LexOKHLA ENCLAVE PLOT HOLDERS WELFARE ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2008] 14 S.C.R. 1009 OKHLA ENCLAVE PLOT HOLDERS WELFARE A ASSOCIATION v. UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. I.A. NOS. 8 AND 9 IN B i (Writ P'etition (C) No. 876 of 1996) OCTOBER 21, 2008 [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND C.K. THAKKER, JJ.] c Urban Development - Town planning - Development of residential plots - Direction by Supreme Court to give pas- session of the plots to the allottees - Possession given - Au- thority concerned finding that the colonizer was not the owner .I of a part of the land in question - Inquiry directed on the ques- D tion of grant of licence to the colonizer in respect of the land - . -· Inquiry concluded without hearing the allottees - Interlocutory application by allottees seeking appointment of Court Com- missioner to inquire into the matter - Court Commissioner appointed to enquire into the relevant aspects - Direction to E submit the report within four months before Court. In the present writ petition, this Court by its orders had directed the Builders/Colonizer concerned to give posses- y sion of the residential plots to the petitioners/allottees. In the ... meantime, finding that the builder/colonizer was not the 'F owner of the entire land in question, Deputy Commissioner appointed Additional Deputy Commissioner as Inquiry Of- ficer to enquire into the matter. The petitioners also wanted to be heard in the inquiry proceedings. While the petition- ers were in correspondence with the authorities, the Inquiry G Officer informed them that he had already sent his inquiry report to the authority concerned. Petitioners filed interlocutory applications seeking appointment of Court Commissioner to enquire into the 1009 H 1010 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R. A title of the land in question and as to how licences came to be issued to the colonizer without proper verification of ownership of the same and other issues related to the colony as suggested by the Municipal Commissioner. Appointing the Court Commissioner, the Court B HELD: Shri H.P. Sharma, retired member of Delhi Higher Judicial Services is appointed as Court Commis- sioner to examine the issues and submit his report to this Court within four months. The Commissioner shall issue an advertisement to be published in one English News- C paper and one Hindi Newspaper with wide circulation notifying that if any person wants to be heard, he/they may appear as individual or in groups to participate in the enquiry to be conducted by the Court Commissioner. The Court Commissioner shall examine and submit re- D port to this Court on all the relevant aspects. The matters to be listed after four months after submission of report by the Court Commissioner. [Paras 3 and 4] (1011-G, H; 1012-B, H) E CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : I.As. Nos. 8 and 9 In Writ Petition (C) No. 876 of 1996 Manjit Singh, A.AG., S.K. Dholakia, K. Radhakrishnan, P.S. Patwalia, Ashish Dholakia, Adarsh Priyadarshi, Sumita Hazarika, Sanjeev K. Bhardwarj, B.K. Prasad, P. Parmeswaran, F D.S. Mehra, Ashok Bhan, Subhash Kaushik, Anil Katiyar, T.V. G George, Sharad K. Agrawal, Sangeeta Grover, Rakesh Singh, Arun K. Sinha, Yatish Mohan, E.C. Vidya Sagar, Ranbir Singh yadav, B. Diwakar and P. Kakra for the Appearing Parties. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. 1. Prayer in these IAs is as follows: "(a) Order a CBI inquiry or appointment of a Commission under the Chairmanship of a retired Judge of a High Court to inquire into the title of the lands in question H and how licenses came to be issued without proper . \' ' .. i ,A, -l -r ; . OKHLA ENCLAVE PLOT HOLDERS WELFARE ASSO- 1011 CIATION v. UNION OF INDIA& C'RS. [DR.ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.] 't verification of ownership of the same and other A issues related to the Colony as suggested by Municipal Commissioner, Faridabad, in his letter No.MCF/STP/2003/239 dated 25.7.2003. (b) Appoint Receiver to take over the colony from the Colonizer. B (c) Direct development of the colony by the Receiver after fulfillment of all formalities under the Act in a time bound manner; and (d) Pass such other order(s) as this Court may deem fit c and proper in the facts of the case." 2. Aforesaid prayers have been made with reference to the orders passed by this Courton 2.12.1999 and 23.11.2000. Griev- ance of the petitioners is that while they were in correspondence with the authorities, they received letter from the Additional Deputy D Co
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.