Summary
In proceedings arising from a 1996 Article 32 petition by allottees of the Okhla Enclave colony at Faridabad, where a single-member Special Committee (Justice Vikramjit Sen, retd.) had finalised eligible allottees, the Court disposed of a batch of interlocutory applications. It referred late claimants to the Special Committee, modified its order of 03.10.2019 so that general-category allottees held ineligible for multiple plots within one family may join the second round of scrutiny, required 480 members of the appellant association who never submitted to scrutiny to appear before the Scrutiny Committee, refused to review the Committee's final list, deferred part-payment NPNL claimants to a second phase, and directed the State of Haryana on the plotted-area share, a fresh layout plan and encroachments.
Issues
- Which of the pending interlocutory applications should be decided by the Court and which referred to the Special Committee.
- Whether the order dated 03.10.2019 should be modified so that the one-plot-per-family condition in the Special Committee's procedural order of 07.05.2016 does not disqualify general-category allottees who paid market price.
- Whether 492 allottees claiming registered sale deeds, of whom only 12 had appeared before the Scrutiny Committee, were entitled to demarcation of plots without submitting to scrutiny.
- Whether names included in or excluded from the Special Committee's final list of 16.01.2023 could be reviewed, and how NPNL claimants who paid full land cost but only part or no development charges should be treated.
- Whether an investor's dispute with the erstwhile colonizer fell within the Special Committee's mandate.
- What directions were required on the State of Haryana's queries about demarcation and the land available for plotted development.
Held
- Applications by allottees who could not approach the Special Committee before its cut-off date were referred to the Special Committee, which may follow its earlier procedure or modify it as it decides. (¶¶ 7, 8)
- The Special Committee's procedural order of 04.10.2018, which directed the Scrutiny Committee not to disentitle a person who had paid full consideration merely because members of the same family had filed multiple claims, was not placed before the Court when it passed its order of 03.10.2019 applying the 07.05.2016 conditions to all categories. Since general-category allottees paid market rates, it would be unfair to limit their eligibility on that ground; the order of 03.10.2019 was modified to permit general-category allottees found ineligible in the first round for holding multiple plots within one family to participate in the second round of scrutiny. (¶¶ 11, 12, 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 13)
- The Court found no reason to differ from the Special Committee's view that it cannot grant or refuse relief to persons who did not submit to its jurisdiction. Of the 492 allottees claiming sale deeds, the 480 who had not appeared must present themselves before the Scrutiny Committee within four weeks; the Scrutiny Committee, including a representative of their association, will determine the legality of the sale deeds or, where there is none, apply the 07.05.2016 conditions; the Special Committee will hear objections and finalise the list, after which the State may demarcate plots, cancel sale deeds found illegal in accordance with law, and collect development charges per the order of 03.10.2019. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- There can be no review of the inclusion or exclusion of names in the final list prepared by the Special Committee. The Committee was requested only to examine whether four applicants' names, said to have been in the Scrutiny Committee's Annexure I, were inadvertently omitted. Siblings who applied independently cannot each claim a plot, as under the procedural order of 07.05.2016 more than one claim from one family in the NPNL category is ineligible. (¶¶ 26, 27, 28)
- NPNL claimants who paid the full land cost but only part or none of the development charges cannot be considered for allotment at this stage; they may be considered in the second phase once the requisite payments are made and as land is made available by the State Government. (¶¶ 33, 34, 35, 39, 40)
- A firm's claim to have invested about Rs.20.42 crores in the colonizer under an MoU without receiving its assets is an inter se third-party dispute outside the Special Committee's mandate, which is to resolve disputes relating to allotment; the applicant must seek its remedy before an appropriate forum. (¶¶ 30, 31)
- An allottee who averred that he had appeared before the Committee and had his documents verified, yet was left out of the final list, was directed to approach the Special Committee again, which was requested to consider his claim afresh. (¶¶ 37, 38)
- On the State's affidavit, the Court directed: the Special Committee to scrutinise the remaining 480 claims and finalise the eligible list within a reasonable period and to commence second-phase scrutiny, fixing its own terms of engagement; the State of Haryana to treat 65% of the land as the share for plotted development as agreed before the Committee, prepare a fresh layout plan marking land available for allotment within 10 weeks, remove all encroachments at the earliest, and begin scrutiny of commercial-category claimants within 2 weeks; the colonizer to pay the amounts due under the judgment of 03.10.2019 within 6 weeks; and all parties to comply with the Committee's report of 16.01.2023. (¶¶ 41, 42, 43)
Result
Directions issued. IA for modification of the order dated 03.10.2019 allowed; applications of late claimants referred to the Special Committee; 480 unscrutinised allottees to appear before the Scrutiny Committee within four weeks; other IAs disposed of as infructuous, rejected with liberty, or deferred to the second phase; State of Haryana to prepare a fresh layout plan within 10 weeks and colonizer to pay dues within 6 weeks.