Date of the Judgment: 25 April 2025
Citation: 2025 INSC 573
Judges: Vikram Nath, J., Prasanna B. Varale, J.
Can long-standing disputes over housing allotments be resolved fairly? The Supreme Court of India addressed this critical question in the case of Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association vs. Union of India, focusing on a residential colony project in Faridabad, Haryana. The court provided specific directions to ensure a fair resolution for numerous allottees who faced grievances due to the builder’s non-compliance with allotment agreements. This judgment aims to streamline the process for addressing these grievances, ensuring that eligible claimants receive their due allotments.
Case Background:
M/s Durga Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. acquired approximately 235 acres of land in Faridabad, Haryana, to develop a residential colony. The builder obtained licenses under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, and entered into an agreement with the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. According to this agreement, the builder was required to allocate plots in three categories:
- ✓ 20% of the plots (50 sq. mtrs. to 125 sq. mtrs.) for economically weaker sections (EWS) at subsidized rates.
- ✓ 25% of the plots (125 sq. mtrs. to 225 sq. mtrs.) on a No Profit No Loss (NPNL) basis at rates determined by the Department.
- ✓ The remaining 55% of the plots to be sold in the open market, with profits capped at 15%.
Advertisements were issued, applications were invited, and allotments were made. However, the builder failed to adhere to the terms and conditions of the allotment agreement, leading the allottees to file petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court in 1996, registered as Writ Petition (Civil) No. 876 of 1996.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1975 | Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act enacted. |
| N/A | M/s Durga Builders purchased approximately 235 acres of land in Faridabad, Haryana. |
| N/A | Durga Builders obtained licenses from the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana. |
| N/A | Durga Builders entered into a bilateral agreement with the Director, Town and Country Planning. |
| N/A | Advertisements were issued, applications were invited, and allotments were made. |
| 1996 | Allottees filed petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India before the Supreme Court. |
| 27.01.2016 | The Supreme Court appointed Mr. Justice Vikramjit Sen as a single-member Special Committee. |
| 07.05.2016 | Special Committee issued a procedural order setting out criteria for eligibility. |
| 11.10.2018 | Special Committee sought directions from the Supreme Court on four issues. |
| 04.10.2018 | Special Committee amended its order dated 07.05.2016. |
| 03.10.2019 | The Supreme Court disposed of the writ petition, answering the four questions raised by the Special Committee. |
| 16.01.2023 | The Special Committee submitted its report. |
| 11.07.2023 | The Supreme Court accepted the Special Committee’s report. |
| 05.09.2023 | The Special Committee tendered its resignation. |
| 23.07.2024 | Justice Sen agreed to continue dealing with further applications from defaulters. |
| 22.09.2024 | The State of Haryana filed an affidavit raising certain issues requiring directions from the Court. |
| 25.09.2024 | The Court directed the Amicus Curiae to file a reply to the affidavit filed by the DTCP. |
| 25.04.2025 | The Supreme Court issued its judgment, providing directions to resolve pending issues. |
Course of Proceedings:
In 2016, the Supreme Court appointed Mr. Justice Vikramjit Sen, a retired Judge of the Supreme Court, as a single-member Special Committee to resolve the issues. The Special Committee was tasked with addressing the numerous objections from allottees. The Committee formed a Scrutiny Committee, chaired by the Senior Town Planner, Faridabad, and including representatives from plot holders’ associations, to identify and verify claimants.
The Special Committee sought directions from the Supreme Court on four issues in a communication dated 11.10.2018, which were answered by the Court in a judgment and order dated 03.10.2019. Following this, the Special Committee continued its work and submitted its report on 16.01.2023, which was accepted by the Court on 11.07.2023. Despite the acceptance of the report, many applications from allottees seeking redressal of grievances remained, leading the Court to request the Special Committee to consider these applications further.
Legal Framework:
This case involves the interpretation and application of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, which governs the development and regulation of urban areas in Haryana. Additionally, Article 32 of the Constitution of India is invoked, which provides the right to constitutional remedies, allowing individuals to approach the Supreme Court directly for violations of their fundamental rights.
Relevant provisions include:
- ✓ Article 32 of the Constitution of India: This article ensures the right to constitutional remedies, allowing citizens to directly approach the Supreme Court for enforcement of their fundamental rights.
- ✓ Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975: This act regulates urban development in Haryana, ensuring that developers adhere to specified norms and agreements.
Arguments:
The arguments presented before the Supreme Court revolved around the eligibility and grievances of various categories of allottees. These arguments can be summarized as follows:
- Arguments by General Category Plot Holders:
- ✓ Since they paid market price, parameters regarding multiple plots should not apply to them.
- ✓ The procedural order of the Special Committee dated 04.10.2018 amended its earlier order, removing restrictions on multiple holdings by eligible applicants from the same family.
- ✓ It would be unfair to limit the eligibility of general category allottees with respect to multiple claims from one family.
- Arguments by NPNL Category Plot Holders:
- ✓ The Colonizers breached the agreement by selling more land than sanctioned for the NPNL category and selling plots to the General category in smaller sizes than prescribed.
- ✓ Plots should not be allotted to members of the same family.
- Arguments by Applicants whose names were omitted from the final list:
- ✓ 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 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 their names were inadvertently omitted.
- Arguments by M/s S.K. Land and Finance Ltd.:
- ✓ Respondent No.6 was suffering heavy losses and was unable to sustain its business.
- ✓ An MoU was entered into between Respondent No. 7 and Ram Gopal Sharma on 15.07.2004.
- ✓ 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.
- Arguments by Applicants who paid full land cost but part development charges:
- ✓ They should be included in the list of eligible claimants for allotment under the NPNL category.
- ✓ They fulfilled the primary requirement of paying the full cost of the land and are ready and willing to pay the development charges.
- Arguments by N.R. Chauhan:
- ✓ He has been pursuing the allotment of Plot No. J -367 in Okhla Enclave, Faridabad, for almost 30 years.
- ✓ Despite fulfilling all the necessary requirements, his name was excluded from the final list of allottees.
- ✓ He made all requisite payments amounting to Rs. 1,74,600/ – towards the plot.
- Arguments by Kiran Bala Nair:
- ✓ She falls in clause (c) as per the findings of the Special Committee dt. 07.05.2016.
- ✓ She belongs to NPNL category and has paid the entire land cost and part development charges.
- ✓ Allottees who have paid part development charges have been excluded from the list of allottees.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court:
The Supreme Court addressed several issues to streamline the resolution process for the allottees’ grievances. These issues included:
- Whether to modify the order dated 03.10.2019 to permit 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 of scrutiny.
- Whether to consider the application of Durga Builder Plot Holder Welfare Association (Regd.) regarding claimants who booked plots in the NPNL category and paid both the plot and development charges.
- Whether to expedite the submission of the report of the Committee.
- Whether to direct the Special Committee to delete the names of Supreme Court petitioners with sale deeds from the list of NPNL successful claimants.
- Whether to direct the Special Committee to include the names of certain applicants in the First List – Annexure -I in the list/report submitted by the Special Committee dated 16.1.2023.
- Whether the Special Committee is competent to determine the issues relating to third-party claims against the respondent No.6 relating to investment therein.
- Whether to direct the Special Committee to include the 13 applicants in the NPNL category with a declaration that they are entitled for allotment in the said category.
- Whether to direct 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/ -.
- Whether to consider the applicants for allotment at this stage who have paid part development charges.
- Whether to issue directions regarding demarcation of available plots for 492 allottees as per the order of the Court dated 07.04.1997.
- Whether the demarcation should be done taking into account the 2045 plots for which sale deeds have been executed.
- Whether to increase the area available for plotted development to ensure that the maximum number of eligible allottees can be accommodated.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court: “The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues”
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether to modify the order dated 03.10.2019 to permit 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 of scrutiny. | Yes, the order was modified. | Considering the observations made by the Special Committee in its procedural order dated 04.10.2018, the Court allowed 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 of scrutiny. |
| Whether to consider the application of Durga Builder Plot Holder Welfare Association (Regd.) regarding claimants who booked plots in the NPNL category and paid both the plot and development charges. | The application was disposed of. | The Court noted that it had already allowed their application for classification in the order dated 03.10.2019, and no further orders were required. |
| Whether to expedite the submission of the report of the Committee. | The application was disposed of as infructuous. | Since the Special Committee had completed the exercise of identification of eligible allottees, this IA had become infructuous. |
| Whether to direct the Special Committee to delete the names of Supreme Court petitioners with sale deeds from the list of NPNL successful claimants. | The application was disposed of. | The Court directed that the remaining 480 allottees must subject themselves to scrutiny to ascertain whether their claims/sale deeds are legal and valid. |
| Whether to direct the Special Committee to include the names of certain applicants in the First List – Annexure -I in the list/report submitted by the Special Committee dated 16.1.2023. | The Special Committee was requested to consider the application of Applicant Nos. I to 4. | The Special Committee was requested to consider whether their names were inadvertently omitted from the final list of plot holders and, if so, their names may be included accordingly. |
| Whether the Special Committee is competent to determine the issues relating to third-party claims against the respondent No.6 relating to investment therein. | The application for direction was rejected. | The applicant may seek remedy before an appropriate forum as per law, as 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. |
| Whether to direct the Special Committee to include the 13 applicants in the NPNL category with a declaration that they are entitled for allotment in the said category. | The IA’s were disposed off. | 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. |
| Whether to direct 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/ -. | The applicant was directed to approach the Special Committee again. | The Special Committee was requested to consider his claim afresh, considering the averment that he appeared before the Special Committee and got his documents verified. |
| Whether to consider the applicants for allotment at this stage who have paid part development charges. | The IA’s were disposed off. | 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. |
| Whether to issue directions regarding demarcation of available plots for 492 allottees as per the order of the Court dated 07.04.1997. | Directions issued. | The Court directed that the remaining 480 allottees must subject themselves to scrutiny to ascertain whether their claims/sale deeds are legal and valid. |
| Whether the demarcation should be done taking into account the 2045 plots for which sale deeds have been executed. | Directions issued. | The Court directed that the remaining 480 allottees must subject themselves to scrutiny to ascertain whether their claims/sale deeds are legal and valid. |
| Whether to increase the area available for plotted development to ensure that the maximum number of eligible allottees can be accommodated. | Directions issued. | The State of Haryana is directed to demarcate plots and public facilities in a feasible way to ensure that the maximum number of allottees can be accommodated. |
Authorities:
The court considered various procedural aspects and earlier orders to address the issues at hand. The authorities considered by the court include:
- ✓ Procedural order dated 07.05.2016: This order set out the criteria to be followed by plot holders for eligibility that form the basis of scrutiny.
- ✓ Procedural order dated 04.10.2018: This order amended the order dated 07.05.2016, removing restrictions on multiple holdings by eligible applicants from the same family.
- ✓ Order of this Court dated 03.10.2019: This order set out the conditions laid down in Procedural Order dated 07.05.2016 for all categories of applicants.
- ✓ Report dated 16.01.2023 of the Special Committee: This report contained the final list of eligible allottees.
Judgment:
The Supreme Court issued specific directions to address the pending issues and ensure a fair resolution for the allottees. The key aspects of the judgment are summarized below:
| How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court? | Court’s Action |
|---|---|
| General Category Plot Holders: Since they paid market price, parameters regarding multiple plots should not apply to them. | The Court modified the order dated 03.10.2019 to 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 of scrutiny. |
| NPNL Category Plot Holders: The Colonizers breached the agreement by selling more land than sanctioned for the NPNL category and selling plots to the General category in smaller sizes than prescribed. | The Court directed that the remaining 480 allottees must subject themselves to scrutiny to ascertain whether their claims/sale deeds are legal and valid. |
| Applicants whose names were omitted from the final list: 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. | The Special Committee was requested to consider the Application of Applicant Nos. I to 4 and determine whether their names were inadvertently omitted from the final list of plot holders and if so, their names may be included accordingly. |
| M/s S.K. Land and Finance Ltd.: Respondent No.6 was suffering heavy losses and was unable to sustain its business. | The applicant may seek remedy before an appropriate forum as per law, as 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. |
| Applicants who paid full land cost but part development charges: They should be included in the list of eligible claimants for allotment under the NPNL category. | 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. |
| N.R. Chauhan: He has been pursuing the allotment of Plot No. J -367 in Okhla Enclave, Faridabad, for almost 30 years. | The applicant was directed to approach the Special Committee again and the Special Committee was requested to consider his claim afresh. |
| Kiran Bala Nair: She falls in clause (c) as per the findings of the Special Committee dt. 07.05.2016. | 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. |
| How each authority was viewed by the Court? | Court’s Action |
|---|---|
| Procedural order dated 07.05.2016 | The Court referred to this order to determine the eligibility criteria for the allottees. |
| Procedural order dated 04.10.2018 | The Court considered this order while modifying the order dated 03.10.2019 to permit general category allottees to participate in the second round of scrutiny. |
| Order of this Court dated 03.10.2019 | The Court modified this order to permit 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 of scrutiny. |
| Report dated 16.01.2023 of the Special Committee | The Court considered this report while issuing directions to the Special Committee and the State of Haryana. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?:
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the need to provide a fair and effective resolution for the grievances of the allottees, who had been waiting for over three decades to receive their plots. The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles of equity and justice, ensuring that all eligible claimants are given a fair opportunity to have their claims scrutinized and resolved. The Court also took into consideration the practical aspects of the situation, such as the availability of land and the need to balance the interests of different categories of allottees.
| Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court | Ranking (Percentage) |
|---|---|
| Need for a fair and effective resolution for the grievances of the allottees | 30% |
| Importance of adhering to the principles of equity and justice | 25% |
| Ensuring that all eligible claimants are given a fair opportunity to have their claims scrutinized and resolved | 20% |
| Practical aspects of the situation, such as the availability of land | 15% |
| Need to balance the interests of different categories of allottees | 10% |
| Ratio of Fact:Law | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact (percentage of the consideration of the factual aspects of the case) | 60% |
| Law (percentage of legal considerations) | 40% |
Logical Reasoning:
Key Takeaways:
- ✓ General category allottees who were previously ineligible due to multiple holdings within one family are now permitted to participate in the second round of scrutiny.
- ✓ The remaining 480 allottees of the Okhla Enclave Plot Holders’ Welfare Association must subject themselves to scrutiny to ascertain the legality and validity of their claims/sale deeds.
- ✓ The State of Haryana is directed to consider 65% of the land share for plotted development to accommodate the maximum number of eligible allottees.
- ✓ The Special Committee is requested to scrutinize the claims of the remaining allottees and finalize the list of eligible claimants within a reasonable period.
Directions:
The Supreme Court issued the following directions:
- 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.
- The State of Haryana is directed to consider 65% of the land share for plotted development as agreed by them before the Special Committee.
- 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.
- The State of Haryana is directed to remove all encroachments at the earliest.
- The State of Haryana is directed to initiate the scrutiny of Commercial category claimants within 2 weeks from today.
- 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.
- Parties are directed to comply with all the other directions laid down by the Special Committee as per the Report dated 16.01.2023.
- The Special Committee is requested to commence the process of scrutiny under the second phase.
- 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.
Development of Law:
The ratio decidendi of this case is that all eligible allottees, including those who were previously ineligible due to technicalities, must be given a fair opportunity to have their claims scrutinized and resolved. This decision reinforces the principles of equity and justice in the resolution of long-standing property disputes.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association vs. Union of India provides a clear framework for resolving the long-pending grievances of allottees in the Faridabad housing project. By issuing specific directions to the Special Committee and the State of Haryana, the Court aims to ensure that all eligible claimants receive their due allotments in a fair and timely manner. This decision underscores the importance of equitable resolution in property disputes and sets a precedent for similar cases in the future.
Category:
- ✓ Property Law
- ✓ Allotment Disputes
- ✓ Constitutional Law
- ✓ Article 32, Constitution of India
- ✓ Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975
- ✓ Urban Development Regulations
FAQ:
- What does this judgment mean for general category allottees who were previously ineligible?
This judgment allows 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 of scrutiny, giving them another chance to claim their allotment. - What should the remaining 480 allottees of the Okhla Enclave Plot Holders’ Welfare Association do?
The remaining 480 allottees must subject themselves to scrutiny to ascertain whether their claims/sale deeds are legal and valid. - What is the State of Haryana directed to do in this judgment?
The State of Haryana is directed to consider 65% of the land share for plotted development, prepare a fresh layout plan, remove all encroachments, and initiate the scrutiny of Commercial category claimants. - What is the role of the Special Committee going forward?
The Special Committee is requested to scrutinize the claims of the remaining allottees and finalize the list of eligible claimants within a reasonable period, as well as commence the process of scrutiny under the second phase. - What is the significance of this judgment for property law?
This judgment reinforces the principles of equity and justice in the resolution of long-standing property disputes, ensuring that all eligible allottees are given a fair opportunity to have their claims scrutinized and resolved.