eight weeks’
time to the respondents.
It is ensured by the learned counsel for the aforesaid
respondents that the respondents will immediately
start the exercise of getting the structural audit, and
they further assured the Court that they would
submit the report by the next date of hearing.
We would also request the agency engaged by the
respondents for the purpose of structural audit to
make endevour to submit the report within time as
fixed by this Court.”
(Emphasis supplied)
26
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
24. Thereafter, on the request of counsel for the
petitioners, this Court granted 2 weeks’ time to the
petitioners to place on record the list of 40 allottees,
who were willing to join together for the development
and completion of one tower comprising of 40
apartments, specifying the details regarding the floor
and the apartment number proposed to be allotted to
13
each of such 40 allottees.
25. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the
petitioners, along with other allottees filed
Interlocutory Application Nos. 103839 and 103703 of
2024 annexing therewith the list of 40 allottees, who
were willing to join together for the development and
completion of Tower-1 comprising of 40 apartments.
The said interlocutory applications came up for
th
hearing before this Court on 30 April, 2024 and on
the said date, counsel for the applicants submitted
13 th
Order dated 16 April, 2024.
27
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
that the 33 applicants who were originally the
petitioners, had been duly verified by respondent No.
5-Commissioner whereas only three of the remaining
seven applicants could be verified. This Court
directed that the details of the four unverified
applicants and any other individual whose claim was
yet to be verified, be provided to the counsel for
respondent No. 5-Commissioner along with the
supporting documents for due verification. This
Court further noted that number of impleadment
applications had been filed by the allottees, some of
whom were keen to join the afore-mentioned group of
40 applicants but declined to permit such claims at
that stage. However, it was observed that it will
always be open for such applicants/allottee to join
together and if all the remaining 100 allottees joined
together in groups of 40 and 60, their claims could
be considered for the remaining two towers, one of 40
28
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
apartments and other of 60 apartments. The parties
were also granted liberty to conduct a joint inspection
in respect of the existing construction. The Court also
recorded the submission of the counsel for GNIDA
that if all the three towers are taken up together for
occupation, then there shall be no issue of division of
land and other complicated issues of separating and
dividing common areas, including parking in the
basement. The relevant extract of the said order is
reproduced hereinbelow:
th
“ Pursuant to order dated 16 April, 2023 I.A. No.
103839 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioners
giving a list of 39 allottees.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel
th
appearing for the petitioners submits that 40
gentleman has also been identified as Mr. Sanjeev
Kumar Singh. Impleadment Application No.
103703/2024 has been independently filed by
Mr. Singh. Thus, the chart given as Annexure A-
1 to the aforesaid IA takes care of the 40
applicants who are joining together.
Ms. Arora requested for an inspection of the site by
a technical team. She further submits that all 33
applicants who were originally the petitioners are
duly verified by the Registrar-Housing
Commissioner. However, out of the seven who are
newly added, three were only verified and four
remain to be verified. The details of these four
29
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
allottees along with supporting documents may
be provided to learned counsel for the Registrar-
Housing Commissioner within a week whereupon
the Housing Commissioner may get the same
verified and submit a report within the next four
weeks.
Further any other claims now made before the
Housing Commissioner which claims may either
be pending before this Court by way of
impleadment application(s) or even otherwise, to
be provided to learned counsel for the Registrar-
Housing Commissioner, such claims may also be
verified.
… … … …
There are number of impleadment applications filed
by the allottees, some of whom are very keen to join
the team of 40 applicants represented by Ms. Arora,
learned senior counsel. However, we are not
permitting such claims to be considered at this
stage. It will always be open for the remaining
parties to join together and if all the remaining
100 allottees join together in groups of 40 and
60 their claims would be considered for the
remaining two towers one of 40 apartments and
other of 60 apartments.
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel has
also pointed out that it will be in the interest of all
the parties that a joint inspection be made with
regard to the existing construction issues like
common areas, basements and other common
amenities will stand sorted, to which Ms. Arora,
learned senior counsel has no objection. As such,
they may decide amongst themselves to make this
inspection. General Manager, Greater NOIDA,
Planning and Architecture may take care of this.
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel
further submitted that if all the three towers are
taken up together for occupation, then there
shall be no issue of division of land and other
complicated issues of separating and dividing
30
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
common areas, including parking in the
basement. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
nd
26. When the matter came up for hearing on 22
October, 2024, this Court recorded that structural
audit report of Tower-1, conducted by M/s. Architect
Harish Tripathi & Associates, had been placed on
record and that the said report opined that Tower-1
could be rendered fit for habitation upon
strengthening and making certain modifications. On
the strength of this report, counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the 40 applicants/allottees who have
come together for developing and completing Tower-
1, may be permitted to do so. It was further submitted
that the said 40 applicants/allottees are willing to
discharge all their liabilities towards GNIDA as well
as any other taxes, dues, fees or charges, as may be
applicable under law. It was finally submitted that
out of these 40 applicants/allottees, any of the
31
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
allottee who was originally allotted three-bedroom flat
would also duly compensate to an allotee who was
allotted four-bedroom flat, who is deprived of getting
a four-bedroom apartment, though it was pointed out
that Tower-4 also consists of 40 four-bedroom
apartments. Accordingly, the Court directed GNIDA
to provide the details of the proportional charges due
to it from these allottees with respect to Tower-1.
However, counsel for GNIDA contended that the main
hurdle in allowing the said applicants/allottees to
start with the construction work is that the lease,
being for a single plot, had been cancelled in 2011,
and as such, partial restoration of the lease with
respect to Tower-1 alone is not in the domain of
GNIDA, as the lease could either be cancelled in
entirety or restored in toto .
32
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
27. Taking note of the aforesaid submissions, the
Court directed GNIDA to examine, as a special case,
the feasibility of restoring the lease partially in
respect of Tower-1 and the adjoining areas necessary
for its use and utility. It was made clear that upon
such restoration, the allottees must first pay all
outstanding dues, and only thereafter could the
construction work commence. No construction would
be permitted without full clearance of such dues. This
Court also recorded that certain other allottees had
filed interlocutory applications seeking similar reliefs
as sought for by aforesaid 40 applicants/allottees. In
respect of the same, it was observed that such
allottees could also be permitted to proceed with
construction, provided that they make a unified effort
to complete the Tower as is existing, i.e., either
Tower-2 or 3, which have 30 apartments each of
three-bedroom or Tower-4, which has 40 apartments
33
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
of four-bedroom. In case, the required number of
allottees joined together, the Court would consider
the grant of permission to such allottees to
commence with the construction. The relevant
extract of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:
“1. Pursuant to order dated 30.07.2024, learned
counsel for the petitioners has filed a very detailed
report, by M/s. Architect Harish Tripathi and
Associates (Arhta) (running into 636 pages) related
to structural safety audit and strengthening for
residential Tower-1 of Shivkala Charm Society,
Greater Noida.
2. According to the said report, after
strengthening and making required other
changes in the existing form, Tower-1 can be
made fit to be used as habitable.
3. In view of the findings given in the said report,
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel,
appearing for the petitioners, submits that the
allottees who have joined together and are now
40 in number, may be allowed to continue with
the construction work of Tower-1 as they are
interested in getting the said Tower to be
completed.
4. Learned senior counsel further submits that
these 40 allottees will discharge all their
liabilities towards the Greater NOIDA (for short,
the Authority) as may be communicated to them
by the Authority and any other taxes, dues, fees
or charges, as may be admissible under law, to be
collected from them, would also be paid.
5. It is also submitted by learned senior counsel,
that out of these present 40 allottees, any of the
allottee who was originally allotted three-
bedroom apartment would also duly compensate
34
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
to a four-bedroom allotee, who is deprived of
getting a four-bedroom apartment, although,
according to learned senior counsel, Tower-4 also
consist of 40 apartments of four-bedroom.
6. In view of the above, we require the Authority to
provide the details of the proportional charges due
to it from these allottees with respect to Tower-1
within a month.
7. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the Authority, however, submits
that there is one hurdle before these allottees
start with the work after making due payment.
The hurdle is that the entire lease which was for
a single plot was cancelled in the year 2011, as
such partial restoration of the lease with respect
to Tower-1 alone is, apparently, not in the
domain of the Authority as it will either cancel
the entire lease or restore the lease in toto.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, we require the Authority to examine
this aspect, as a special case that it may restore
partial lease with respect to Tower-1 and the
required adjoining areas which may be necessary
for its use and utility.
9. After the dues are communicated and the partial
lease is restored, these allottees would make the
required payment to the Authority and only
thereafter they will start with the construction work.
They would also file appropriate undertaking with
respect to the compensation, which they have
promised to make, with respect to the allotees
having three-bedroom apartment allotments. The
said undertaking may be filed on or before the next
date.
10. After payment is raised by the Authority, four
weeks’ time is granted to these 40 allottees to make
the deposits.
11. We make it clear that no construction work
will start without being dues fully paid.
12. The applications, details of which given
below, have been pressed by the respective
35
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
counsel, claiming that these applicants are also
the allottees and their allotment and payment
have been verified by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad. As such, these applicants may also be
allowed to be considered for carrying out the
construction work with respect to Tower No.4 or
the other two Towers being Tower Nos. 2 and 3,
as the case may be.
IA NO.53283/2024
IA NO.103703/2024
IA NO.98909/2022
IA NO.103089/2022
IA NO.112130/2022
IA No.101087/2021
IA NO.124741/2021
IA NO.183601/2023
IA NO.74439/2024
IA NO.134469/2022
IA NO.14612/2022
IA NO.92267/2023
IA NO.266400/2023
IA NO.142809/2021
13. This Court has no difficulty in permitting
these allottees to proceed with the construction,
however, they have to make a unified effort to
take one complete Tower as is existing, either
Tower 2 or 3, which have 30 apartments each of
three-bedroom or Tower 4, which has 40
apartments of four-bedroom. In case, the
required number of allottees join together, the
Court would be more than happy to permit them
to continue with construction. In such case, one
of the applicants to take the lead till required
number of allottees join together. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
36
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
28. It may be noted herein that despite repeated
14
opportunities having been granted to GNIDA to
place on record a response or propose a plan
indicating the manner in which the Housing Project
is to be dealt with, or to suggest a viable mechanism
keeping in view the peculiar dynamics of the case,
GNIDA has utterly failed to do so.
29. The dissatisfaction of this Court qua the
conduct of GNIDA was recorded in the order dated
th
18 March, 2025 and another opportunity was
granted to GNIDA to file an affidavit providing the
details of demand which it would have raised in case
the original builders had completed the project so
that the proportional charges of each of the allottee
could be determined. By the self-same order, the
Court directed that the details of 10 applicants in I.A.
14 th th st
Orders dated 19th May, 2022; 5 April, 2023; 18 October, 2023; 21
November, 2023; and 22nd October, 2024.
37
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
No. 56220 of 2025, who claimed to be the allottees of
flats in the Housing Project, be provided to the
counsel representing respondent No.5-Commissioner
for verification. The relevant extract of the said order
is reproduced hereinbelow:
“ We are not happy with the fact that the Greater
Noida Industrial Development Authority
(hereafter referred to as ‘Authority’) is not
cooperating in the entire exercise of reviving a
dead project where the home buyers have been
cheated by the builder who has vanished decades
ago and some of the home buyers have joined
together to revive the entire project in part and
also other home buyers are coming in for revival
of the remaining part of the Project. The 40 home
buyers who have joined together to complete one
Tower containing 40 apartments of four-bedroom
each have been continuously in touch with the
Authority requesting them to provide the details and
also to find out solutions as to how they can go
ahead with their aspirations of owning their
apartments. Further they are more than willing to
pay their proportionate share of the charges due
to the Authority but despite the same the
Authority is not coming up with the details of the
demand/solutions nor is it cooperating in and
allowing them to continue with their joint
venture of completing one Tower of 40
apartments.
Today Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior
counsel appearing for the Authority has prayed
for a week’s time to provide the details of the
demand which the Authority would have raised
in case the original builders had completed the
project so that the proportional charges of each
38
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
of the home buyers can be decided depending
upon the size of the apartments they are taking.
Let an affidavit be filed by the competent officer of
the Authority within a week.
List the matter again on 25th March, 2025.
In the meantime, I.A. No. 56220 of 2025 has been
filed by 10 applicants. Copy of the same be provided
to Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, AOR representing
Respondent no. 5-Housing Commissioner, UP Awas
Vikas Parishad who will verify as to whether these
10 applicants in the said application are genuine or
not and also about the payments made by them as
claimed in the application by supporting documents.
For the said verification four weeks’ time is granted.”
(Emphasis supplied)
30. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that
Interlocutory Application No. 55798 of 2025 has been
filed by another group of 30 allottees who have joined
together for the development and completion of
Tower-2 of the Housing Project, with reliefs
analogous to those claimed by the earlier group of 40
allottees referred to supra.
31. Finally, the matter came up before this Court on
th
13 May, 2025, on which date, extensive arguments
were urged on behalf of the parties, and the matters
39
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
were closed for orders. Liberty was granted to
allottees to approach the counsel for respondent No.
5-Commissioner with the details of their claims, so
that the same could be verified. The relevant extract
of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:
“1. Arguments concluded.
2. Order reserved.
3. In the meantime, all the request received by
Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advocate-on-Record
for the Awas Vikas Parishad/Housing Board, the
same would be verified and report be submitted
within next eight weeks. No specific orders are
required. The allottees are free to approach Mr.
Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advocate-on-Record
through their respective counsel. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
32. We have heard and considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties at bar
and have gone through the material available on
record.
33. The preceding facts and circumstances would
clearly indicate that the original allotees who dreamt
of a roof over their heads have been struggling in a
40
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
losing cause for the last nearly 20 years. It is
apparent that the petitioners/applicants/allottees
have endured immense hardship for all this time
apart from losing their hard-earned money and have
been embroiled in administrative log-jam and
prolonged litigation. Despite pursuing remedies
before various fora , their grievances remain
unredressed. Even after nearly two decades of
booking their flats and making payments, some by
taking loans from financial institutions, the allottees
have been unable to take possession, as construction
th
has remained stalled since 9 September, 2011, i.e.,
from the date of cancelling of lease deed by GNIDA,
owing to the fraudulent acts and irregularities
committed by the office bearers of the Samiti/Society
and the developer.
34. Adding to the complexity of the situation is the
fact that during the pendency of the special leave
41
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
petitions before this Court, numerous intervention
applications have been filed by persons claiming to
be original allottees of the Housing Project. It is
pertinent to note that respondent No. 5-
Commissioner has verified most of these claims,
though several such claims are yet to be verified.
Furthermore, it is evident from the record that all the
original allottees are not before this Court, thereby
impeding the formulation of a comprehensive plan of
action in respect of the development and completion
of the Housing Project comprising of four towers on
the entire chunk of land.
35. We are of the considered view that this
unsavoury state of affairs cannot be allowed to
continue indefinitely, and the issue has to be taken
to its logical conclusion. While it is imperative to
ensure some measure of relief to the genuine
allottees, it is equally important to guard against any
42
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
fraudster or imposter staking a false claim on the
legitimate entitlement of the genuine allottees,
thereby, taking undue advantage of the prevailing
uncertainty.
36. Having regard to the protracted pendency of
these proceedings spanning over several years,
during which numerous interlocutory and
impleadment applications have been filed by persons
asserting claims as original allottees of the Housing
Project, coupled with the complexities arising from
verification of such claims and the need to coordinate
between multiple statutory authorities and agencies,
this Court is of the opinion that the matter has
assumed considerable administrative magnitude and
intricacy. The overlapping issues of restoration of
lease, identification of genuine allottees, proportional
determination of land dues, and feasibility of
completing the stalled construction necessitate a
43
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
comprehensive, structured, and impartial
examination under the supervision of an
independent fact-finding authority. Resolution of all
these issues seems unlikely if not impossible in the
proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India.
37. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and to
ensure an expeditious and efficacious resolution,
constitution of an independent Committee under the
aegis of a former Judge has become indispensable.
Hence, we are inclined to form a one-Judge
Committee, headed by Hon’ble Retd. Judge of High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, to undertake a
detailed enquiry into the entire factual matrix and
give suggestions for a suitable resolution.
38. On our request, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj
Naqvi, Judge (Retd.), High Court of Judicature at
44
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
Allahabad, has graciously agreed to conduct the
requisite enquiry.
39. The broad parameters of the Enquiry would be
as below:
I. Committee shall scrutinize all records,
agreements, correspondences, approvals, and
other materials pertinent to the issue including
the affidavits filed by concerned authorities
before this Court and identify the genuine
allottees of the Housing Project.
II. Identify and prepare a list of such allottees who
are willing to join together for the development
and completion of the Housing Project.
III. Consult with GNIDA and if required, cull out a
solution in respect of partial restoration of the
lease deed for Plot No. 7, Sector PI-2, Greater
Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh,
201308 which was terminated vide order dated
45
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
th
9 September, 2011 issued by GNIDA, in case
the entire Housing Project is not being developed
and constructed by the allottees identified in
Clause (II)
terms of .
IV. In case partial lease of the plot can be duly
restored upon payment of outstanding dues of
GNIDA, the Committee shall devise a fair
mechanism/formula for determining the liability
of each allottee identified in terms of Clause (II) .
V. Prepare a comprehensive plan in consultation
with all the stakeholders, for the development
and completion of the Housing Project in a time-
bound manner.
VI. Any other matter which the Committee may
deem relevant for a complete and just resolution
of the controversy.
VII. In the eventuality that the original allottees of
the flats in Towers 3 and 4 are found to be
46
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
unidentifiable or unverifiable, the Committee
may also examine the feasibility and viability of
auctioning Towers 3 and 4 of the Housing Project
by way of an open lottery or such other
transparent mechanism as may be deemed
appropriate, so as to ensure recovery of the
entire expenditure towards construction;
discharge of all land dues payable to GNIDA and
any other financial obligations in respect of the
land appurtenant thereto. The said exercise
shall be undertaken keeping in view the
objective of enabling completion of the remaining
towers and protecting the interests of genuine
allottees who have joined together to undertake
the construction and development of Towers 1
and 2.
40. Upon completion of the enquiry, the Committee
shall submit a detailed report setting out its findings,
47
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
conclusions, and recommendations, thereby
facilitating the final resolution of the matter. The
Committee would endeavor to submit its report to
this Court in a sealed cover within a period of four
months from the date of the commencement of its
effective functioning. The State of Uttar Pradesh;
GNIDA; Housing Commissioner, UP Awas Evam
Vikas Parishad; District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, Uttar Pradesh; all banks/financial
institutions, i.e., respondent Nos. 10 to 19 and all the
petitioners as well as other allottees who have filed
intervention applications before this Court or
otherwise, shall extend full assistance and
cooperation to the Committee for facilitating the
enquiry and to ensure timely submission of the
report. The expenses for travel and incidental
expenses for the sittings of the Committee shall be
48
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
borne equally by the allottees on the one hand and
State of Uttar Pradesh on the other.
41. The Committee shall be provided secretarial
assistance comprising of: one Personal Assistant
(PA), one Lower Division Clerk (LDC), and one Law
Clerk, who may be assigned at the discretion of the
Hon’ble Chairperson. The Committee may hold its
proceedings in New Delhi or Noida, Uttar Pradesh, as
deemed appropriate, with the concerned State(s)
and/or Union Territory making suitable
arrangements for its sittings.
42. The Committee shall be entitled to formulate its
own modalities and procedure for conducting the
enquiry.
43. The Chairperson of the Committee shall be
entitled to a fixed honorarium to the tune of Rs. 15
lakhs (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) which shall be paid
49
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
in three equal tranches spread over a period of four
months.
44. The expenses for the aforesaid enquiry
proceedings shall be equally borne by the allottees on
the one hand and State of Uttar Pradesh on the other.
The parties shall ensure that appropriate facilities are
provided for the conduct of the enquiry.
45. The logistic arrangements for the Committee
st
shall be completed on or before 21 November, 2025.
46. The parties shall be entitled to appropriate
representation in the proceedings to be conducted by
the Committee.
47. The State of Uttar Pradesh and GNIDA shall
publish a public notice regarding the constitution
and functioning of the Committee in two national
dailies, one in English and one in Hindi so as to
apprise all allottees, particularly those who have not
yet approached this Court. The notice shall specify
50
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
that such allottees may submit their claims before
the Committee, which shall examine and verify the
claims through respondent No. 5-Commissioner.
th
48.
List on 24 March, 2026 for receiving the
Enquiry Committee’s report.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 07, 2025.
51
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRA ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017
RAVI PRAKASH
SRIVASTAVA & ORS. ….PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF UTTAR
PRADESH & ORS. ….RESPONDENT(S)
WITH
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL) NO(S). 15548 OF 2017
O R D E R
Mehta, J.
1. Heard.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.11.07
16:19:39 IST
Reason:
1
1
2. The present special leave petitions have been
preferred against the impugned judgment and final
th
order dated 17 May, 2016 passed by the High Court
2
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-C No. 22576 of
2016. Vide the said order, the High Court disposed of
the writ petition without granting any substantive
relief as sought for by the petitioners. However, the
petitioners were given liberty to approach the
Housing Commissioner in respect of the affairs of the
Housing Society and to file a civil suit in respect of
the loan availed by the petitioners to finance the
purchase of the flats.
3. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that the
petitioners claim to be the allottees in a Group
Housing Project undertaken by Golf Course Sahkari
1
Petitioners in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9792 of 2017 were also
the petitioners in Writ-C No. 22576 of 2016 filed before the High Court of
Judicature at Allahabad whereas Petitioners in Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No. 15548 of 2017 were not party to the above-stated writ petition.
2
Hereinafter, being referred to as the “High Court”.
2
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
3
Awas Samiti (previously, JP Greens Employees
Sahkari Awas Samiti), which was formed in 2004 and
registered as a housing co-operative society under
Section 7 of Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act,
1965. The Samiti filed an application with Greater
4
Noida Industrial Development Authority seeking
th
allotment of land. GNIDA vide letter dated 9
September, 2004 allotted Plot No. 7, Sector PI-2,
Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar
Pradesh, 201308 admeasuring 10,000 sq. meters @
Rs. 2975/- per sq. meter in favour of the Samiti, for
flat-based development, stipulating payment of 30%
of the lease amount within 60 days and the balance
70% in eight half-yearly instalments.
4. Pursuant thereto, GNIDA executed a lease deed
th
dated 29 March, 2005 in favour of the Samiti which
3
Hereinafter, being referred to as the “Samiti” or “Society”.
4
For short “GNIDA”.
3
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
in turn, submitted a layout plan which was approved
by GNIDA in 2005 itself. The approved plan of the
Housing Society envisaged four towers (Ground+10
st th
floors) with two towers (1 and 4 ) having 4 flats on
nd rd
each floor and other two towers (2 and 3 ) having 3
flats on each floor. In total, the Housing Society was
to comprise approximately 140 (±5%) flats along with
2 shops.
5. Thereafter, the construction of the project was
purportedly entrusted to M/s Shiv Kala Developers
Pvt. Ltd., of which Mr. Mahim Mittal (respondent No.
20) is the Director. Advertisements were issued in the
newspapers and brochures were circulated,
projecting the development of a luxury residential
5
complex under the name of “Shiv Kala Charms” on
the aforesaid plot. The petitioners herein applied for
the allotment of flats in the said project. It is stated
5
Hereinafter, being referred to as the “Housing Project”.
4
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
that although cheques were collected from
prospective allottees in the name of the Samiti, the
corresponding receipts were issued in the name of
either M/s Shiv Kala Developers Pvt. Ltd. or M/s
6
Advantage Engineers and Developers Pvt. Ltd .
6. The Housing Project was pre-approved for
housing loan by various banks. Influenced thereby,
the petitioners availed housing loan facilities,
pursuant to which, tri-partite agreements were
executed between the petitioners, the
Samiti/developer, and the respective banks. Under
the said agreements, the sanctioned loan amount
was directly disbursed to the Samiti.
th
7. It is stated that after 14 October, 2007, no
payment in respect of lease amount was received by
GNIDA. Consequently, GNIDA issued a letter in July,
2010, calling upon the Samiti to pay Rs.
6
Hereinafter, being referred to as the “Developer”.
5
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
3,14,42,238/- (Rupees Three Crore Fourteen Lakh
Forty Two Thousand Two Hundred and Thirty Eight
st
only) by 31 July, 2010. Since the Samiti failed to
comply, GNIDA issued a final show cause notice
st
dated 21 February, 2011, requiring the Samiti to
explain why the lease deed should not be cancelled.
th
Ultimately, vide order dated 9 September, 2011,
GNIDA cancelled the lease deed executed in favour of
the Samiti.
8. Several complaints were lodged by the
homebuyers with the authorities alleging large-scale
siphoning and diversion of funds by the office bearers
of the Samiti in collusion with the developer. Taking
cognizance of the said complaints, District
Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar vide order dated
nd
2 December, 2011 constituted an inquiry
committee to examine the affairs of the Samiti. The
th
committee submitted its report on 5 March, 2012
6
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
highlighting grave irregularities in the affairs of the
Samiti and recording, inter alia , the following
findings: -
• The construction of the Housing Society is not
complete and at present, the entire work has
been stopped due to cancellation of lease deed.
• The lease deed was cancelled owing to the failure
7 8
of Mr. SU Jafar and Mr. Mahim Mittal to make
the requisite payment to GNIDA.
• It is clear that the funds received by the Samiti
from the homebuyers have been
misappropriated.
• The office bearers of the Samiti have failed to
furnish the information sought by the Committee
regarding the list of allottees and the amounts
deposited by each of them towards their
7
Respondent No. 22- Secretary of the Samiti
8
Respondent No. 20- Director of M/s Shiv Kala Developers Pvt. Ltd.
7
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
respective flats, thereby deliberately withholding
material information.
• The Samiti was being run in an arbitrary manner
and in contravention of the provisions of the UP
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965; the UP
Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968; and bye-laws
framed thereunder.
• It was found that the same flat has been allotted
multiple times to more than one allottee/s and in
many cases, multiple loans have been availed in
respect of the same flat.
• It has also been found that Mr. SU Jafar and Mr.
Mahim Mittal have allotted fictitious flats which
have never existed to certain allottees, and loans
have also been sanctioned in respect of the said
flats.
8
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
9. Based on the aforesaid conclusions/findings,
the committee made the following
recommendations:-
1. That a letter shall be forwarded to Governor,
Reserve Bank of India for initiating an inquiry
into the involvement of banks/financial
institutions in the fraud committed by the office
bearers of the Samiti.
2. That an enquiry be conducted by the Housing
Commissioner, UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad in
respect of the Housing Project.
3. That legal action/proceedings shall be initiated
against all those persons who were involved in
the fraudulent housing scheme.
10. The homebuyers filed a criminal complaint
against the office bearers of the Shiv Kala Group and
the Samiti before the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi.
The said complaint led to the registration of FIR No.
9
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
62 of 2012 against SU Jafar, Mahim Mittal and 8
other co-accused persons. After investigation,
chargesheet came to be filed by the Economic
Offences Wing, Delhi for offences punishable under
Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 472 and 120B of the
Indian Penal Code, 1860.
th
11. On 27 December 2013, UP Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad appointed an administrator to look into the
affairs of the society. Additional Housing
Commissioner, UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vide
th th
letters dated 7 April, 2014 and 27 May, 2015,
directed the Cooperative Officers (Housing) to lodge
an FIR against Mahim Mittal and other concerned
persons.
12. Petitioners claiming to be the allottees of the
9
Housing Project filed writ petition before the High
Court seeking several reliefs/directions against the
9
Writ-C No. 22576 of 2016.
10
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
Samiti, the developer and the financial
institutions/banks. For sake of ready reference, the
reliefs sought in the writ petition are reproduced
hereinbelow:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this
Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to allow
this petition and issue;
a) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in
the nature of Certiorari to quash the
order dated 09.09.201l (Annexure 9 to
the writ petition) issued by the Greater
Noida Industrial Development Authority
whereby the lease deed of Plot No.7,
Sector PI-2, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh
Nagar, U.P.- 201308 was terminated;
b) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus to the
Authorities to take appropriate action in
terms of letter dated 04.02.2014 and
27.05.2015 (Annexure 16 to the writ
petition) issued by UP Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad against GCSAS Society office
bearer;
c) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus to the Housing
Commissioner of UP Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad, Lucknow to form a committee till
the conduction of fresh society elections;
d) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus to the Housing
Commissioner of UP Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad, Lucknow, to identify the genuine
members in the GCSAS society and direct
UP Sahkari Samiti Nirvachan Ayog to
conduct fresh society election;
11
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
e) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus to the
Respondent Authorities to recover the
amount misappropriated/diverted by Mr.
Mahim Mittal, Mr. Asit Mittal, Mr. SU
Zaffar, Mr. Pankaj Jindal and Mr. Umesh
Garg from the coffers of the Golf Course
Sahkari Awas Samiti and to return the
same to the samiti;
f) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus to the Greater
Noida Industrial Development Authority
to restore the lease deed dated
29.03.2005 with respect to Plot No. 7,
Sector PI-2, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh
Nagar, U.P.- 201308;
g) An appropriate Writ, Order to restore the
lease deed dated 29.03.2.005 with
respect to Plot No. 7, Sector PI-2, Greater
Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.- 201308;
h) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction to
the National Housing Bank and Reserve
Bank of India to conduct an enquiry against
the bank/financial institution involved in
the project GCSAS;
i) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction to
the Respondents LICHFL, HDFC Bank,
AXIS Bank, India Bulls HFL, DHFL,
PNBHFL, Indian Bank, Oriental Bank of
Commerce, and Syndicate Bank
prohibiting them to recover the loan from
the petitioners till the possession of the
respective flats in question is not handed
over to the petitioners;
j) Any other writ, order or direction in the
circumstances of the case that this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper; and
k) award the costs of the writ petition.”
(Emphasis supplied)
12
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
th
13. The High Court, vide final order dated 17 May,
2016, disposed of the writ petition without granting
any substantive relief as sought for by the petitioners.
The High Court took note of the fact that the lease
deed has already been cancelled due to the non-
payment of lease rent and criminal proceedings have
also been initiated and chargesheet has been filed
against the office bearers of the Samiti and the
developer whereas the role played by the officers of
the bank is still under investigation. In this view of
the matter, the High Court expressed its
disinclination to issue any writ or pass any
substantive directions in the writ petition.
Nevertheless, it was observed that if any adverse
report is submitted to the concerned authority, i.e.,
the Reserve Bank of India and National Housing
Bank by the Economic Offences Wing, Delhi,
appropriate action, as permissible in law, shall be
13
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
taken against the concerned individuals. The High
Court further granted liberty to the petitioners to
approach the Housing Commissioner for redressal of
the grievances concerning the affairs of the Housing
Society and to file civil suits seeking appropriate relief
in relation to repayment of the loans availed by the
petitioners for financing the purchase of the flats. For
ease of reference. operative portion of the order
passed by the High Court is reproduced hereinbelow:
“The records reflect that the petitioners have taken
loan from the respondent banks for the purposes of
purchase of flats offered by a Housing Cooperative
Society.
From the records we find that the land, subject
matter of controversy, was provided to the Housing
Society by Greater Noida Industrial Development
Authority (respondent no. 4) and because of non-
payment of lease rent and other dues, the allotment
was cancelled as early as on 09.09.2011. We further
find that a first information report has already been
registered against the Directors of the Housing
Society and further that the role played by financial
institutions is under examination of the Economic
Offences Wing, final report whereof is still to be
submitted. It has been stated that the Economic
Offences Wing has submitted a charge-sheet against
the Directors of the Housing Society while the role of
the officers of the bank is still under consideration.
We, in the facts of the present case, do not find any
14
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
good ground to interfere with the order dated
09.09.2011 cancelling the lease of the land settled
with the Housing Society specifically when there is
hardly any deposit of lease rent and other dues by
the Housing Society. Since a first information report
has already been lodged against the Housing
Society, no further direction against the office
bearers of the Housing Society is called for at this
stage nor is this Court required to issue any other
mandamus in the matter of running of the said
Housing Society. The petitioners are at liberty to
approach the Housing Commissioner for the said
purpose.
So far as the enquiry against the officers of the bank
and other officers is concerned, the matter is already
under examination of the Economic Offences Wing.
If any adverse report is submitted to the concerned
authority namely the Reserve Bank of India and
National Housing Bank by the Economic Offences
Wing, all action as permissible under law, shall be
taken against them. We do not find any good reason
to interfere with the repayment of the loan which has
been availed of by the petitioners from the bank.
However, it is always open to the petitioners to file a
civil suit for avoiding the agreement. We hope and
trust that the proceedings in respect of involvement
of the officers of the banks shall be concluded at the
earliest by the agency concerned.
With the aforesaid observations the present writ
petition is disposed of.”
14. The aforesaid order passed by the High Court is
the subject matter of challenge in the instant batch
of special leave petitions filed at the instance of the
members of the society claiming to be the original
allottees of the flats-in-question.
15
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
th
15. This Court vide order dated 14 July, 2021
observed that the primary issue to be dealt with in
the present proceedings is in reference to prayer
Clause (f) of the writ petition. The said clause is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“(f) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus to the Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority to restore the
lease deed dated 29.03.2005 with respect to plot
No. 7, Sector PI-2, Greater Noida, Gautam Budh
Nagar, U.P.- 201308.”
(Emphasis supplied)
16. During the pendency of the special leave
petitions before this Court, several intervention
applications came to be filed by individuals claiming
to be the allottees in the Housing Project. Considering
th
the same, this Court vide order dated 29 July, 2021
directed Registrar, Cooperative Societies to disclose
by way of an affidavit, the details of the genuine
members of the Society along with their known postal
16
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
addresses/contact numbers/email addresses and
whether the proceedings for winding up of the Society
had been taken to its logical end and stage thereof.
17.
In compliance of the aforesaid order, an affidavit
th
dated 11 August, 2021 came to be filed by Housing
Commissioner-cum-Registrar, Cooperative Societies,
10
Uttar Pradesh (respondent No. 5) . The petitioners
were granted an opportunity to file their response to
11
the said affidavit.
st
18. On 1 September, 2021, when the case came up
for consideration, this Court, upon perusing the said
affidavit and the response filed by the petitioners,
placing on record details about the membership and
allotment of the concerned flat(s) to them, was of the
opinion that the claims of petitioners as well as the
applicants have to be verified by respondent No. 5-
10
Hereinafter, being referred to as the “respondent No. 5-Commissioner”.
11 th
Order dated 17 August, 2021.
17
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
Commissioner. Hence, respondent No. 5-
Commissioner was directed to conduct a limited
enquiry regarding the genuineness of the documents
and the claims set up by the concerned
petitioners/applicants and to place on record list of
such members whose claims were found to be
genuine. The relevant extract of the said order is
reproduced hereinbelow:
“We have perused the affidavit dated 11.08.2021
filed by respondent No.5-Housing Commissioner-
cum-Registrar, Cooperative Housing Society, Uttar
Pradesh.
In response to that affidavit, the
petitioners/applicants have filed further
affidavit placing on record details about the
membership and allotment of the concerned
flat(s) to the respective petitioners/applicants.
That claim will have to be verified by the Housing
Commissioner-cum-Registrar, in the first place
within four weeks from today.
We permit the Housing Commissioner-cum-
Registrar to conduct that limited enquiry about
the genuineness of the documents and the claim
set up by the concerned petitioners/applicants
and if satisfied, that they were bonafide members
of the society, list of such members can be
produced along with affidavit before the next
date of hearing.
The petitioners/applicants who have not furnished
the documents are free to do so within one week
from today. They shall submit their claim
18
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
documents to respondent No. 5 directly within one
week.”
(Emphasis supplied)
19. Respondent No. 5-Commissioner filed an
rd
affidavit dated 3 October, 2021 stating that in total
53 applications had been received from the
concerned allottees. A chart was annexed to the said
affidavit detailing: (i) the amounts deposited by each
applicant in the account of the Samiti; (ii) the flat
number against which such deposits were made; and
(iii) the particulars of the bank/financial institutions
from which loan had been taken by the respective
applicants. However, respondent No. 5-
Commissioner sought further time to place on record
a comprehensive affidavit after due verification of the
claims of the aforesaid 53 applicants, in view of the
fact that additional information had been
requisitioned from the concerned banks/financial
institutions, which was essential for ascertaining the
19
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
genuineness of the documents/claims furnished by
the applicants.
th
20. This Court, vide order dated 19 May, 2022
recorded that respondent No. 5-Commissioner had
identified 42 allottees having credible documentary
evidence to indicate that they were original members
of the Housing Project and further noted that the
claim of two additional persons had also been
verified. In view of the same, respondent No. 5-
Commissioner was directed to file a revised report.
The Court further recorded that Tower-1, in respect
of which the petitioners had set up their claim, is
occupying around 3243.92 sq. meters approximately
whereas the total area of the plot was about 9731.76
sq. meters. Counsel for GNIDA submitted that a sum
of Rs. 12 Crores remained outstanding in respect of
price of the plot. This Court observed that in the
event, GNIDA were to restore the lease in respect of
20
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
the portion of land on which the said tower stands,
the outstanding dues would stand proportionately
reduced with reference to the area occupied by the
subject tower. Counsel for the petitioners submitted
that the petitioners are willing to abide by all the
conditions to be specified by GNIDA, especially
regarding payment of outstanding dues. Accordingly,
GNIDA was directed to submit a plan concerning the
restoration of the lease upon payment of the
outstanding dues. Liberty was also granted to all
persons claiming to be the original allottees to submit
their claims before respondent No. 5-Commissioner
for due verification. The relevant extract of the said
order is reproduced hereinbelow:
“Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the
Registrar has verified the claim of the petitioners and
other persons who had submitted to such
verification. The Registrar has identified 42
applicants having sufficient documentary evidence
to indicate that they were original members in
respect of the subject project.
The tower has been constructed on plot No. 7
admeasuring 9731.76 square meters; lease
21
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
whereof has been cancelled by the authority. The
structure standing on the said plot, in respect of
which the petitioners have set up their claim, is
occupying around 3243.92 square meters
approximately. In all, 44 flats have been
constructed, whereas only 35 petitioners are before
this Court. The Registrar has identified 42 persons
as original members while making it clear that 10
applications could not be verified due to non-
cooperation by the bank and other agencies.
Today, during the course of hearing, learned
counsel appearing for respondent No. 13 (India
Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.) has confirmed
payment made by Ravi Prakash Shrivastava.
Similarly, in the case of Jamila Ansari, the
Housing Commissioner (respondent No.5)
submits that confirmation has been received
from the concerned Agency.
The Registrar may submit a revised report giving
further break-up of eligible persons before the
next date of hearing.
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the respondent No.4 (Greater
NOIDA) submits that as per his instructions
around Rs.12 crore amount had remained
outstanding in respect of plot No. 7.
In the event, the said authority has to restore the
lease in respect of land on which subject tower is
standing being plot No. 7, the outstanding
amount would stand proportionately reduced in
the context of area underneath the subject
tower. The authority shall produce a plan in
respect of which lease can be restored on
payment of such outstanding dues. That be
placed on record along with affidavit of
authorized official.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel
appearing for the petitioner(s), on instructions,
submits that the petitioners are willing to abide
by all the conditions to be specified by the
22
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
Greater NOIDA, especially regarding payment of
outstanding dues.
For the time being, we do not wish to dilate on the
manner in which the 44 flats can be allotted — as
the number of claimants seem to be more than 44.
That issue can be deliberated on the next date.
It will be open to the concerned applicants and
interested persons to furnish further
documents/evidence before the Registrar for
confirmation of their original membership.”
(Emphasis supplied)
nd
21. On 22 July, 2022, when the matter was placed
before the Court, it was noted that respondent No. 5-
Commissioner filed a compliance report stating that
he had verified the claims of 52 applicants and also
found that 50 applicants (including the petitioners
herein) were able to substantiate their claims of
having made the payment to developer/society for
flats in the Housing Project. It was further submitted
by learned counsel for India Bulls Housing Finance
Ltd. (respondent No. 13) as well as by counsel for the
intervenors that there exist more individuals who
have not yet approached respondent No. 5-
23
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
Commissioner for the verification of their claims.
Accordingly, respondent No. 5-Commissioner was
directed to verify the claims of all such persons and
submit a fresh status report as to their eligibility or
otherwise. It was also clarified that until the
outstanding dues pertaining to the plot are fully
discharged, GNIDA cannot be compelled either to
revive the lease or to grant any further permissions,
including permissions for construction in deviation of
the prevailing regulations and building bye-laws.
22. Respondent No. 5-Commissioner submitted
th
compliance report dated 8 August, 2022 wherein it
nd
was stated that that in terms of order dated 22 July,
2022, claims of 15 more applicants were scrutinized
and it was found that 7 of the said applicants were
able to substantiate their claims. It was further
stated that out of 67 applicants/allottees, claims of
57 applicants could be verified by way of
24
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
documentary evidence. However, it was stated that
out of the said 67 applicants, names of only 19
applicants had been found included in the detailed
list of members prepared in the year 2010 by the
Secretary/President, Sahkari Awas Samiti and
furnished to respondent No. 5-Commissioner for the
purpose of election to the office of the management
committee. Hence, only 19 applicants were entitled to
be considered as the actual members of the
Samiti/Society. The petitioners were afforded an
opportunity to submit their objections to the said
12
affidavit.
th
23. This Court vide order dated 9 January, 2024,
noted the submissions advanced by the counsel
appearing for GNIDA and UP Awas Evam Vikas
Parishad regarding the need for a structural audit, to
be conducted by an expert agency and granted eight
12 th
Order dated 17 August, 2022.
25
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
weeks’ time for the conduct of audit of the structure
constructed thus far. The relevant extract of the said
order is reproduced hereinbelow:
“Pursuant to our order 18.10.2023 and the
subsequent order dated 21.11.2023, extending the
time, Mr. Ravindra Kumar and Mr. Vishwajit Singh,
learned Senior Advocates appearing on behalf of the
Greater NOIDA and Uttar Pradesh Awas Vikas
Parishad, respectively, have stated that the said
respondents have already inspected the site, and
technically, they feel it appropriate that there should
be a structural audit to be conducted by an expert
agency, like Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi or
any other institute of equal competence for that
matter, and for the said purpose, they would require
eight weeks’ time.
Although, there is opposition by Ms. Meenakshi
Arora, learned Senior Advocate appearing on
behalf of the petitioner(s) with respect to the
time sought before us, but considering the nature
of expert report, which is sought to be obtained,
we deem it appropriate to grant eight weeks’
time to the respondents.
It is ensured by the learned counsel for the aforesaid
respondents that the respondents will immediately
start the exercise of getting the structural audit, and
they further assured the Court that they would
submit the report by the next date of hearing.
We would also request the agency engaged by the
respondents for the purpose of structural audit to
make endevour to submit the report within time as
fixed by this Court.”
(Emphasis supplied)
26
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
24. Thereafter, on the request of counsel for the
petitioners, this Court granted 2 weeks’ time to the
petitioners to place on record the list of 40 allottees,
who were willing to join together for the development
and completion of one tower comprising of 40
apartments, specifying the details regarding the floor
and the apartment number proposed to be allotted to
13
each of such 40 allottees.
25. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the
petitioners, along with other allottees filed
Interlocutory Application Nos. 103839 and 103703 of
2024 annexing therewith the list of 40 allottees, who
were willing to join together for the development and
completion of Tower-1 comprising of 40 apartments.
The said interlocutory applications came up for
th
hearing before this Court on 30 April, 2024 and on
the said date, counsel for the applicants submitted
13 th
Order dated 16 April, 2024.
27
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
that the 33 applicants who were originally the
petitioners, had been duly verified by respondent No.
5-Commissioner whereas only three of the remaining
seven applicants could be verified. This Court
directed that the details of the four unverified
applicants and any other individual whose claim was
yet to be verified, be provided to the counsel for
respondent No. 5-Commissioner along with the
supporting documents for due verification. This
Court further noted that number of impleadment
applications had been filed by the allottees, some of
whom were keen to join the afore-mentioned group of
40 applicants but declined to permit such claims at
that stage. However, it was observed that it will
always be open for such applicants/allottee to join
together and if all the remaining 100 allottees joined
together in groups of 40 and 60, their claims could
be considered for the remaining two towers, one of 40
28
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
apartments and other of 60 apartments. The parties
were also granted liberty to conduct a joint inspection
in respect of the existing construction. The Court also
recorded the submission of the counsel for GNIDA
that if all the three towers are taken up together for
occupation, then there shall be no issue of division of
land and other complicated issues of separating and
dividing common areas, including parking in the
basement. The relevant extract of the said order is
reproduced hereinbelow:
th
“ Pursuant to order dated 16 April, 2023 I.A. No.
103839 of 2024 has been filed by the petitioners
giving a list of 39 allottees.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel
th
appearing for the petitioners submits that 40
gentleman has also been identified as Mr. Sanjeev
Kumar Singh. Impleadment Application No.
103703/2024 has been independently filed by
Mr. Singh. Thus, the chart given as Annexure A-
1 to the aforesaid IA takes care of the 40
applicants who are joining together.
Ms. Arora requested for an inspection of the site by
a technical team. She further submits that all 33
applicants who were originally the petitioners are
duly verified by the Registrar-Housing
Commissioner. However, out of the seven who are
newly added, three were only verified and four
remain to be verified. The details of these four
29
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
allottees along with supporting documents may
be provided to learned counsel for the Registrar-
Housing Commissioner within a week whereupon
the Housing Commissioner may get the same
verified and submit a report within the next four
weeks.
Further any other claims now made before the
Housing Commissioner which claims may either
be pending before this Court by way of
impleadment application(s) or even otherwise, to
be provided to learned counsel for the Registrar-
Housing Commissioner, such claims may also be
verified.
… … … …
There are number of impleadment applications filed
by the allottees, some of whom are very keen to join
the team of 40 applicants represented by Ms. Arora,
learned senior counsel. However, we are not
permitting such claims to be considered at this
stage. It will always be open for the remaining
parties to join together and if all the remaining
100 allottees join together in groups of 40 and
60 their claims would be considered for the
remaining two towers one of 40 apartments and
other of 60 apartments.
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel has
also pointed out that it will be in the interest of all
the parties that a joint inspection be made with
regard to the existing construction issues like
common areas, basements and other common
amenities will stand sorted, to which Ms. Arora,
learned senior counsel has no objection. As such,
they may decide amongst themselves to make this
inspection. General Manager, Greater NOIDA,
Planning and Architecture may take care of this.
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel
further submitted that if all the three towers are
taken up together for occupation, then there
shall be no issue of division of land and other
complicated issues of separating and dividing
30
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
common areas, including parking in the
basement. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
nd
26. When the matter came up for hearing on 22
October, 2024, this Court recorded that structural
audit report of Tower-1, conducted by M/s. Architect
Harish Tripathi & Associates, had been placed on
record and that the said report opined that Tower-1
could be rendered fit for habitation upon
strengthening and making certain modifications. On
the strength of this report, counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the 40 applicants/allottees who have
come together for developing and completing Tower-
1, may be permitted to do so. It was further submitted
that the said 40 applicants/allottees are willing to
discharge all their liabilities towards GNIDA as well
as any other taxes, dues, fees or charges, as may be
applicable under law. It was finally submitted that
out of these 40 applicants/allottees, any of the
31
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
allottee who was originally allotted three-bedroom flat
would also duly compensate to an allotee who was
allotted four-bedroom flat, who is deprived of getting
a four-bedroom apartment, though it was pointed out
that Tower-4 also consists of 40 four-bedroom
apartments. Accordingly, the Court directed GNIDA
to provide the details of the proportional charges due
to it from these allottees with respect to Tower-1.
However, counsel for GNIDA contended that the main
hurdle in allowing the said applicants/allottees to
start with the construction work is that the lease,
being for a single plot, had been cancelled in 2011,
and as such, partial restoration of the lease with
respect to Tower-1 alone is not in the domain of
GNIDA, as the lease could either be cancelled in
entirety or restored in toto .
32
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
27. Taking note of the aforesaid submissions, the
Court directed GNIDA to examine, as a special case,
the feasibility of restoring the lease partially in
respect of Tower-1 and the adjoining areas necessary
for its use and utility. It was made clear that upon
such restoration, the allottees must first pay all
outstanding dues, and only thereafter could the
construction work commence. No construction would
be permitted without full clearance of such dues. This
Court also recorded that certain other allottees had
filed interlocutory applications seeking similar reliefs
as sought for by aforesaid 40 applicants/allottees. In
respect of the same, it was observed that such
allottees could also be permitted to proceed with
construction, provided that they make a unified effort
to complete the Tower as is existing, i.e., either
Tower-2 or 3, which have 30 apartments each of
three-bedroom or Tower-4, which has 40 apartments
33
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
of four-bedroom. In case, the required number of
allottees joined together, the Court would consider
the grant of permission to such allottees to
commence with the construction. The relevant
extract of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:
“1. Pursuant to order dated 30.07.2024, learned
counsel for the petitioners has filed a very detailed
report, by M/s. Architect Harish Tripathi and
Associates (Arhta) (running into 636 pages) related
to structural safety audit and strengthening for
residential Tower-1 of Shivkala Charm Society,
Greater Noida.
2. According to the said report, after
strengthening and making required other
changes in the existing form, Tower-1 can be
made fit to be used as habitable.
3. In view of the findings given in the said report,
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel,
appearing for the petitioners, submits that the
allottees who have joined together and are now
40 in number, may be allowed to continue with
the construction work of Tower-1 as they are
interested in getting the said Tower to be
completed.
4. Learned senior counsel further submits that
these 40 allottees will discharge all their
liabilities towards the Greater NOIDA (for short,
the Authority) as may be communicated to them
by the Authority and any other taxes, dues, fees
or charges, as may be admissible under law, to be
collected from them, would also be paid.
5. It is also submitted by learned senior counsel,
that out of these present 40 allottees, any of the
allottee who was originally allotted three-
bedroom apartment would also duly compensate
34
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
to a four-bedroom allotee, who is deprived of
getting a four-bedroom apartment, although,
according to learned senior counsel, Tower-4 also
consist of 40 apartments of four-bedroom.
6. In view of the above, we require the Authority to
provide the details of the proportional charges due
to it from these allottees with respect to Tower-1
within a month.
7. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the Authority, however, submits
that there is one hurdle before these allottees
start with the work after making due payment.
The hurdle is that the entire lease which was for
a single plot was cancelled in the year 2011, as
such partial restoration of the lease with respect
to Tower-1 alone is, apparently, not in the
domain of the Authority as it will either cancel
the entire lease or restore the lease in toto.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of
the case, we require the Authority to examine
this aspect, as a special case that it may restore
partial lease with respect to Tower-1 and the
required adjoining areas which may be necessary
for its use and utility.
9. After the dues are communicated and the partial
lease is restored, these allottees would make the
required payment to the Authority and only
thereafter they will start with the construction work.
They would also file appropriate undertaking with
respect to the compensation, which they have
promised to make, with respect to the allotees
having three-bedroom apartment allotments. The
said undertaking may be filed on or before the next
date.
10. After payment is raised by the Authority, four
weeks’ time is granted to these 40 allottees to make
the deposits.
11. We make it clear that no construction work
will start without being dues fully paid.
12. The applications, details of which given
below, have been pressed by the respective
35
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
counsel, claiming that these applicants are also
the allottees and their allotment and payment
have been verified by U.P. Avas Evam Vikas
Parishad. As such, these applicants may also be
allowed to be considered for carrying out the
construction work with respect to Tower No.4 or
the other two Towers being Tower Nos. 2 and 3,
as the case may be.
IA NO.53283/2024
IA NO.103703/2024
IA NO.98909/2022
IA NO.103089/2022
IA NO.112130/2022
IA No.101087/2021
IA NO.124741/2021
IA NO.183601/2023
IA NO.74439/2024
IA NO.134469/2022
IA NO.14612/2022
IA NO.92267/2023
IA NO.266400/2023
IA NO.142809/2021
13. This Court has no difficulty in permitting
these allottees to proceed with the construction,
however, they have to make a unified effort to
take one complete Tower as is existing, either
Tower 2 or 3, which have 30 apartments each of
three-bedroom or Tower 4, which has 40
apartments of four-bedroom. In case, the
required number of allottees join together, the
Court would be more than happy to permit them
to continue with construction. In such case, one
of the applicants to take the lead till required
number of allottees join together. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
36
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
28. It may be noted herein that despite repeated
14
opportunities having been granted to GNIDA to
place on record a response or propose a plan
indicating the manner in which the Housing Project
is to be dealt with, or to suggest a viable mechanism
keeping in view the peculiar dynamics of the case,
GNIDA has utterly failed to do so.
29. The dissatisfaction of this Court qua the
conduct of GNIDA was recorded in the order dated
th
18 March, 2025 and another opportunity was
granted to GNIDA to file an affidavit providing the
details of demand which it would have raised in case
the original builders had completed the project so
that the proportional charges of each of the allottee
could be determined. By the self-same order, the
Court directed that the details of 10 applicants in I.A.
14 th th st
Orders dated 19th May, 2022; 5 April, 2023; 18 October, 2023; 21
November, 2023; and 22nd October, 2024.
37
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
No. 56220 of 2025, who claimed to be the allottees of
flats in the Housing Project, be provided to the
counsel representing respondent No.5-Commissioner
for verification. The relevant extract of the said order
is reproduced hereinbelow:
“ We are not happy with the fact that the Greater
Noida Industrial Development Authority
(hereafter referred to as ‘Authority’) is not
cooperating in the entire exercise of reviving a
dead project where the home buyers have been
cheated by the builder who has vanished decades
ago and some of the home buyers have joined
together to revive the entire project in part and
also other home buyers are coming in for revival
of the remaining part of the Project. The 40 home
buyers who have joined together to complete one
Tower containing 40 apartments of four-bedroom
each have been continuously in touch with the
Authority requesting them to provide the details and
also to find out solutions as to how they can go
ahead with their aspirations of owning their
apartments. Further they are more than willing to
pay their proportionate share of the charges due
to the Authority but despite the same the
Authority is not coming up with the details of the
demand/solutions nor is it cooperating in and
allowing them to continue with their joint
venture of completing one Tower of 40
apartments.
Today Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior
counsel appearing for the Authority has prayed
for a week’s time to provide the details of the
demand which the Authority would have raised
in case the original builders had completed the
project so that the proportional charges of each
38
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
of the home buyers can be decided depending
upon the size of the apartments they are taking.
Let an affidavit be filed by the competent officer of
the Authority within a week.
List the matter again on 25th March, 2025.
In the meantime, I.A. No. 56220 of 2025 has been
filed by 10 applicants. Copy of the same be provided
to Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, AOR representing
Respondent no. 5-Housing Commissioner, UP Awas
Vikas Parishad who will verify as to whether these
10 applicants in the said application are genuine or
not and also about the payments made by them as
claimed in the application by supporting documents.
For the said verification four weeks’ time is granted.”
(Emphasis supplied)
30. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that
Interlocutory Application No. 55798 of 2025 has been
filed by another group of 30 allottees who have joined
together for the development and completion of
Tower-2 of the Housing Project, with reliefs
analogous to those claimed by the earlier group of 40
allottees referred to supra.
31. Finally, the matter came up before this Court on
th
13 May, 2025, on which date, extensive arguments
were urged on behalf of the parties, and the matters
39
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
were closed for orders. Liberty was granted to
allottees to approach the counsel for respondent No.
5-Commissioner with the details of their claims, so
that the same could be verified. The relevant extract
of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:
“1. Arguments concluded.
2. Order reserved.
3. In the meantime, all the request received by
Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advocate-on-Record
for the Awas Vikas Parishad/Housing Board, the
same would be verified and report be submitted
within next eight weeks. No specific orders are
required. The allottees are free to approach Mr.
Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advocate-on-Record
through their respective counsel. ”
(Emphasis supplied)
32. We have heard and considered the submissions
advanced by learned counsel for the parties at bar
and have gone through the material available on
record.
33. The preceding facts and circumstances would
clearly indicate that the original allotees who dreamt
of a roof over their heads have been struggling in a
40
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
losing cause for the last nearly 20 years. It is
apparent that the petitioners/applicants/allottees
have endured immense hardship for all this time
apart from losing their hard-earned money and have
been embroiled in administrative log-jam and
prolonged litigation. Despite pursuing remedies
before various fora , their grievances remain
unredressed. Even after nearly two decades of
booking their flats and making payments, some by
taking loans from financial institutions, the allottees
have been unable to take possession, as construction
th
has remained stalled since 9 September, 2011, i.e.,
from the date of cancelling of lease deed by GNIDA,
owing to the fraudulent acts and irregularities
committed by the office bearers of the Samiti/Society
and the developer.
34. Adding to the complexity of the situation is the
fact that during the pendency of the special leave
41
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
petitions before this Court, numerous intervention
applications have been filed by persons claiming to
be original allottees of the Housing Project. It is
pertinent to note that respondent No. 5-
Commissioner has verified most of these claims,
though several such claims are yet to be verified.
Furthermore, it is evident from the record that all the
original allottees are not before this Court, thereby
impeding the formulation of a comprehensive plan of
action in respect of the development and completion
of the Housing Project comprising of four towers on
the entire chunk of land.
35. We are of the considered view that this
unsavoury state of affairs cannot be allowed to
continue indefinitely, and the issue has to be taken
to its logical conclusion. While it is imperative to
ensure some measure of relief to the genuine
allottees, it is equally important to guard against any
42
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
fraudster or imposter staking a false claim on the
legitimate entitlement of the genuine allottees,
thereby, taking undue advantage of the prevailing
uncertainty.
36. Having regard to the protracted pendency of
these proceedings spanning over several years,
during which numerous interlocutory and
impleadment applications have been filed by persons
asserting claims as original allottees of the Housing
Project, coupled with the complexities arising from
verification of such claims and the need to coordinate
between multiple statutory authorities and agencies,
this Court is of the opinion that the matter has
assumed considerable administrative magnitude and
intricacy. The overlapping issues of restoration of
lease, identification of genuine allottees, proportional
determination of land dues, and feasibility of
completing the stalled construction necessitate a
43
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
comprehensive, structured, and impartial
examination under the supervision of an
independent fact-finding authority. Resolution of all
these issues seems unlikely if not impossible in the
proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution of
India.
37. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and to
ensure an expeditious and efficacious resolution,
constitution of an independent Committee under the
aegis of a former Judge has become indispensable.
Hence, we are inclined to form a one-Judge
Committee, headed by Hon’ble Retd. Judge of High
Court of Judicature at Allahabad, to undertake a
detailed enquiry into the entire factual matrix and
give suggestions for a suitable resolution.
38. On our request, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj
Naqvi, Judge (Retd.), High Court of Judicature at
44
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
Allahabad, has graciously agreed to conduct the
requisite enquiry.
39. The broad parameters of the Enquiry would be
as below:
I. Committee shall scrutinize all records,
agreements, correspondences, approvals, and
other materials pertinent to the issue including
the affidavits filed by concerned authorities
before this Court and identify the genuine
allottees of the Housing Project.
II. Identify and prepare a list of such allottees who
are willing to join together for the development
and completion of the Housing Project.
III. Consult with GNIDA and if required, cull out a
solution in respect of partial restoration of the
lease deed for Plot No. 7, Sector PI-2, Greater
Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh,
201308 which was terminated vide order dated
45
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
th
9 September, 2011 issued by GNIDA, in case
the entire Housing Project is not being developed
and constructed by the allottees identified in
Clause (II)
terms of .
IV. In case partial lease of the plot can be duly
restored upon payment of outstanding dues of
GNIDA, the Committee shall devise a fair
mechanism/formula for determining the liability
of each allottee identified in terms of Clause (II) .
V. Prepare a comprehensive plan in consultation
with all the stakeholders, for the development
and completion of the Housing Project in a time-
bound manner.
VI. Any other matter which the Committee may
deem relevant for a complete and just resolution
of the controversy.
VII. In the eventuality that the original allottees of
the flats in Towers 3 and 4 are found to be
46
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
unidentifiable or unverifiable, the Committee
may also examine the feasibility and viability of
auctioning Towers 3 and 4 of the Housing Project
by way of an open lottery or such other
transparent mechanism as may be deemed
appropriate, so as to ensure recovery of the
entire expenditure towards construction;
discharge of all land dues payable to GNIDA and
any other financial obligations in respect of the
land appurtenant thereto. The said exercise
shall be undertaken keeping in view the
objective of enabling completion of the remaining
towers and protecting the interests of genuine
allottees who have joined together to undertake
the construction and development of Towers 1
and 2.
40. Upon completion of the enquiry, the Committee
shall submit a detailed report setting out its findings,
47
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
conclusions, and recommendations, thereby
facilitating the final resolution of the matter. The
Committee would endeavor to submit its report to
this Court in a sealed cover within a period of four
months from the date of the commencement of its
effective functioning. The State of Uttar Pradesh;
GNIDA; Housing Commissioner, UP Awas Evam
Vikas Parishad; District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha
Nagar, Uttar Pradesh; all banks/financial
institutions, i.e., respondent Nos. 10 to 19 and all the
petitioners as well as other allottees who have filed
intervention applications before this Court or
otherwise, shall extend full assistance and
cooperation to the Committee for facilitating the
enquiry and to ensure timely submission of the
report. The expenses for travel and incidental
expenses for the sittings of the Committee shall be
48
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
borne equally by the allottees on the one hand and
State of Uttar Pradesh on the other.
41. The Committee shall be provided secretarial
assistance comprising of: one Personal Assistant
(PA), one Lower Division Clerk (LDC), and one Law
Clerk, who may be assigned at the discretion of the
Hon’ble Chairperson. The Committee may hold its
proceedings in New Delhi or Noida, Uttar Pradesh, as
deemed appropriate, with the concerned State(s)
and/or Union Territory making suitable
arrangements for its sittings.
42. The Committee shall be entitled to formulate its
own modalities and procedure for conducting the
enquiry.
43. The Chairperson of the Committee shall be
entitled to a fixed honorarium to the tune of Rs. 15
lakhs (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only) which shall be paid
49
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
in three equal tranches spread over a period of four
months.
44. The expenses for the aforesaid enquiry
proceedings shall be equally borne by the allottees on
the one hand and State of Uttar Pradesh on the other.
The parties shall ensure that appropriate facilities are
provided for the conduct of the enquiry.
45. The logistic arrangements for the Committee
st
shall be completed on or before 21 November, 2025.
46. The parties shall be entitled to appropriate
representation in the proceedings to be conducted by
the Committee.
47. The State of Uttar Pradesh and GNIDA shall
publish a public notice regarding the constitution
and functioning of the Committee in two national
dailies, one in English and one in Hindi so as to
apprise all allottees, particularly those who have not
yet approached this Court. The notice shall specify
50
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter
that such allottees may submit their claims before
the Committee, which shall examine and verify the
claims through respondent No. 5-Commissioner.
th
48.
List on 24 March, 2026 for receiving the
Enquiry Committee’s report.
….……………………J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
...…………………….J.
(SANDEEP MEHTA)
NEW DELHI;
NOVEMBER 07, 2025.
51
SLP (CIVIL) NO(S). 9792 OF 2017 and connected matter