Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Wel. Ason. vs. Union Of India Through Secretary

2025 INSC 573
REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION NO. 1290 OF 2022
IN
WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO. 876 OF 1996

OKHLA ENCLAVE PLOT
HOLDERS WEL. ASON. …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA THROUGH
SECRETARY & ORS. ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

DIARY NO(S). 21286/2020
AND
DIARY NO(S). 26517/2020
AND
MA 981/2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. 876/1996
AND
MA 887/2022 IN W.P.(C) NO. 876/1996
AND
MA 1598/2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 876/1996
AND
MA 1776/2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 876/1996
AND
MA 1351/2023 IN W.P.(C) NO. 876/1996
AND
MA 725/2024 IN W.P.(C) NO. 876/1996
AND
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2025.04.25
18:08:12 IST
Reason:
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 1 of 36


MA 1221/2024 in W.P.(C) No. 876/1996

J U D G E M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. M/s Durga Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as
“Builder”) purchased approximately 235 acres of land in
Faridabad, Haryana for establishing a residential colony,
and obtained licenses from the Director, Town and
Country Planning, Haryana under the Haryana
Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. It
thereafter entered into a bilateral agreement with the
Director, Town and Country Planning according to which
the Builder was required to allot plots in the following
three categories, as detailed below:
(i). 20% of the plots of sizes of 50 sq. mtrs. to 125 sq.
mtrs. for economically weaker sections (EWS) at
subsidized rates to be determined by the
Government.
(ii). 25% of the plots on No Profit No Loss (NPNL) basis
having sizes ranging from 125 sq. mtrs. to 225 sq.
mtrs. again, at the rates to be determined by the
Department.
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 2 of 36


(iii). Lastly the balance 55 % of the plots were to be sold in
the open market at the rates decided by the Builder
with a rider that the profit would not exceed 15%.
2. Advertisements were issued, applications were invited,
and allotments were made. The allottees made deposits;
however, the Builder did not adhere to the terms and
conditions of the allotment agreement. As a result, the
allottees in 1996 filed petitions under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India before this Court, registered as Writ
Petition (Civil) No. 876 of 1996.

3. In 2016, this Court, order dated 27.01.2016,
vide
appointed Mr. Justice Vikramjit Sen, retired Judge of this
Court, as a single member Special Committee. The
Special Committee was constituted to resolve each and
every issue involved in the said matter. The Special
Committee had been appointed considering the
magnitude of the issues raised and finding that it would
be difficult for this Court to itself deal with such a large
number of objections from hundreds or thousands of
allottees with valid claims. The Special Committee
formulated its mechanism to deal with the pending issues
and also set up a Scrutiny Committee to identify and
verify the claimants. The Scrutiny Committee comprised
of five members and was chaired by the Senior Town
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 3 of 36


Planner, Faridabad. It also had representatives from the
plot holders’ associations.


4. Later the Special Committee sought directions from this
Court on four issues, as contained in its communication
dated 11.10.2018. The said four questions were answered
by this Court while disposing of the writ petition vide
judgement and order dated 03.10.2019. Pursuant to the
said judgment, the Special Committee continued with its
exercise of resolving the issues and finally submitted its
report dated 16.01.2023. The said report was accepted by
this Court vide order dated 11.07.2023. The Special
Committee thereafter tendered its resignation on
05.09.2023, on the premise that it had completed its
exercise and submitted its report in January 2023, which
had been taken on record and accepted by this Court vide
order dated 11.07.2023. However, the fact remained that
in the order dated 11.07.2023 itself it was noted that a
number of applications had come up by allottees of
different categories praying for redressal of their
grievances who could not approach the Special
Committee in time. Applications have been filed praying
that this Court may request the Special Committee to
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 4 of 36


consider these applications and submit a further report.
Further several applications have been filed raising
grievance that their claims had been wrongly rejected or
not considered by the Special Committee.


5. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, learned amicus curiae
appointed by this Court was requested to find out as to
whether the Special Committee would accept the further
inquiry as required by order dated 11.07.2023.

6. Finally, in the order dated 23.07.2024, it was noted that
the Special Committee, comprising Justice Sen, had
kindly agreed to continue to deal with further
applications from the defaulters, those already filed or
those that may be filed. In the said order, this Court had
requested Justice Sen to continue to chair the Committee
until further orders of the Court. However, before
proceeding to refer the matter to the Special Committee,
this Court had required all pending application to be
examined by the learned amicus curiae as to whether
those applications were required to be dealt with by this
Court or the Special Committee. Pursuant thereto, the
amicus curiae submitted its note giving a brief summary
of the applications and also categorising them based on
whether they should be taken up by the Special
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 5 of 36


Committee and or they were to be taken up by this Court
for disposal.

7. We have heard learned amicus c uriae, Ms. Rashmi
Nandakumar, and learned counsel appearing for the
applicants and have perused the material on record. The
following is the list of applications that needs to be
examined and disposed of by the Special Committee as
such same are being referred to the Special Committee:

MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 6 of 36

MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 7 of 36

MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 8 of 36


8. The above applications are primarily from those allottees
who could not approach the Special Committee before the
cut-off date notified by the Special Committee for various
reasons but claimed to have raised various disputes. The
Special Committee will carve out its own procedure,
which could be the same as before or modified as the
Special Committee may decide.

9. The second category of applications consists of those
applications which alleged some grievances before the
Special Committee or which need to be adjudicated upon
by this Court. The list of these applications is given
hereunder:

MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 9 of 36

MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 10 of 36

MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 11 of 36



10. We will now deal with above applications one by one.



I. IA. No. 99521/2020, IA No.99522/202, IA
No.99524/2020 in M.A.(D) No.212286 of 2020


11. The first category of IAs has been filed by Durga Builder
Plot Holder Welfare Association of plot buyers that form a
part of the General/Open category, who claim to have
purchased plots from the Colonizer by making full
payment at market rates. IA No. 99521 of 2020 is for
permission to file impleadment application. IA No. 99522
of 2020 is an application for impleadment. IA No. 99524
of 2020 is for clarification/modification in the order dated
03.10.2019. IA No. 125990 of 2020 is for filing additional
documents.

12. The applicants state that their claims originate from the
conveyance deed between its individual members and the
Colonizer. They refer to the orders dated 23.11.2000,
15.07.2015 passed by this Court and the order dated
04.10.2018 passed by the Special Committee stating that
these Orders clarify that they relate to the EWS and NPNL
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 12 of 36


categories specifically and do not apply to the General
Category (Category 3). Following submissions have been
advanced on their behalf:
12.1 Since the General Category Plot Holders have paid
the market price, the parameters regarding multiple
plots cannot be made applicable to them. The
Applicants were affected by the conditions laid down
vide procedural order dated 07.05.2016 regarding
one allotment to one family.
12.2 The procedural order of the Special Committee
referred to above sets out the criteria to be followed
by plot holders for eligibility that form the basis of
scrutiny. The general category plot holders made a
prayer before the Special Committee to modify these
conditions to remove restrictions on multiple
holdings by eligible applicants from the same family.
The Special Committee vide procedural order dated
04.10.2018 amended its order dated 07.05.2016.
The paragraph referring to the same is extracted
below:

"6. After discussion with Shri, Sanjeev
Mann, DTP Faridabad, it is directed that
the Scrutiny Committee shall not insist on
an affidavit from the Claimant affirming
that the Colonizer has neither sold the plot
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 13 of 36


allotted to them to any third party nor
created nay Third-Party right over the
same' The Scrutiny Committee is further
directed that it should not refuse to
scrutinise any claim or to disentitle any
person who has paid the full sale
consideration only on the ground that
multiple claims applications have been
filed by members of the same family.”

12.3 It appears that when the matter was taken up by this
Court, this order was not brought to the notice of the
Court. Therefore, the order of this Court dated
03.10.2019 sets out the conditions laid down in
Procedural Order dated 07.05.2016 for all categories
of applicants.
12.4 Since general category allottees were allotted plots
as per market rates, it would be unfair to limit the
eligibility of general category allottees with respect to
multiple claims from one family.

13. Considering the submissions advanced and the
observations made by the Special Committee in its
procedural order dated 04.10.2018, this Court is inclined
to modify the order dated 03.10.2019 to the above extent
and permit those general category allottees who were
found ineligible in the first round due to holding multiple
plots within one family to participate in the second round
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 14 of 36


of scrutiny. It is ordered accordingly. The IA No. 99524 of
2020 is allowed. Other IA’s viz IA No. 99521 of 2020, IA
No. 99522 of 2020 and IA No. 125990 of 2020 stand
disposed of.


II. I.A. No. 3385/2021 in M.A (D) No. 21286/2020;
I.A. No.160786 of 2024 in I.A. No. 3385/2021.

14. I.A. No.3385 of 2021 pertains to an application of
impleadment filed by Durga Builder Plot Holder Welfare
Association (Regd.) which represents claimants who
booked plots in the NPNL category and paid both the plot
and development charges. I.A. No.160786 of 2024 has
been filed to place additional documents. The applicants
contend that the Colonizers breached the agreement as
they initially sold more land than the sanctioned plots
allowed for the NPNL category and subsequently, plots
were sold to the General category in sizes smaller than
prescribed, further violating the agreement. This default
has created an extraordinary situation with more
claimants than available plots.

15. The Applicants have also objected to plots being allotted
to members of the same family. This application is for
impleadment and no direction has been prayed for. This
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 15 of 36


IA does not require any orders as we have already allowed
their application for classification in the order dated
03.10.2019. Therefore, this I.A. stands disposed of.

III. I.A. No. 42882 of 2021 in M.A (D.) No. 21286/2020

16. This IA was filed praying to fix an early date for hearing
in M.A. (D.) 21286/2020. The I.A. stands disposed of as
it has been rendered infructuous.

IV. I.A. No. 98167 of 2022 in M.A. (D.) 21286 of 2020

17. This IA was filed seeking the intervention of this Court to
expedite the submission of the report of the Committee.
Since the Special Committee has completed the exercise
of identification of eligible allottees, this IA has become
infructuous and accordingly stands disposed of.


V. I.A. No. 76802 of 2023 in M.A. (D.) 21286 of 2020

18. This is an application filed by Okhla Enclave Plot Holders'
Welfare Association praying for the following reliefs:

"a. Issue necessary directions in the Report
dated 16.01.2023 by deleting the name of all
such persons who are Supreme Court
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 16 of 36


petitioners and who are having sale deed in
their favour from the list of NPNL successful
claimants.

b. Another list of such Supreme Court
petitioners who are having sale deed in their
favour and their plot has also been earmarked
in the layout plan and who have also appeared
before the Scrutiny Committee be prepared so
that they can contribute in the internal and
external development of the land.

c. Prepare a list of such allottees who are
having sale deed in their favour prior to 1998
and who has also appeared before the Scrutiny
Committee so that they can contribute in the
internal and external development of the land.

d. Amend the list of eligible allottees and
include the name if such persons whose names
are already there in Annexure - I of the Scrutiny
Committee Report but not in the list of
allottees.”

19. It is to be noted that except for 12 allottees amongst the
492 allottees that form part of the Applicant Association,
none of the allottees have subjected themselves to
scrutiny before the Special Committee. Even though plots
have been demarcated for these 492 allottees (as
1
mentioned in the reply dated 22.09.2024 by the DTCP ),

1
Director Town and Country Planning Department, State of Haryana
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 17 of 36


it has not been ascertained as to whether these allottees
do in fact, satisfy the conditions laid down in the
procedural order dated 07.05.2016 to which all other
allottees were subjected to. The Special Committee took
up the case of these 492 persons and has already made
observations with respect to these allottees as follows:

"210. The Special Committee notes that since
14-12-2007, the case of these 492 persons has
been that Sale Deeds have been executed and
possession has been handed over to them.
Before the Special Committee these persons
have repeatedly argued that as per the
amended Layout Plan dated 24-04- 1997. 492
plots were carved and earmarked for these
persons. If the position is so, it is
incomprehensible why these persons are still
litigating the matter for over a dozen years. and
what is the relief that they are seeking. The
Special Committee is still awaiting a response
to this question. The Special Committee is
constrained to remark that there is more than
what meets the eye here. Be that as it may.
Some doubts may have been allayed had they
submitted to a scrutiny in compliance with the
ruling of Judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme
Court delivered on 03-10-2019.

211. The Special Committee cannot grant or
refuse relief to persons who have not submitted
to the jurisdiction of the Special Committee. The
criterion laid by the Special Committee, which
has been accepted by the Hon'ble Supreme
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 18 of 36


Court, is that persons who have paid the land
costs and development charges on or before the
cut-off dates and have only one claim from one
family will be allotted a plot. The persons who
appeared before the Scrutiny Committee will be
summed on the aforesaid criteria, and only
those claims which fulfil the aforesaid
conditions will be declared entitled for a plot.

212. The Special Committee does not agree
with the submission of the Okhla Enclave Plot
Owners Welfare Association (Regd.). and
Okhla Enclave Join Action Committee that they
are on a special footing or an exception. This
special treatment was not sought during the
proceedings dated 07- 05-2016 before the
Special Committee or before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court at the time of passing of the
Judgment dated 03-10-2019.

213. It is possible than in the past period
spanning 20 years these 492 persons may
have got Plots or have sold their previous
allotments, or may have not made requisite
payments etc. and would want to jump over
hapless persons who are better placed entitled
than them to allotment of severely scarce land
due to machinations by the corrupt erstwhile
Colonizer However: the Special Committee
makes no comment on the legitimacy of the
claims of these 492 persons. They have not
deliberately appeared before the Scrutiny
Committee and must seek their relief
elsewhere."

MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 19 of 36


20. We find no good reason to take a view different from what
the Special Committee has taken as extracted above.
Thus, in our opinion out of these 492 allottees other than
the 12 allottees who had subjected themselves to the
Special Committee for scrutiny i.e. the remaining 480
allottees must subject themselves to scrutiny to ascertain
whether their claims/sale deeds are legal and valid. For
this purpose, the allottees are directed to appear before
the Scrutiny Committee to determine their eligibility
within four weeks from date of this order, since all are
represented through their association and counsel.
Further, for those who have sale deeds, the Scrutiny
Committee can determine the legality of the sale deeds
and for those who do not have sale deeds, the Scrutiny
Committee may apply the conditions laid down in the
procedural order 07.05.2016. The composition of the
Scrutiny Committee will include the representative of the
association to which these allottees belong to. Once the
eligibility of these allottees is determined; the same may
be placed before the Special Committee for hearing
objections. Once a final list of eligible allottees is finalized
by the Special Committee, the State of Haryana can
proceed with the demarcation of plots for all eligible
allottees who find mention in the final list of eligible
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 20 of 36


allottees prepared by the Special Committee. Further, in
a case where the sale deeds have been found to be illegal,
the State of Haryana may proceed in accordance with law
to cancel the sale deeds. While the allottees who claim to
have valid sale deeds must present themselves before the
Scrutiny Committee to determine the legality of their sale
deeds. Further, in respect of sale deeds that are found to
be legal and valid, demarcation must be done and
development charges. etc., must be collected in terms of
the order of this Court dated 03.10.2019. The IA is
disposed of accordingly.

VI. I.A. No. 234313 of 2023 in M.A (D) No. 21286 of 2020

21. Through this IA, the applicants the original writ
petitioners have prayed for a direction to be issued to the
Special Committee to continue functioning and dispose of
their applications. As necessary directions have already
been issued, this IA does not require any consideration.
IA is disposed of as infructuous.


VII. I.A. No. 47032 of 2023 in I.A. No. 3385 of 2021

MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 21 of 36


22. The applicants Durga Builder Plot Holder Welfare
Association (Regd.) have raised the following issues in this
IA:

i. Allottees who form part of Annexure-II (paid full
land cost but part development charges) have not
been made eligible.

ii. No available remedy mentioned for allottees listed
under Annexure - II, III & IV.

iii. Allottees who claim refund have been left out from
Scrutiny. As per the Applicants, only those Allottees
who have received actual refund can be kept out of
the list.

23. This application only seeks permission to refer to
documents and to raise averments and there is no specific
direction that is being sought. We are not inclined to pass
any orders. The Association has already been granted
liberty to approach the Special Committee. It would be at
liberty to place the relevant material before the Special
Committee. The application is disposed of accordingly.

MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 22 of 36


VIII. I.A. No. 223046 of 2023, I.A. No. 146281 of 2023 &
1.A. No. 222945 of 2023 in M.A. No. (D.) 26517 of 2020

24. The above IAs have been filed on behalf of Smt. Shanta
Rani (Deceased.), Mr. Yashvant Singh Guleria, Mr. Nandi
Pandey, Ms. Rajwati, Mr. Pan Singh Negi, Mr. Prem
Ballabh Satyavalit, Mr. Ompal Singh, Mr. Anil Kumar
Sharma, Mr. Yashpal Sharma. IA No.223046 of 2023 has
been filed for intervening in the matter. In IA No.14628 of
2023, the following reliefs have been claimed:
(i) “Allow the present application and permit
the applicants as Impleadors in the
present Writ Petition;

(ii) Pass an order directing for the inclusion of
the names of the applicants no. 1-4 in the
First List-Annexure-I in the list/report
submitted by the Ld. Arbitrator dated
16.1.2023.

(iii) Pass an order directing for the inclusion of
the names of the applicants no. 5-7 in the
First List- Annexure-I in the list/report
submitted by the Ld. Arbitrator dated
16.1.2023 and deletion of their names
from the Annexure-II (Second list) by the
Ld. Arbitrator.

(iv) Pass an order directing for the allotment
of individual units separately to applicant
no.8 and 9 separately and individually.”

MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 23 of 36


25. In IA No.222945 of 2023 similar relief as in the IA
No.146281 of 2023 has been claimed.

26. Applicant Nos. 1 to 4 claim that their names were initially
included in the list provided by the Senior Town Planner
(STP) but were omitted from the final list submitted by the
Special Committee. They claim that as per the Report
dated 16.01.2023 of the Special Committee, they were
entitled to be included in the First List (Annexure-1,
having paid the full land cost and full development
charges before the cut-off date) and contend that their
names were inadvertently omitted from the list of plot
holders. Applicant Nos. 5 to 7 assert that their names
were incorrectly placed in the Second List and ought to
have been included in the First List. Applicant Nos. 8 & 9
are siblings who had applied independently in 1995.
which was after their father's death in 1991. The
Applicants are seeking a direction for their entitlement to
be maintained individually and not be considered as a
family unit, thereby claiming a single plot allocation for
both.

27. In the report filed by the Special Committee, the
procedure followed by the Committee for scrutinising the
claims and preparing the final list of eligible allottees has
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 24 of 36


been set out in detail at page 93 of the report. It is stated
in the report that after careful scrutiny of the
applications, they were published in the website of the
department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana and
everyone was given the opportunity to file their
objections, suggestions and amendments to the scrutiny
report. It is the grievance of the applicant Nos. I to 4 that
their names were initially included in the report of the
Scrutiny Committee at Annexure I but their names were
inadvertently omitted from the list of plot holders in the
final list of eligible plot holders. The Special Committee is
thus requested to consider the Application of Applicant
Nos. I to 4 in the Application and determine whether their
names were inadvertently omitted from the final list of
plot holders and if so, their names may be included
accordingly.

28. With respect to Applicant Nos. 5 to 7, there can be no
review of the inclusion /exclusion of names from the final
list prepared by the Special Committee. With respect to
Applicant Nos. 8 and 9, as per the procedural order dated
07.05.2016, it was categorically stated that multiplicity
and duplicity of claims i.e. more than one claim from one
family will not be considered as eligible as they belong to
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 25 of 36


the NPNL category. Several claims have been disallowed
on this ground therefore, the same is rejected.

IX. I.A. No. 68538 of 2022, I.A. No. 68540 of 2022 and I.A.
No.68548 of 2022 in M.A. No. 887 of 2022
29. I.A. No.68538 of 2022 has been filed by M/s S.K. Land
and Finance Ltd. seeking impleadment. I.A. No.68540 of
2022 has been filed seeking permission to file
impleadment. I.A. No.68548 of 2022 has been filed for
direction to the Special Committee to consider their claim.

30. Relevant facts as set out in the application are as follows:

a. The Firm claims that there were certain material facts
that were not brought on record and to the attention
of the Court:

i. That Respondent No.6, by the year 2004 was
suffering heavy losses & was unable to sustain
its business of developing the colony named
Okhla Enclave (Edinburg City). That thereafter,
Respondent No. 7 i.e. Director of Respondent
No. 6 approached Sh. Ram Gopal Sharma, the
late husband of the Proprietor of the Applicant
Firm, with an offer to invest in Respondent No.
6 in lieu of taking it over.
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 26 of 36



ii. That on 15.07.2004, an MoU was entered into
between Respondent No. 7 and Ram Gopal
Sharma.

iii. That the Applicant Firm agreed to take over
these companies and paid a large sum, but the
Respondent No.7 did not hand over control or
important documents.

b. The Applicant Firm claims to have paid a total
of Rs. 20.42 crores as per MoU but did not receive the
assets or documents promised. The Applicant has
also stated in Para (vi) that until the subject project
can be transferred, Respondent No. 6 can adjust an
amount of Rs. 3,50,00,000/-already paid by the
Applicant Firm towards the sale of the adjoining
medical site.

c. The Applicant firm refers to the Order dated
03.10.2008 in Company Petition No. 238/2005 titled
"Manjit Kaur v. Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd." wherein the
Hon'ble High Court imposed a cost of Rs. 50,000/- on
Respondent 7 and his wife each and directed the
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 27 of 36


Crime Branch to investigate into the aspect of
collusion between them and the Petitioner therein.

d. The Applicant states that despite repeated
requests, the Respondent No.7 did not comply,
causing significant losses to the Applicant Firm.

e. The Applicant is seeking permission to appear
before the Special Committee.

31. From the material on record, there appears to be an inter
se dispute between the Applicant firm and the erstwhile
colonizer. While the mandate of the Special Committee
was to resolve each and every dispute relating to
allotment, the Special Committee may not be competent
to determine the issues in this Application which relates
to third party claims against the respondent No.6 relating
to investment therein. Therefore, the applicant may seek
remedy before an appropriate forum as per law. The I.A.
for direction is accordingly rejected with liberty to the
applicant M/s S.K. Land and Finance Ltd. to avail such
other remedy as may be available under law. The two IA’s
stand disposed off accordingly.

MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 28 of 36


X. I.A. No. 101040 of 2023 & I.A No. 101041 of 2023 &
I.A No. 101050 of 2023 in M.A. No. 1351 of 2023

32. I.A. No.101040 of 2023 has been filed by Raja Ram
Prajapati and 12 others praying for impleadment. I.A.
No.101041 of 2023 has been filed seeking permission to
file impleadment application. I.A. No.101050 of 2023 is
for direction to include the 13 applicants in the NPNL
category with a declaration that they are entitled for
allotment in the said category.

33. The IA’s have been filed by Mr. Raja Ram Prajapati, Mr.
Jitendar Bahadur Singh, Mr. Prem Swaroop Verma, Ms.
Devi Kumari, Mr. Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Ms. Subhadra,
Mr. Ram Kali. Mr. Shyam Lal Dadichi, Mr. Bhakta Singh
Rawat, Mr. Gurdyal Singh, Mr, Chhatarpal Singh, Mr.
Jagdish & Mr. Ravinder Mendiratta. The Applicants refer
to the Special Committee final list of 866 eligible
claimants under the NPNL category. The Applicants, who
belong to the NPNL category, paid the full cost of the land
but either paid part of the development charges or none
at all.

34. The Applicants are aggrieved by the non-inclusion of their
names in the list of eligible claimants for allotment under
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 29 of 36


the NPNL category. They argue that despite fulfilling the
primary requirement of paying the full cost of the land
and being ready and willing to pay the development
charges they seek the Court’s intervention to rectify this
omission and ensure that they are allotted plots as per
the Court’s earlier orders and the available land in the
subject category i.e. NPNL.

35. However, in our opinion the Applicants cannot be
considered for allotment at this stage and may be
considered for allotment in the second phase, once
requisite payments are made and as and when land is
made available by the State Government. IA’s are
disposed off accordingly.

XI. I.A. No. 129575 of 2023, L.A. No. 66516 of 2023 & I.A.
No. 66513 of 2023 in M.A No. 1598 of 2023

36. I.A. No.129575 of 2023 is for seeking permission to file
impleadment application. I.A. No.66516 of 2023 is for
impleadment. I.A. No.66513 of 2023 is for directions to
the Special Committee to consider the documents
pertaining to Plot No. J-367, Okhla Enclave, Faridabad or
to refund the amount of Rs.1,74,600/-.

MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 30 of 36


37. The IA has been filed on behalf of one N.R. Chauhan. The
Applicant, is a 79-year-old senior citizen who in his
application has stated that he has been pursuing the
allotment of Plot No. J-367 in Okhla Enclave, Faridabad,
for almost 30 years. The Applicant claims that despite
fulfilling all the necessary requirements and adhering to
the orders of this Court and the Punjab and Haryana High
Court, his name was inexplicably excluded from the final
list of allottees mentioned in the report of the Special
Committee dated 16.01.2023. The applicant claims to
have made all requisite payments amounting to Rs.
1,74,600/- towards the plot, including development
charges and registration fees. The Applicant has stated
that he was issued a Letter of Allotment in 1995 and a
Plot Buyer’s Agreement was also executed in 1996. The
possession of the plot was confined through a Letter of
Possession in 1996. The Applicant claims that he
appeared before the Committee and got his documents
verified but his name was not included in the list of
allottees finalised by the Committee.

38. Having considered the submissions and the material on
record in particular the averment that he appeared before
the Special Committee and got his documents verified, we
direct the applicant to approach the Special Committee
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 31 of 36


again and the Special Committee is requested to consider
his claim afresh.

XII. I.A. No. 146968 of 2024 & I.A. No. 226306 of 2023 in
M.A No. 1221 of 2024

39. These IAs have been filed on behalf of Ms. Kiran Bala Nair
seeking permission to be impleaded and further have
prayed for impleadment. The Applicant claims that she
falls in clause (c) as per the findings of the Special
Committee dt. 07.05.2016 which was recorded by this
Court in its Order dt. 03.10.2019. The Applicant claims
that she belongs to NPNL category and has paid the entire
land cost and part development charges thereby making
her entitled for allotment. She is aggrieved by the fact that
allottees who have paid part development charges have
been excluded from the list of allottees.

40. In our opinion, the Applicants cannot be considered for
allotment at this stage and may be considered for
allotment in the second phase, once requisite payments
are made and as and when land is made available by the
State Government.


MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 32 of 36



Affidavit filed by the State of Haryana

41. The State of Haryana in its affidavit dated 22.09.2024 had
raised certain issues requiring this Court to issue
necessary directions. This Court as per the order dated
25.09.2024 had directed the Amicus Curiae to file a reply
to the aforesaid affidavit filed by the DTCP. The DTCP in
his affidavit raised the following issues:

i. As per the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 07.04.1997.
492 allottees were directed to be allotted plots. The State
of Haryana, pursuant to the aforementioned order has
demarcated plots with respect to these 492 allottees.
Since the case of these 492 allottees were not considered
by the Special Committee, a direction is sought from this
Hon'ble Court regarding demarcation of available plots.

ii. There are 2045 plots for which sale deeds have been
executed. Should the demarcation be done taking into
account these sale deeds?

iii. At present. 32.50% of the area measuring 126.75
acres falling in Phase-1. Okhla Enclave, Sector 91,
Faridabad has been planned for plotted development
whereas, in Phase - I Okhla Enclave, Sector 91, Faridabad
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 33 of 36


having 107.95 acres land, 51.46% has been planned for
plotted development. Most of the roads and infrastructure
are laid at site and plots against which sale deeds had
been executed are situated on the said roads which
cannot be altered considering the developments at the
site. However, after the proposed revision of the area of
the community facility as per the latest norms; the land
share for plotted development will increase to some extent
but there is no scope to optimize the maximum
permissible limit of plottable area that is 65% as directed
by the Special Committee.

42. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts and
issues raised by the DTCP in his affidavit of 22.09.2024
and also the response submitted by the learned Amicus
Curiae.

43. The query with respect to para (i) and (ji) has been
answered above, in response to I.A. No. 76802/2023 in
M.A. (D.) 21286/2020. With respect to query (iii) the
insistence by the Special Committee to increase the area
available for plotted development was to ensure that the
maximum number of eligible allottees who have waited
for over 39 years to get a plot can be accommodated. The
State of Haryana is directed to demarcate plots and public
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 34 of 36


facilities in a feasible way to ensure that maximum
number of allottees can be accommodated. Accordingly,
we issue following directions:

i) The Special Committee is requested to scrutinize the
claims of the remaining 480 allottees of the Okhla
Enclave Plot Holders’ Welfare Association and
finalise the list of eligible claimants within a
reasonable period.
ii) The State of Haryana is directed to consider 65% of
the land share for plotted development as agreed by
them before the Special Committee.

iii) The State of Haryana is directed to prepare a fresh
layout plan for the Project clearly marking the land
available for allotment within a period of 10 weeks
from today.

iv) The State of Haryana is directed to remove all
encroachments at the earliest.

v) The State of Haryana is directed to initiate the
scrutiny of Commercial category claimants within 2
weeks from today.

MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 35 of 36


vi) The Colonizer is directed to pay the amounts due as
per the judgement of this Court dated 03.10.2019
within 6 weeks from today.

vii) Parties are directed to comply with all the other
directions laid down by the Special Committee as per
the Report dated 16.01.2023.

viii) The Special Committee is requested to commence
the process of scrutiny under the second phase.

ix) With regard to the terms of engagement, the Special
Committee may fix its terms of engagement for the
scrutiny of allottees for the next phase.

44. We record our appreciation for the able assistance
provided by learned amicus Ms.Rashmi
Nandakumar.


.....................................J.
(VIKRAM NATH)

…………..........................J.
(PRASANNA B. VARALE)

NEW DELHI;
APRIL 25, 2025
MA.NO.1290/2022 IN WP(C)NO.876/1996 ETC. ETC. Page 36 of 36