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.