Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 5
PETITIONER:
OKHLA ENCLAVE JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07/04/1997
BENCH:
K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy
Hon’ble Mr. Justice D.P Wadhwa
Jitendra Sharma, Rajeev Dhawan, Arun Jaitley, H.N. Salve,
Sr. Advs., Manu Mridul, SuryaKant, A.K. Sikri, V.K.Rao,
Ms. Madhu Sikri, R.S.Diwan, Rajesh Srivastava, H.K. Puri,
Ujjwal Banerjee, Prem Malhotra, Puneet Bali,M.T. George,
Attar Singh, Devendra Singh, Balraj Dewan, Advs. withthem
for theappearing parties.
WITH
WRIT PETITION (C) Nos.477, 792 & 876 of1996
O R D E R
Application forimpleadment are allowed. All the
applicants be treated as the petitioners.
This writpetition came to be filed fromtime totime
under Article 32 of theconstitution ofIndia on the premise
that the Coloniser, M/s. Durga Builders(p) Ltd., respondent
No.6 has not been sincere in allotment of theplots to the
petitioners who, admittedly, had bookedtheir plots with the
coloniser. After the notice wasissued and the counterswere
filed in this Court, we requested Mr. Harish N. salve,
learnedsenior counsel for the coloniser, to personallylook
into the matter and assist this court in resolving the
problem. We deeply appreciate and place on record our
appreciation for the efforts made byMr. Salve for the
commendable jobhe has done in this behalf. After consulting
learnedcounsel appearing forthe parties andalso looking
into the matterpersonally, he has stated as under:
"1. Various meeting have been held
between the Counsels for the
petitioners and the Counsels for
the respondents. The situation
which emerges appears to be as
under:
(i) Thereare petitionerswho have
paid in full and have not committed
any default. It isthe Respondent’s
case thatdue allotments have been
made to these people, some of whom
have beenput inpossession also;
registrations, etc., are complete.
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 5
Some of such names are included in
the list of petitioner however, the
respondent insists that these
petitioner have been given
possession.
(ii) The real bone of contention
has been the concept of
’defaulter’. The short payments by
the subscribershave arisen on
three counts, namely;
(a) Increasein theprice of
plotwith fixation of no
profit no loss’ by Government,
Haryana Town & Country
planning Authority.
(b) Increase in the amount
payable per plotdue to
readjustment in thesize of
the plot (originallyproposed
size of plots was revised 100
sq. yd. to 121 sq. yd. yds) as
sanctioned by the Government
of Haryana.
(c) General non payment
2.There does notappear to be any
major dispute as to the identity of
petitioners whohave made full
payment. As regards the petitioners
who have refused to pay the revised
rates fixed by the Government of
Haryana, the respondent had given
anoffer that respondent had given
an offerthat payment ofa sum of
Rs. 550/-(over and above the
originallyagreed cost of above the
originally agreed cost of land)
would be treated as proper payment
ifpaid on or before 15.9.1995. It
ispetitioners who have paid the
due amount have been treated as
having made full payment and not in
default and, therefore, given due
allotments.
3.It is the case of some of the
petitioners that they were not
given proper advice notice about
either the revised demandcharges,
the basisof thedemand, or the
revised cost of land(due to
increase in land area) and it is
for that reason that they did not
make payment. The Respondent claims
that notices have beensent to
each and every petitioner.
4.It isconceivable that there
beinglarge number of petitioner
some of them, transferees, whose
names mayor maynot be on the
record atthe may not be on the
record at the appropriate time, the
notices were sent but not received.
It is extremely difficult to
believe ordisbelieve either of the
parties on this score. The
Respondenthave mailed copies of
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 5
letters/some of these petitioners
deny receiving thesame.
5.It was, therefore, suggested to
the respondent that one way of
resolving this problem is all those
who are defaulters on account of
non payment of developmental
charges or payment for difference
inarea of land could be treated
more or less onpar with their
making some additional payment. The
respondents are, by and large,
agreeable to this proposalprovided
the following can be safeguarded;
(a) The actual amount payable
should now be paid at the
rates fixedby the Haryana
Government. The respondent has
suffered a loss because they
have had topay the entire
amount to the Government,
without petitioners making the
due payment.It isnot the
case that the respondent have
pocketed the moneyand not
paid. The situation is
converse. The situation is
converse. Theallotment of the
plotswould be made upon grant
of sectionof the pending
schemes ( The Respondent has
applied for sanction of the
scheme to the haryana Town &
country Planning Authority for
an area which is more enough
the land is in possession of
the Respondent). the only
problem in the allotment is
the clearanceof the scheme by
the clearanceof the scheme by
the haryana Government on
account of anorder imposing a
bar has Surajkund area. Now
the bar has been reduced to
one Km. Therefore, this land
is clear as faras this
Hon’ble Court is concerned.
However, some additional
safeguards have been provided.
(b) In the existing sanctioned
scheme, there area large
number of plots available but
they are of considerably
larger size. The respondent
has already allotted smaller
plots - larger plots are
unsold and in possession of
the unsold and in possession
of the Respondent. The small
plotshave been allotted to
the booking holders and partly
givenunder the commitment to
the EWS scheme.
6. Since the petitioners are
insistingfor allotment in the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 5
present sanctioned scheme,
suggestionhad been made that a
joint applicationbe made by the
Respondent and the present
petitioners to theHaryanaTown and
country planning Authority to
consider our request for reduction
inthe area of theplot bysuitably
increasingthe density norms.
7.In other words the position is
that theland is available the
Respondentis willing to make over
the land at the originallypromised
price (although the prices have
gone up considerably) on payment of
the additional actual amount
demandedby the Government.
However,the exact possession of
the plot would only be given on
clearanceof the scheme by the
Haryana Town & countryplanning
Authority.
8.To sumup, the position is as
under :
(i) It is the Respondent’s
case that there isadequate
land in itspossession. The
Respondent is also willing to
abideby the originalprice of
land together with such
developmentalcharges as are
allowed to it by the
Government ofHaryana.
(ii) The actual possession of
the land canbe given only on
the grant ofapproval for the
revision of density norms by
the Haryana Town and Country
planning Authority.
(iii)The respondent, in any
way,is committedto its
original offer to return the
moneytogether withinterest
as this Court mayconsider
just and proper."
A readingof theabove would clearly indicate how
meticulous analysis ofthe problem. Two broad issues remain
to be solved. Firstly,allotment of the plots either in the
existing scheme or the schemepending approval with the
HaryanaTown and Country Planning Department, respondent
No.5 (for short the ’Department’). Asuggestion camethat
if the Department agrees to increase the density of thearea
and thereby existing plots are converted into smaller plots,
all the petitioners in these writpetitions could be
accommodated in the existingscheme. In case thesaid
authority findsit difficult toreduce the plotarea, in the
scheme pendingapproval, the petitioners could be adjusted
therein. In that behalf, we find that there is no
intractable difficultyin sorting out the problem. The
Department is directedto findthat there is no intractable
difficulty in sorting out theproblem. The Department is
directed to find out first, whether the increase in density
of plots be possible,whetherthe increase in density of
plots be possible, thereby reduce the plots into smaller
size in conformity with the existingRules governing the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 5
sanction of thescheme.In casethere is any difficulty, the
Department is free toapproach this Court for necessary
orders.
In casethere is any intractable difficulty in
adjustment of the same, on necessary sanction being granted
to the pending scheme, allthe petitioners should be
adjusted in thependingscheme.
The next area ofcontroversy pertains to the cost of
the land. It is seen that the Government ofHaryana has
decided the pay charges for internal development and
external development.As far as cost of the land is
concerned, thecoloniser has agreed to abideby therate
which it had contracted for, namely.Rs.100/- to Rs.200/-
per square yarddepending upon the sizeof the plots. As far
as thedevelopment charges are concerned, they are now
governed by the orders of the Department. As regards
internal development, the Government has fixedRs.878/- for
the plots of the size, between 135 sq yardsto 170 sq.
yards. Practically, there may not be any difficulty inthis
behalf for thereasonthat the matter could be easily
verified from the record of the appropriate Department of
the Haryana Government. A letter has been placed before us
in this behalf. Prima facie, we proceed on theterms of the
said letter. If thereis any difference, it can sorted out
with referenceto undisputed record of the Government. As
regardsexternal developments,it is worked out at Rs.4.7
lakhs per acre thatwould be borne obviously be the
allottees.
Mr. Dhawan, learned senior counsel, haspointed out
that licences held by the coloniser hadlapsed on account of
non-conditions.mr. Salve, learned senior counsel , has
broughtto our notice that pendingwrit petitions the
colloniser hasalready deposited Rs. 3 crores and the
balanceamount would bedeposited shortly afterthe disposal
of the writpetitions. under these circumstance, the
necessary licences or renewalthereofwould be granted by
the appropriate authority according to rules. Thereafter,
the above exercise would be done. Thiswould be done within
a period of six weeksfrom the dateof receipt ofthis
order.
Itis then brought to our notice that in case the
densityis notincreased and therebythe plots cannot be
converted intosmallerplots necessary plot to all of the
petitioners in the pending scheme. Mr. salve, learned senior
counsel, has suggested that the record of thecoloniser is
open to scrutiny and in casethe petitionershave feeling
that the coloniser isavoiding allotment of the plots, 4th
respondent is at liberty to look into the matter and it can
directly allot the plots to theallottees whoselist will be
supplied by the coloniser to it. With this fair stand taken
by thecoloniser, we prima facie accept it to be justified.
partiesare at liberty to approach thisCourt in case of any
difficulty for further direction.
Inthat view of the matter, thewrit petitions are
disposed of. Nocosts.