OKHLA ENCLAVE PLOT HOLDERS’ WELFARE ASSOCIATION versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2019] 13 S.C.R. 274 · Decided: 03-10-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R. BANUMATHI · Disposal: Directions issued

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
274
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 13 S.C.R.
  OKHLA ENCLAVE PLOT HOLDERS’ WELFARE
ASSOCIATION
v.
UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
(Writ Petition (C) No. 876 of 1996)
OCTOBER 03, 2019
[R. BANUMATHI AND A. S. BOPANNA, JJ.]
Urban development: Colonization – Writ petition by allottees
association alleging that respondent no.6-Colonizer did not adhere
to the terms of the agreement in allotment of plots – Matter referred
to arbitration – Arbitrator identified the eligible allottees and sought
directions on four questions – First question was that in the light of
the fact that the Colonizer is claiming succession only with respect
to two licences (out of total seven licences) which portions of the
land compositely held by seven licences falls to its share – Second
question is  who will undertake the development of the Project and
subsequently make allotments – Third question is whether the present
density norms can be relaxed for the project and lastly direction
sought for converting these proceedings to that of a Special
Committee – Held:  Members of the association/allottees purchased
the plots from the Colonizer who held these seven licences and
therefore, they are entitled to the entire extent of land as per the
layout without going into the question of which is the portion of the
land the Colonizer is claiming succession – The claim of the Colonizer
could be considered by the arbitrator only if Colonizer pays the
licence renewal fee of Rs.21.89 crores and other amount spent by
DTCP, Haryana towards keeping watch and ward of the licensed
area and other charges – On such payment, the Colonizer and its
associate companies would be entitled to claim the surplus plots –
Secondly, the Town and Country Planning Department stated that
they will undertake the work after they are paid at least 90% of the
total amount – A total amount of Rs.128.70 crores is payable by the
members of the petitioners’ association and eligible plot owners to
the DGTCP, Haryana for undertaking and completing the internal
and external development works – The Arbitrator would determine
the cost for the square meter and proportionately apportion the
total cost amongst the eligible plot owners depending on their
 [2019] 13 S.C.R. 274
274
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
275
respective plot size – In case if any of the plot owner (who has
already obtained the sale deed) does not pay the apportioned
external and internal development charges within the time frame,
the developments/amenities like sewerage, water connection,
electricity and other developments would not be extended to him –
In case the claimants who have not so far got the sale deed executed
express unwillingness to pay the proportionate/apportioned
development charges or fail to give an undertaking within the given
time frame, the land allotted to them would revert to the Colonizer
on certain conditions – Insofar as the other categories of allottees
who have been identified and who are yet to get the sale deed, in
case if they do not pay the development charges within the time
frame, their right over the plot would be forfeited – As regards the
question raised by the Arbitrator regarding relaxation of present
density norms for the project was concerned, the State of Haryana
submitted that the density norms like the area reserved for roads,
common purposes, etc. cannot be reduced – Thus, the Arbitrator
would be required to make appropriate adjustments of the plots in
conformity with the existing rules from amongst the plot owners –
The State of Haryana shall render its co-operation in adjustment of
the plot sizes in the approved layout of course  – Lastly, these
proceedings are  in the nature of a Special Committee constituted
by this Court and not in the nature of arbitration within the meaning
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION: Writ Petition (Civil) No.
876 of 1996. [Under article 32 of the Constitution of India]
Raju Ramachandran, Sr. Adv., Ms. Rashmi Nanda Kumar, Adv.
(A.Cs.)
R. Basant, Maninder Singh, Sr. Advs. Shankar Narayanan,
Ms. Ayushma Awasthi, Piyush Sharma, Akshay Sahay, Dr. Monika
Gusain, Ms. Ashita Chawla, Kumar Parimal, B. K. Satija, Arvind Kumar
Sharma, B. V. Balaramdas, Satvik Varma, Mohit K. Mudgal, Akshay
Malpani, Ms. Shilpa Prakash, Himanshu Pal, Gaurav Kumar, Ayush
Sharma, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Puran Mal Saini, Vikrant Yadav, Ms. Anzu
K. Varkey, B. Rajesh,  Ms. Sunita Singh Chauhan, Hitesh Kumar Sharma,
Bijender Singh Chaudhry, Shekhar Kumar,

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.