Citation: 2025 INSC 573
Court: Supreme Court of India, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Case Number: Miscellaneous Application No. 1290/2022 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 876/1996, with connected applications
Judges: Vikram Nath, J. and Prasanna B. Varale, J.
Date of Judgment: April 25, 2025
Land Allotment Dispute โ Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 โ M/s Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd. purchased 235 acres in Faridabad, Haryana, for a residential colony and entered into an agreement with the Director, Town and Country Planning, to allot plots in three categories: 20% for economically weaker sections (EWS) at subsidized rates, 25% on a no-profit-no-loss (NPNL) basis, and 55% at market rates with a 15% profit cap โ Builder failed to adhere to allotment terms, leading to petitions filed in 1996 under Article 32 โ Special Committee appointed in 2016 under Justice Vikramjit Sen to resolve disputes โ Committee submitted report in 2023, accepted by Court โ Multiple applications filed by allottees alleging non-consideration or wrongful rejection of claims โ Court referred certain applications to Special Committee for scrutiny, modified 2019 order to allow general category allottees with multiple family claims to participate in second scrutiny round โ Directed 480 allottees with sale deeds to undergo scrutiny for eligibility โ State of Haryana directed to demarcate 65% of land for plotted development, prepare fresh layout plan within 10 weeks, remove encroachments, and scrutinize commercial category claimants โ Special Committee to finalize eligible claimants and continue scrutiny for second phase โ Colonizer to pay dues as per 2019 judgment within 6 weeks.
Facts
M/s Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd. acquired 235 acres in Faridabad, Haryana, to develop a residential colony under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. The builder entered into an agreement with the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, to allot plots in three categories:
- 20% for economically weaker sections (EWS) at subsidized rates (50โ125 sq. m).
- 25% on a no-profit-no-loss (NPNL) basis (125โ225 sq. m).
- 55% at market rates, with a profit cap of 15%.
The builder issued advertisements, invited applications, and made allotments, but failed to comply with the agreement terms. In 1996, aggrieved allottees filed a writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution (W.P. (C) No. 876/1996). In 2016, the Supreme Court appointed a Special Committee, chaired by retired Justice Vikramjit Sen, to resolve disputes. The Committee, assisted by a Scrutiny Committee, submitted a report on January 16, 2023, which was accepted by the Court on July 11, 2023. Subsequently, numerous applications were filed by allottees claiming their grievances were not addressed or their claims were wrongly rejected. The Court, assisted by amicus curiae Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, categorized these applications for resolution by either the Special Committee or the Court.
Issues
- Whether the Special Committee should scrutinize additional applications from allottees who missed the initial cut-off date or whose claims were rejected.
- Whether the Courtโs 2019 order restricting multiple plot claims by one family should be modified for general category allottees.
- Whether allottees with sale deeds, particularly 480 of the 492 claimed by the Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association, should undergo scrutiny to verify eligibility.
- How to address the State of Haryanaโs concerns regarding plot demarcation, sale deeds, and land allocation for plotted development.
- Whether certain applications required Court adjudication or referral to the Special Committee.
Holding
The Supreme Court issued a comprehensive judgment addressing the applications and the Stateโs affidavit, with the following key holdings:
- Referral to Special Committee: Applications from allottees who missed the initial cut-off or claimed non-consideration were referred to the Special Committee for scrutiny, with the Committee empowered to devise its procedure.
- Modification of 2019 Order: The Court modified its October 3, 2019, order to allow general category allottees, previously ineligible due to multiple family claims, to participate in the second round of scrutiny, based on the Special Committeeโs 2018 procedural order.
- Scrutiny of 480 Allottees: Of the 492 allottees claimed by the Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association, 480 who did not undergo scrutiny must appear before the Scrutiny Committee within four weeks to verify the legality of their sale deeds or eligibility under the 2016 procedural order.
- State of Haryanaโs Obligations: The State was directed to:
- Allocate 65% of the land for plotted development.
- Prepare a fresh layout plan within 10 weeks.
- Remove encroachments and scrutinize commercial category claimants within two weeks.
- Colonizerโs Liability: The builder was ordered to pay dues as per the 2019 judgment within six weeks.
- Special Committeeโs Role: The Committee was requested to finalize the list of eligible claimants, commence second-phase scrutiny, and set its terms of engagement.
- Disposition of Applications: The Court disposed of several applications, rejecting some (e.g., claims for multiple NPNL plots by one family) and referring others (e.g., N.R. Chauhanโs claim) to the Special Committee.
Reasoning
- Special Committeeโs Expertise: The Court recognized the Committeeโs role in handling the complex, voluminous claims, justifying the referral of pending applications to ensure fair resolution.
- Equity for General Category Allottees: The modification of the 2019 order was based on the Special Committeeโs 2018 finding that general category allottees, who paid market rates, should not be subject to the same restrictions as EWS/NPNL categories.
- Verification of Sale Deeds: The Court emphasized scrutiny to prevent fraudulent claims, especially for the 480 allottees, noting the Committeeโs observation that their prolonged litigation suggested potential irregularities.
- Stateโs Responsibility: The directive to maximize plotted development to 65% aimed to accommodate the maximum number of eligible allottees, addressing the 39-year delay in plot allocation.
- Procedural Fairness: The Court balanced the need for finality with fairness, allowing late claims to be scrutinized while rejecting ineligible claims (e.g., multiple NPNL claims) to uphold the 2016 procedural order.
Significance
This judgment underscores the Supreme Courtโs commitment to resolving long-standing land allotment disputes through specialized committees while ensuring equitable treatment across claimant categories. It highlights the importance of verifying claims to prevent fraud and the Stateโs role in facilitating fair plot demarcation. The decision sets a precedent for handling complex, multi-party land disputes with procedural flexibility and judicial oversight.
Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)
- What was the primary issue in the case Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association v. Union of India?
a) Dispute over commercial land allocation
b) Non-compliance by the builder with plot allotment terms
c) Constitutional validity of the Haryana Development Act
d) Encroachment on public land Answer: b) Non-compliance by the builder with plot allotment terms - Under which legislation did M/s Durga Builders obtain licenses for the residential colony?
a) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
b) Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975
c) Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Act, 2016
d) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Answer: b) Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 - What percentage of plots was allocated for the economically weaker sections (EWS) at subsidized rates?
a) 15%
b) 20%
c) 25%
d) 55% Answer: b) 20% - Who chaired the Special Committee appointed by the Supreme Court in 2016?
a) Justice Vikram Nath
b) Justice Vikramjit Sen
c) Justice Prasanna B. Varale
d) Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar Answer: b) Justice Vikramjit Sen - What modification was made to the Supreme Courtโs order dated October 3, 2019, in this judgment?
a) Removal of all restrictions on plot sizes
b) Allowing general category allottees with multiple family claims to participate in scrutiny
c) Increasing the profit cap for the builder to 20%
d) Directing immediate plot allotment without scrutiny Answer: b) Allowing general category allottees with multiple family claims to participate in scrutiny - How many of the 492 allottees claimed by the Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association were directed to undergo scrutiny?
a) 12
b) 480
c) 492
d) 866 Answer: b) 480 - What was the State of Haryana directed to allocate for plotted development?
a) 50% of the land
b) 55% of the land
c) 65% of the land
d) 75% of the land Answer: c) 65% of the land - Within what time frame was the State of Haryana directed to prepare a fresh layout plan?
a) 6 weeks
b) 8 weeks
c) 10 weeks
d) 12 weeks Answer: c) 10 weeks - What was the role of Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar in the case?
a) Counsel for the builder
b) Amicus Curiae
c) Chair of the Scrutiny Committee
d) Representative of the State of Haryana Answer: b) Amicus Curiae - What was the deadline for the colonizer to pay dues as per the 2019 judgment?
a) 4 weeks
b) 6 weeks
c) 8 weeks
d) 10 weeks Answer: b) 6 weeks
Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)
- What was the background of the Okhla Enclave case?
The case arose from M/s Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd.โs failure to adhere to the terms of a plot allotment agreement for a residential colony in Faridabad, Haryana. The builder was required to allot plots in three categoriesโ20% for economically weaker sections (EWS), 25% on a no-profit-no-loss (NPNL) basis, and 55% at market rates with a 15% profit cap. Non-compliance led to a writ petition filed by allottees in 1996 under Article 32 of the Constitution. - What was the role of the Special Committee in this case?
In 2016, the Supreme Court appointed a Special Committee, chaired by retired Justice Vikramjit Sen, to resolve disputes related to plot allotments due to the large number of claims and complex issues. The Committee, assisted by a Scrutiny Committee, verified claimants, formulated procedures, and submitted a report in January 2023, which was accepted by the Court in July 2023. - Why were additional applications referred to the Special Committee in the 2025 judgment?
Several allottees filed applications claiming their grievances were not addressed or their claims were wrongly rejected by the Special Committee. The Court referred these applications to the Committee for scrutiny to ensure fair resolution, allowing late claims while maintaining procedural integrity. - What change was made to the 2019 order regarding general category allottees?
The Court modified its October 3, 2019, order to allow general category allottees, who were previously ineligible due to multiple plot claims within one family, to participate in the second round of scrutiny. This was based on the Special Committeeโs 2018 procedural order, which recognized that general category allottees paid market rates and should not face the same restrictions as EWS/NPNL categories. - What was the issue with the 492 allottees claimed by the Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association?
The Association claimed 492 allottees had sale deeds and demarcated plots, but only 12 had undergone scrutiny by the Special Committee. The Court directed the remaining 480 to appear before the Scrutiny Committee within four weeks to verify the legality of their sale deeds or eligibility under the 2016 procedural order, noting potential irregularities in their prolonged litigation. - What directions were given to the State of Haryana?
The State was directed to:- Allocate 65% of the land for plotted development.
- Prepare a fresh layout plan within 10 weeks.
- Remove encroachments.
- Initiate scrutiny of commercial category claimants within two weeks.
- Ensure maximum accommodation of eligible allottees.
- What was the significance of the 65% land allocation for plotted development?
The Special Committee and the Court emphasized maximizing plotted development to 65% to accommodate the maximum number of eligible allottees, who had waited over 39 years for their plots. This directive aimed to address the shortage of available plots due to the builderโs mismanagement. - What happened to the applications seeking multiple NPNL plots by one family?
The Court rejected applications seeking multiple NPNL plots by one family, upholding the 2016 procedural order that limited claims to one per family in the NPNL category to ensure equitable distribution among eligible claimants. - What was the outcome for N.R. Chauhanโs application?
N.R. Chauhan, a 79-year-old claimant, alleged his name was excluded from the final list despite fulfilling requirements and appearing before the Special Committee. The Court directed him to approach the Committee again for fresh consideration of his claim. - How did the Court address the colonizerโs obligations?
The Court ordered M/s Durga Builders to pay all dues as per the 2019 judgment within six weeks, reinforcing the builderโs financial accountability for breaching the allotment agreement.