LexOKHLA ENCLAVE JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE ETC. versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
OKHLA ENCLAVE JOINT ACTION COMMITIEE ETC. A v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. APRIL 7, 1997 (K. RAMASWAMY AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.) B Constitution of India, 1950 Article 32. W!it filed by petitioners-Allegation that builder, respondent No. 6, was not sincere in the allotment of plots to petitioners-Counsel for coloniser C directed by Court to look into the matter and assist the Court in solving the problem-Counsel made meticulous analysis of the problem and submitted its repon--lssues to be solved:-Allotmellt of the plots either in the existing scheme or the scheme pending approval with the Haryana Town and Country P/a11ni11g Depanme11t-The Depanment is directed to find out first whether D the increase in density of plots be possible so that petitioners could be adjusted, thereby reduce the plots illto smaller sizes in con/ om1ity with the existing Rules governing the sanction of the scl1eme--l11 case there is any difficulty, the Depanment is free to approach this Coun for necessary or- ders-In case the density is not increased and thereby the plots cannot be convened i11to smaller plots, it is obvious that the coloniser should allot E 11ecessary plots to all of the petitioners in the pending sc11eme--ln the mean- time licences held by the Coloniser had lapsed 011 accou11t of non-compliance of the co11ditions-Pe11di11g writ petitions the Coloniser deposited Rs. 3 crores and agreed that the balance amount would be deposited shonly after the disposal of the writ petitio11s-U11der these circumstances, Court directed that necessa1y licences or renewal thereof should be granted by the appropriate authority according to mies. CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (C) No. 113 of 1996 Etc. (Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.) F G Jitendra Sharma, Rajeev Dhawan, Arun Jaitley, H.N. Salve, Manu Mridul, Surya Kant, A.K. Sikri, V.K. Rao, Ms. Madhu Sikri, R.S. Diwan, Rajesh Srivastava, H.K. Puri, Ujjwal Banerjee, Prem Malhotra, Puneet H 669 670 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1997] 3 S.C.R. A Bali, M.T. George, Attar Singh, Devcndra Singh and Balraj Dewan for the appearing parties. The following Order of the Court was delivered : Applications for impleadment arc allowed. All the applicantsbe B treated as the petitioners. This writ petition came to be filed from time to time under Article 32 of the Constitution of India on the premise that the Coloniser, M/s. Durga Builders (P) Ltd., respondent No. 6 has not been sincer!" iff'allot- C ment of the plots to the petitioners who, admittedly, had book<(d their plots with the Coloniser. After the notice was issued and the counters were filed in this Court, we requested Mr. Harish N. Salve, learned senior counsel for the Coloniser, to personally look into the matter and assist this Court in resolving the problem. We deeply appreciate and place on record our D appreciation for the efforts made by Mr. Salve for the commendable job he has done in this behalf. After consulting learned counsel appearing for the parties and also looking into the matter personally, he has stated as under: E F G H "l. Various meetings 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) There are Petitioners who have paid in full and have not committed any default. It is the Respondent's case that due allotments have been made to these people, some of whom have been put in possession also; registrations, etc., are complete. Some of such names are included in the list of Petitioner-how- ever, the respondent insists that these petitioners have been given possession. (ii) The real bone of contention has been the concept of 'defaulter'. The short payments by the subscribers have arisen on three counts, namely; (a) Increase in the price of plot with fixation of 'no profit no loss' by government, Haryana Town & Country Planning - -6 OKHLA ENCLAVE JOINT ACTION COMMITfEE v. U .0.1. 671 Authority. (b) Increase in the amount payable per plot due to readjust- ment in the size of the plot (originally proposed size of plots was revised 100 sq. yd. to 121 sq. yd. and 200 sq. yd. to 239 sq. yds.) as sanctioned by the Government of Haryana. (c) General non payment. 2. There does not appear to be any major dispute as to the identity of Petitioners who have made full payment. As regards A B the petitioners who have refused to pay the revised rates fixed
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.