Holding

The Supreme Court held that the Special Committee shall continue to scrutinise all pending applications, modify eligibility for general‑category allottees to allow multiple plots, and direct the State of Haryana to demarcate plots and public facilities to accommodate the maximum number of eligible allottees, while rejecting applications beyond its jurisdiction or rendered infructuous.

Summary

The Builder Durga Builders purchased 235 acres in Faridabad to develop a residential colony and was contractually obliged to allocate plots to Economically Weaker Sections, No Profit No Loss (NPNL) and open‑market categories. The Builder failed to honour the allotment terms, prompting allottees to file Writ Petition (Civil) No. 876 of 1996, which was disposed by the Supreme Court in 2019 and referred to a Single Member Special Committee for detailed resolution. After the Committee submitted its report in January 2023, numerous allottees who missed the cut‑off sought further relief, leading the Court to appoint an amicus curiae to determine which applications should be dealt with by the Committee versus the Court. The Court modified the 2019 order to permit general‑category allottees who were previously excluded for holding multiple plots to participate in the second round of scrutiny, and directed the Special Committee to continue hearing pending applications. It also ordered the State of Haryana to demarcate plots and public facilities so that up to 65% of the land can be allotted, to remove encroachments, and to ensure payment of dues by the Builder. Applications outside the Committee’s jurisdiction or rendered infructuous were dismissed. The Court’s directions aim to finalize the list of eligible allottees and facilitate the completion of the Okhla Enclave project.

Issues considered

Whether the Supreme Court or the Special Committee should adjudicate the pending applications of plot‑holders.
Whether the eligibility criteria for the general‑category allotments should be relaxed to allow multiple plots per family.
Whether the State of Haryana must demarcate plots and public facilities to accommodate the maximum number of eligible allottees.
Whether the Builder is liable to pay amounts due as per the 2019 judgment.
Whether applications seeking intervention, impleadment or directions beyond the Committee’s mandate should be dismissed.

Legislation cited

Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Redressal of grievances of the allottees/plot holders. Headnotes† Housing – Residential colony – Builder purchased approx.235 acres of land in Faridabad, Haryana for establishing a In view of the bilateral agreement with the Director, Town and Country Planning, the Builder was required to allot plots in the various categories – Allottees made deposits; however, the Builder/Colonizer did not adhere to the terms and conditions of the allotment agreement – In 1996,

Subjects

Residential colonyPlot holdersSpecial CommitteeDemarcation of plotsEligibility criteriaEWSNPNLUrban developmentHaryanaAmicus curiaeLand allocation

Judgment

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2397 : 2025 INSC 573

Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Wel. Ason.
v.
Union of India Through Secretary & Ors.
(Miscellaneous Application No. 1290 of 2022
In
Writ Petition (Civil) No. 876 of 1996)
25 April 2025
[Vikram Nath* and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Redressal of grievances of the allottees/plot holders.

Headnotes†
Housing – Residential colony – Builder purchased approx.235
acres of land in Faridabad, Haryana for establishing a
residential colony – In view of the bilateral agreement with
the Director, Town and Country Planning, the Builder was
required to allot plots in the various categories – Allottees
made deposits; however, the Builder/Colonizer did not adhere
to the terms and conditions of the allotment agreement – In
1996, allottees filed writ petitions before this Court, writ petition
disposed of in 2019 – After the disposal of the writ petition,
the Single Member Special Committee appointed in 2016
continued with its exercise of resolving the issues and finally
submitted its report in 2023, report was accepted – However, a
number of applications had come up by allottees of different
categories praying for redressal of their grievances who could
not approach the Special Committee in time – On request,
Special Committee, agreed to continue to deal with further
applications from the defaulters, those already filed or those
that may be filed – Pending applications were examined by the
amicus curiae as to whether those applications were required
to be dealt with by this Court or the Special Committee – Note
submitted – Applications that needed to be examined and
disposed of by the Special Committee, referred to the Special
Committee – Second category of applications consisted of
those applications which alleged some grievances before the

* Author
2398 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Special Committee or which need to be adjudicated upon by
this Court:
Held: Applications examined in detail, appropriate orders issued –
Directions issued to State of Haryana to demarcate plots and
public facilities in a feasible way to ensure that maximum number
of allottees can be accommodated. [Paras 11-43]

List of Acts
Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975.

List of Keywords
Residential colony; Colonizer; Okhla Enclave Plot Holders’ Welfare
Association; Durga Builder Plot Holder Welfare Association; Plot
holders; Plot buyers; Economically weaker sections (EWS); Plots on
No Profit No Loss (NPNL) basis; Plots to be sold in open market;
Single Member Special Committee; Director Town and Country
Planning Department, State of Haryana; DTCP.

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Miscellaneous Application
No. 1290 of 2022 in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 876 of 1996
From the Judgment and Order dated 03.10.2019 of the Supreme
Court of India in W.P. (C) No. 876 of 1996
With
Diary No(s). 21286 and 26517 of 2020, MA No(s). 981 and 887
of 2022, MA No(s). 1598, 1776 and 1351 of 2023 and MA No(s).
725 and 1221 of 2024 in W.P.(C) No. 876 of 1996

Appearances for Parties
Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, Amicus Curiae, Ms. Yeshmita Pandey.
Advs. for the Appellant:
Ranji Thomas, Vipin Sanghi Sr. Advs., Vikas Upadhyay, Rajesh
Kandari, Mrs. Ankita Kashyap, Arjun Singh Tomar, Gautam Narayan,
Dhanesh Relan, Ms. Asmita Singh, Ms. Brinde Ajmani, Tushar
Nair, Anirudh Anand, Punishk Handa, Ajay Jain, Jinendra Jain,
Krishna Sharma, Ms. Bijay Lakshmi, M.N. Mishra, Vikrant Singh,
Ajay Sharma, Shafik Ahmed, Ajit Kumar Singh, Manoj Kumar,
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2399

Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Wel. Ason. v.
Union of India Through Secretary & Ors.

Ms. Parul Priya, Ms. Anupama Singh, S. Srinivasa Chary, Varun
Mishra, Ram Lal Roy, Rajeev Ranjan, Ms. Purnima Jauhari, Brijesh
Jauhari, Harsh Mahan, O. P. Singh, Atul Mahan, Ms. Aparna Jauhari,
Kaveesh Nair, Ms. Mahima Mukherjee, Ms. Manisha Ambwani, Ms.
Sumita Hazarika, Ms. Mansi Mehta, Chandra Bhushan Prasad, E.
C. Vidya Sagar, Ranbir Singh Yadav, Prateek Yadav, Ms. Pratima
Yadav, Vikrant Yadav, Mohammed Shahrukh, Ms. Madhu Sikri, P.
Narasimhan, P. N. Puri, Mrs. Reeta Dewan Puri, Ms. Smriti Puri,
J.S. Marahatta, Bahar. U. Barqui, Aftab Ali Khan, Ms. Sheetal
Rawat, Mansur Ali Khan, Rahat Ali Chaudhary, Piyush Sharma,
Shivam Dubey, Anuj Kumar Sharma, Md. Shahid Anwar, Sudarshan
Rajan, Amit Pawan, S. Rajappa.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Mrs. Aishwarya Bhati, Mrs. Archana Pathak Dave A.S.Gs., Lokesh
Sinhal, Sr. A.A.G., D.P. Singh, Vipin Sanghi, Nachiketa Joshi, Sr.
Advs., Akshay Amritanshu, Samyak Jain, Ms. Himanshi Sakya,
Ms. Drishti Saraf, Ms. Pragya Upadhyay, Nikunj Gupta, Ms.
Aakansha, Sanjay Jain, Manu Mishra, Ms. Ruchika Bhan, Iman
Khera, Kaushal Yadav, Rajendra Singh Chauhan, Nandlal Kumar
Mishra, Onkar Nath Sharma, Ms. Pratibha Jain, Piyush Sharma,
Shivam Dubey, Anuj Kumar Sharma, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar,
Sarvam Ritam Khare, Akash Shukla, Kushagra Sharma, Mukesh
Kumar Maroria, B K Satija, Sanjay Kumar Tyagi, Mrs. Aakanksha
Kaul, Rakesh Sharma, Digvijay Dam, Navanjay Mahapatra, Raman
Yadav, Madhav Sinhal, Ms. Sunanda Shukla, Ayush Sharma, Mrs.
Suman Lata Katiyar, Ms. N. Annapoorani, P. Parmeswaran, Yash
Pal Dhingra, Dr. S. K. Verma, Shailendra Bhardwaj, S. K. Verma,
Mrs. Rani Chhabra, Arun K. Sinha, Ms. Sadhana Sandhu, Arjun
Sain, Ms. Shikha Sandhu, Ms. Puja Sharma, Shekhar Kumar,
Ms. Jaspreet Gogia.
Petitioner-in-person.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Vikram Nath, J.

1. M/s Durga Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Builder”)
purchased approximately 235 acres of land in Faridabad, Haryana
2400 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

for establishing a residential colony, and obtained licenses from the
Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana under the Haryana
Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. It thereafter
entered into a bilateral agreement with the Director, Town and Country
Planning according to which the Builder was required to allot plots
in the following three categories, as detailed below:
(i). 20% of the plots of sizes of 50 sq. mtrs. to 125 sq. mtrs. for
economically weaker sections (EWS) at subsidized rates to be
determined by the Government.
(ii). 25% of the plots on No Profit No Loss (NPNL) basis having
sizes ranging from 125 sq. mtrs. to 225 sq. mtrs. again, at the
rates to be determined by the Department.
(iii). Lastly the balance 55 % of the plots were to be sold in the open
market at the rates decided by the Builder with a rider that the
profit would not exceed 15%.
2. Advertisements were issued, applications were invited, and allotments
were made. The allottees made deposits; however, the Builder did
not adhere to the terms and conditions of the allotment agreement.
As a result, the allottees in 1996 filed petitions under Article 32 of
the Constitution of India before this Court, registered as Writ Petition
(Civil) No. 876 of 1996.
3. In 2016, this Court, vide order dated 27.01.2016, appointed Mr. Justice
Vikramjit Sen, retired Judge of this Court, as a single member Special
Committee. The Special Committee was constituted to resolve each
and every issue involved in the said matter. The Special Committee
had been appointed considering the magnitude of the issues raised
and finding that it would be difficult for this Court to itself deal with
such a large number of objections from hundreds or thousands
of allottees with valid claims. The Special Committee formulated
its mechanism to deal with the pending issues and also set up a
Scrutiny Committee to identify and verify the claimants. The Scrutiny
Committee comprised of five members and was chaired by the Senior
Town Planner, Faridabad. It also had representatives from the plot
holders’ associations.
4. Later the Special Committee sought directions from this Court on
four issues, as contained in its communication dated 11.10.2018.
The said four questions were answered by this Court while disposing
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2401

Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Wel. Ason. v.
Union of India Through Secretary & Ors.

of the writ petition vide judgement and order dated 03.10.2019.
Pursuant to the said judgment, the Special Committee continued with
its exercise of resolving the issues and finally submitted its report
dated 16.01.2023. The said report was accepted by this Court vide
order dated 11.07.2023. The Special Committee thereafter tendered
its resignation on 05.09.2023, on the premise that it had completed
its exercise and submitted its report in January 2023, which had
been taken on record and accepted by this Court vide order dated
11.07.2023. However, the fact remained that in the order dated
11.07.2023 itself it was noted that a number of applications had
come up by allottees of different categories praying for redressal
of their grievances who could not approach the Special Committee
in time. Applications have been filed praying that this Court may
request the Special Committee to consider these applications and
submit a further report. Further several applications have been filed
raising grievance that their claims had been wrongly rejected or not
considered by the Special Committee.
5. Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar, learned amicus curiae appointed by this
Court was requested to find out as to whether the Special Committee
would accept the further inquiry as required by order dated 11.07.2023.
6. Finally, in the order dated 23.07.2024, it was noted that the Special
Committee, comprising Justice Sen, had kindly agreed to continue
to deal with further applications from the defaulters, those already
filed or those that may be filed. In the said order, this Court had
requested Justice Sen to continue to chair the Committee until
further orders of the Court. However, before proceeding to refer
the matter to the Special Committee, this Court had required all
pending application to be examined by the learned amicus curiae
as to whether those applications were required to be dealt with by
this Court or the Special Committee. Pursuant thereto, the amicus
curiae submitted its note giving a brief summary of the applications
and also categorising them based on whether they should be taken
up by the Special Committee and or they were to be taken up by
this Court for disposal.
7. We have heard learned amicus curiae, Ms. Rashmi Nandakumar,
and learned counsel appearing for the applicants and have perused
the material on record. The following is the list of applications that
needs to be examined and disposed of by the Special Committee
as such same are being referred to the Special Committee:
2402 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

S. I.A. No. Name of the Applicant (s) Name of the
No. Advocate on
Record
A. List of the I.As. filed in M.A. No. 1290/2022
1. IA No. Prem Singh Rawat Ram Lal
93906/2021 (Permission to File Roy
Impleadment)
1.1 IA No. Prem Singh Rawat Ram Lal
93909/2021 (Intervention/Impleadment) Roy
1.2 IA No. Prem Singh Rawat Ram Lal
93912/2021 (Exemption from filing O.T.) Roy
1.3 IA No. Prem Singh Rawat Ram Lal
93918/2021 (Clarification/Direction) Roy
2. IA No. Jagat Singh & Anr. Ranbir
154562/2022 (Intervention/Impleadment) Singh Yadav
2.1 IA No. Jagat Singh & Anr. Ranbir
154529/2022 (Appropriate Orders/ Singh Yadav
Directions)
B. List of the I.As. filed in M.A. (D) No. 21286/2020
1. IA No. 24/2021 Ranjana Sethi Kaushal
(Intervention Application) Yadav
2. IA No. 25/2021 Ranjana Sethi (Directions) Kaushal
Yadav
3. IA No. Banarasi Prasad Rakesh
113403/2022 (Intervention Application) Kumar
Singh
3.1 IA No. Banarasi Prasad Rakesh
113409/2022 (Appropriate Orders/ Kumar
Directions) Singh
C. List of the I.As. filed in M.A. (D) No. 26517/2020
1. IA No. Gokul Singh Negi Vikas
18180/2021 (D) Through His LRs. Upadhyay
(Permission for Intervention)
1.1 IA No.18181/2021 Gokul Singh Negi Vikas
(D) Through His LRs. Upadhyay
(Intervention Application)
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2403

Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Wel. Ason. v.
Union of India Through Secretary & Ors.

1.2 IA Gokul Singh Negi Vikas
No.126167/2020 (D) Through His LRs. Upadhyay
(Appropriate Orders/
Directions)
2 IA No.18167/2021 Sudha Rawat (D) Through Vikas
Her LRs. Upadhyay
(Permission for Intervention)
2.1 IA No.18169/2021 Sudha Rawat (D) Through Vikas
Her LRs. Upadhyay
(Intervention)
2.2 IA Sudha Rawat (D) Through Vikas
No.126186/2020 Her LRs. Upadhyay
(Appropriate Order/
Directions)
D. List of the I.As. filed in M.A. No. 981/2022
1. IA No. Ratnesh Bansal Jinendra
159218/2021 Okhla Enclave Plot Jain
Holders Welfare
Association
(Appln. for Impleadment)#
1.1 IA No. Ratnesh Bansal Jinendra
159217/2021 Okhla Enclave Plot Jain
Holders Welfare
Association
(Permission to file
Impleadment)‡
1.2 IA No. Ratnesh Bansal Jinendra
97865/2021 Okhla Enclave Plot Jain
Holders Welfare
Association
(Appropriate Orders/
Directions)

# Ed. Note: “(Appln. for Impleadment)” instead of “(Permission for Intervention)” in terms of subsequent
corrigendum.

‡ Ed. Note: “(Permission to file Impleadment)” instead of “(Intervention/Impleadment)” in terms of subsequent
corrigendum.
2404 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

E. List of the I.As. filed in M.A. No. 1776/2023

1. IA No. Smt. Harshi Negi Purnima
86736/2023 (Intervention/Impleadment) Jauhari

1.1 IA No. Smt. Harshi Negi Purnima
86749/2023 (Clarification/Direction) Jauhari

1.2 IA No. Smt. Harshi Negi Purnima
130009/2023 (Permission for Jauhari
Impleadment)⁑

F. List of the I.As. filed in M.A. No. 725/2024

1. IA No. Bir Pal Singh Varun
18997/2024 (Appln. for directions)$ Mishra

1.1 IA No. Bir Pal Singh Varun
18995/2024 (Appln. For impleadment)§ Mishra

1.2 IA No. Bir Pal Singh Varun
29271/2024 (Permission for Mishra
Impleadment)

8. The above applications are primarily from those allottees who could
not approach the Special Committee before the cut-off date notified
by the Special Committee for various reasons but claimed to have
raised various disputes. The Special Committee will carve out its
own procedure, which could be the same as before or modified as
the Special Committee may decide.
9. The second category of applications consists of those applications
which alleged some grievances before the Special Committee or
which need to be adjudicated upon by this Court. The list of these
applications is given hereunder:

⁑ Ed. Note: “(Permission for Impleadment)” instead of “(Permission for Intervention)” in terms of subsequent
corrigendum.

$ Ed. Note: “(Appln. for directions)” instead of “(Intervention/Impleadment)” in terms of subsequent corrigendum.

§ Ed. Note: “(Appln. For impleadment)” instead of “(Appropriate Orders/Directions)” in terms of subsequent
corrigendum.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2405

Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Wel. Ason. v.
Union of India Through Secretary & Ors.

S. I.A. No. Name of the Applicant (s) Name of the
No. Advocate
on Record
A. List of the I.As. filed in M.A. (D) No. 21286/2020
1. IA No. Durga General Plot Holders Gautam
99521/2020 Welfare Association Narayan
(Permission)
1.1 IA No. Durga General Plot Holders Gautam
99522/2020 Welfare Association Narayan
(Permission for Intervention/
Impleadment)
1.2 IA No. Durga General Plot Holders Gautam
99524/2020 Welfare Association Narayan
(Clarification of the Order dated
03.10.2019/Direction)
1.3 IA No. Durga General Plot Holders Gautam
125990/2020 Welfare Association Narayan
(Permission to File Additional
Document/Facts/Annexures)
2. IA No. Durga Builder Plot Holders Sanjay
3385/2021 Welfare Association
Jain
(Intervention/Impleadment)
2.1 IA No. Durga Builder Plot Holders
160786/2024 Welfare Association
in IA No. (Permission to File Additional
3385/2021 Documents/Facts/Annexures)
3 IA No. Early Hearing Application Piyush
42882/2021 Sharma
3.1 IA No. Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Piyush
98167/2022 Welfare Association Sharma
(Directions)
3.2 IA No. Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Piyush
76802/2023 Welfare Association Sharma
(Appropriate Orders/Directions)
3.3 IA No. Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Piyush
234313/2023 Welfare Association Sharma
(Necessary Action/Directions)
2406 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

7. IA No. Durga Builder Plot Holder Sanjay Jain
47032/2024 Welfare (Regd.)
in IA (Permission to raise Averments/
3385/2021 Facts/Documents)
B. List of the I.As. filed in M.A. No. 981/2022
1. IA No. Smt. Shanta Rani & Ors. Sarvam
223046/2023 (Intervention/Impleadment) Ritam Khare
1.1 IA No. Smt. Shanta Rani & Ors. Sarvam
146281/2023 (Intervention/Impleadment) Ritam Khare
1.2 IA No. Smt. Shanta Rani & Ors. Sarvam
22945/2023 (Directions) Ritam Khare
C. List of the I.As. filed in M.A. No. 887/2022
1. IA No. M/s S.K. Land and Finance Manisha
68538/2022 Ltd. Ambwani
(Permission for Intervention)
1.1 IA No. M/s S.K. Land and Finance Manisha
68540/2022 Ltd. Ambwani
(Intervention/Impleadment)
1.2 IA No. M/s S.K. Land and Finance Manisha
68548/2022 Ltd. Ambwani
(Clarification/Direction)
D. List of the I.As. filed in M.A. No. 1351/2023
1. IA No. Raja Ram Prajapati & Ors. Aftab Ali
101040/2023 (Permission for Intervention) Khan
1.1 IA No. Raja Ram Prajapati & Ors. Aftab Ali
101041/2023 (Intervention/Impleadment) Khan
1.2 IA No. Raja Ram Prajapati & Ors. Aftab Ali
101050/2023 (Clarification/Direction) Khan
E. List of the I.As. filed in M.A. No. 1598/2023
1. IA No. N R Chauhan Manisha
129575/2023 (Permission for Impleadment) Ambwani
1.1 IA No. N R Chauhan Manisha
66516/2023 (Appropriate Orders/Directions) Ambwani
1.2 IA No. N R Chauhan Manisha
66513/2023 (Intervention/Impleadment) Ambwani
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2407

Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Wel. Ason. v.
Union of India Through Secretary & Ors.

F. List of I.As filed in M.A. No. 1221/2024
1. IA No. Ms. Kiran Bala Nair Aftab Ali
146968/2024 (Application for Permission) Khan
1.1 IA No. Ms. Kiran Bala Nair Aftab Ali
226306/2023 (Intervention/Impleadment) Khan

10. We will now deal with above applications one by one.

I. IA. No. 99521/2020, IA No.99522/202, IA No.99524/2020 in
M.A.(D) No.212286 of 2020
11. The first category of IAs has been filed by Durga Builder Plot Holder
Welfare Association of plot buyers that form a part of the General/
Open category, who claim to have purchased plots from the Colonizer
by making full payment at market rates. IA No. 99521 of 2020 is for
permission to file impleadment application. IA No. 99522 of 2020 is an
application for impleadment. IA No. 99524 of 2020 is for clarification/
modification in the order dated 03.10.2019. IA No. 125990 of 2020
is for filing additional documents.
12. The applicants state that their claims originate from the conveyance
deed between its individual members and the Colonizer. They refer
to the orders dated 23.11.2000, 15.07.2015 passed by this Court
and the order dated 04.10.2018 passed by the Special Committee
stating that these Orders clarify that they relate to the EWS and NPNL
categories specifically and do not apply to the General Category
(Category 3). Following submissions have been advanced on their
behalf:
12.1 Since the General Category Plot Holders have paid the market
price, the parameters regarding multiple plots cannot be
made applicable to them. The Applicants were affected by the
conditions laid down vide procedural order dated 07.05.2016
regarding one allotment to one family.
12.2 The procedural order of the Special Committee referred to
above sets out the criteria to be followed by plot holders for
eligibility that form the basis of scrutiny. The general category
plot holders made a prayer before the Special Committee to
modify these conditions to remove restrictions on multiple
holdings by eligible applicants from the same family. The
2408 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Special Committee vide procedural order dated 04.10.2018
amended its order dated 07.05.2016. The paragraph referring
to the same is extracted below:
“6. After discussion with Shri, Sanjeev Mann, DTP
Faridabad, it is directed that the Scrutiny Committee
shall not insist on an affidavit from the Claimant
affirming that the Colonizer has neither sold the
plot allotted to them to any third party nor created
nay Third-Party right over the same’ The Scrutiny
Committee is further directed that it should not refuse
to scrutinise any claim or to disentitle any person
who has paid the full sale consideration only on the
ground that multiple claims applications have been
filed by members of the same family.”
12.3 It appears that when the matter was taken up by this Court, this
order was not brought to the notice of the Court. Therefore, the
order of this Court dated 03.10.2019 sets out the conditions laid
down in Procedural Order dated 07.05.2016 for all categories
of applicants.
12.4 Since general category allottees were allotted plots as per
market rates, it would be unfair to limit the eligibility of general
category allottees with respect to multiple claims from one
family.
13. Considering the submissions advanced and the observations made
by the Special Committee in its procedural order dated 04.10.2018,
this Court is inclined to modify the order dated 03.10.2019 to the
above extent and permit those general category allottees who were
found ineligible in the first round due to holding multiple plots within
one family to participate in the second round of scrutiny. It is ordered
accordingly. The IA No. 99524 of 2020 is allowed. Other IA’s viz IA
No. 99521 of 2020, IA No. 99522 of 2020 and IA No. 125990 of
2020 stand disposed of.

II. I.A. No. 3385/2021 in M.A (D) No. 21286/2020;
I.A. No.160786 of 2024 in I.A. No. 3385/2021.
14. I.A. No.3385 of 2021 pertains to an application of impleadment filed
by Durga Builder Plot Holder Welfare Association (Regd.) which
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2409

Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Wel. Ason. v.
Union of India Through Secretary & Ors.

represents claimants who booked plots in the NPNL category and
paid both the plot and development charges. I.A. No.160786 of 2024
has been filed to place additional documents. The applicants contend
that the Colonizers breached the agreement as they initially sold
more land than the sanctioned plots allowed for the NPNL category
and subsequently, plots were sold to the General category in sizes
smaller than prescribed, further violating the agreement. This default
has created an extraordinary situation with more claimants than
available plots.
15. The Applicants have also objected to plots being allotted to members
of the same family. This application is for impleadment and no direction
has been prayed for. This IA does not require any orders as we have
already allowed their application for classification in the order dated
03.10.2019. Therefore, this I.A. stands disposed of.

III. I.A. No. 42882 of 2021 in M.A (D.) No. 21286/2020
16. This IA was filed praying to fix an early date for hearing in M.A. (D.)
21286/2020. The I.A. stands disposed of as it has been rendered
infructuous.

IV. I.A. No. 98167 of 2022 in M.A. (D.) 21286 of 2020
17. This IA was filed seeking the intervention of this Court to expedite
the submission of the report of the Committee. Since the Special
Committee has completed the exercise of identification of eligible
allottees, this IA has become infructuous and accordingly stands
disposed of.

V. I.A. No. 76802 of 2023 in M.A. (D.) 21286 of 2020
18. This is an application filed by Okhla Enclave Plot Holders’ Welfare
Association praying for the following reliefs:
“a. Issue necessary directions in the Report dated
16.01.2023 by deleting the name of all such persons
who are Supreme Court petitioners and who are having
sale deed in their favour from the list of NPNL successful
claimants.
b. Another list of such Supreme Court petitioners who are
having sale deed in their favour and their plot has also
2410 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

been earmarked in the layout plan and who have also
appeared before the Scrutiny Committee be prepared
so that they can contribute in the internal and external
development of the land.
c. Prepare a list of such allottees who are having sale deed
in their favour prior to 1998 and who has also appeared
before the Scrutiny Committee so that they can contribute
in the internal and external development of the land.
d. Amend the list of eligible allottees and include the
name if such persons whose names are already there in
Annexure - I of the Scrutiny Committee Report but not in
the list of allottees.”
19. It is to be noted that except for 12 allottees amongst the 492
allottees that form part of the Applicant Association, none of the
allottees have subjected themselves to scrutiny before the Special
Committee. Even though plots have been demarcated for these
492 allottees (as mentioned in the reply dated 22.09.2024 by the
DTCP1), it has not been ascertained as to whether these allottees
do in fact, satisfy the conditions laid down in the procedural order
dated 07.05.2016 to which all other allottees were subjected to.
The Special Committee took up the case of these 492 persons
and has already made observations with respect to these allottees
as follows:
“210. The Special Committee notes that since 14-12-
2007, the case of these 492 persons has been that Sale
Deeds have been executed and possession has been
handed over to them. Before the Special Committee
these persons have repeatedly argued that as per the
amended Layout Plan dated 24-04- 1997. 492 plots were
carved and earmarked for these persons. If the position
is so, it is incomprehensible why these persons are still
litigating the matter for over a dozen years. and what is
the relief that they are seeking. The Special Committee
is still awaiting a response to this question. The Special
Committee is constrained to remark that there is more than

1 Director Town and Country Planning Department, State of Haryana
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2411

Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Wel. Ason. v.
Union of India Through Secretary & Ors.

what meets the eye here. Be that as it may. Some doubts
may have been allayed had they submitted to a scrutiny
in compliance with the ruling of Judgement of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court delivered on 03-10-2019.
211. The Special Committee cannot grant or refuse relief
to persons who have not submitted to the jurisdiction of
the Special Committee. The criterion laid by the Special
Committee, which has been accepted by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court, is that persons who have paid the land
costs and development charges on or before the cut-off
dates and have only one claim from one family will be
allotted a plot. The persons who appeared before the
Scrutiny Committee will be summed on the aforesaid
criteria, and only those claims which fulfil the aforesaid
conditions will be declared entitled for a plot.
212. The Special Committee does not agree with the
submission of the Okhla Enclave Plot Owners Welfare
Association (Regd.). and Okhla Enclave Join Action
Committee that they are on a special footing or an
exception. This special treatment was not sought during
the proceedings dated 07- 05-2016 before the Special
Committee or before the Hon’ble Supreme Court at the
time of passing of the Judgment dated 03-10-2019.
213. It is possible than in the past period spanning 20
years these 492 persons may have got Plots or have
sold their previous allotments, or may have not made
requisite payments etc. and would want to jump over
hapless persons who are better placed entitled than them
to allotment of severely scarce land due to machinations
by the corrupt erstwhile Colonizer However: the Special
Committee makes no comment on the legitimacy of the
claims of these 492 persons. They have not deliberately
appeared before the Scrutiny Committee and must seek
their relief elsewhere.”
20. We find no good reason to take a view different from what the Special
Committee has taken as extracted above. Thus, in our opinion out
of these 492 allottees other than the 12 allottees who had subjected
themselves to the Special Committee for scrutiny i.e. the remaining
2412 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

480 allottees must subject themselves to scrutiny to ascertain whether
their claims/sale deeds are legal and valid. For this purpose, the
allottees are directed to appear before the Scrutiny Committee to
determine their eligibility within four weeks from date of this order,
since all are represented through their association and counsel.
Further, for those who have sale deeds, the Scrutiny Committee can
determine the legality of the sale deeds and for those who do not
have sale deeds, the Scrutiny Committee may apply the conditions
laid down in the procedural order 07.05.2016. The composition
of the Scrutiny Committee will include the representative of the
association to which these allottees belong to. Once the eligibility
of these allottees is determined; the same may be placed before
the Special Committee for hearing objections. Once a final list of
eligible allottees is finalized by the Special Committee, the State of
Haryana can proceed with the demarcation of plots for all eligible
allottees who find mention in the final list of eligible allottees prepared
by the Special Committee. Further, in a case where the sale deeds
have been found to be illegal, the State of Haryana may proceed in
accordance with law to cancel the sale deeds. While the allottees
who claim to have valid sale deeds must present themselves before
the Scrutiny Committee to determine the legality of their sale deeds.
Further, in respect of sale deeds that are found to be legal and valid,
demarcation must be done and development charges. etc., must be
collected in terms of the order of this Court dated 03.10.2019. The
IA is disposed of accordingly.

VI. I.A. No. 234313 of 2023 in M.A (D) No. 21286 of 2020
21. Through this IA, the applicants the original writ petitioners have
prayed for a direction to be issued to the Special Committee to
continue functioning and dispose of their applications. As necessary
directions have already been issued, this IA does not require any
consideration. IA is disposed of as infructuous.

VII. I.A. No. 47032 of 2023 in I.A. No. 3385 of 2021
22. The applicants Durga Builder Plot Holder Welfare Association (Regd.)
have raised the following issues in this IA:
i. Allottees who form part of Annexure-II (paid full land cost but
part development charges) have not been made eligible.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2413

Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Wel. Ason. v.
Union of India Through Secretary & Ors.

ii. No available remedy mentioned for allottees listed under
Annexure - II, III & IV.
iii. Allottees who claim refund have been left out from Scrutiny.
As per the Applicants, only those Allottees who have received
actual refund can be kept out of the list.
23. This application only seeks permission to refer to documents and
to raise averments and there is no specific direction that is being
sought. We are not inclined to pass any orders. The Association has
already been granted liberty to approach the Special Committee. It
would be at liberty to place the relevant material before the Special
Committee. The application is disposed of accordingly.

VIII. I.A. No. 223046 of 2023, I.A. No. 146281 of 2023 & 1.A. No.
222945 of 2023 in M.A. No. (D.) 26517 of 2020
24. The above IAs have been filed on behalf of Smt. Shanta Rani
(Deceased.), Mr. Yashvant Singh Guleria, Mr. Nandi Pandey, Ms.
Rajwati, Mr. Pan Singh Negi, Mr. Prem Ballabh Satyavalit, Mr. Ompal
Singh, Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Mr. Yashpal Sharma. IA No.223046
of 2023 has been filed for intervening in the matter. In IA No.14628
of 2023, the following reliefs have been claimed:
(i) “Allow the present application and permit the
applicants as Impleadors in the present Writ Petition;
(ii) Pass an order directing for the inclusion of the names
of the applicants no. 1-4 in the First List-Annexure-I
in the list/report submitted by the Ld. Arbitrator dated
16.1.2023.
(iii) Pass an order directing for the inclusion of the names
of the applicants no. 5-7 in the First List- Annexure-I
in the list/report submitted by the Ld. Arbitrator dated
16.1.2023 and deletion of their names from the
Annexure-II (Second list) by the Ld. Arbitrator.
(iv) Pass an order directing for the allotment of individual
units separately to applicant no.8 and 9 separately
and individually.”
25. In IA No.222945 of 2023 similar relief as in the IA No.146281 of
2023 has been claimed.
2414 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

26. Applicant Nos. 1 to 4 claim that their names were initially included in
the list provided by the Senior Town Planner (STP) but were omitted
from the final list submitted by the Special Committee. They claim
that as per the Report dated 16.01.2023 of the Special Committee,
they were entitled to be included in the First List (Annexure-1, having
paid the full land cost and full development charges before the cut-off
date) and contend that their names were inadvertently omitted from
the list of plot holders. Applicant Nos. 5 to 7 assert that their names
were incorrectly placed in the Second List and ought to have been
included in the First List. Applicant Nos. 8 & 9 are siblings who had
applied independently in 1995. which was after their father’s death
in 1991. The Applicants are seeking a direction for their entitlement
to be maintained individually and not be considered as a family unit,
thereby claiming a single plot allocation for both.
27. In the report filed by the Special Committee, the procedure followed
by the Committee for scrutinising the claims and preparing the
final list of eligible allottees has been set out in detail at page 93
of the report. It is stated in the report that after careful scrutiny
of the applications, they were published in the website of the
department of Town and Country Planning, Haryana and everyone
was given the opportunity to file their objections, suggestions
and amendments to the scrutiny report. It is the grievance of the
applicant Nos. I to 4 that their names were initially included in the
report of the Scrutiny Committee at Annexure I but their names were
inadvertently omitted from the list of plot holders in the final list of
eligible plot holders. The Special Committee is thus requested to
consider the Application of Applicant Nos. I to 4 in the Application
and determine whether their names were inadvertently omitted
from the final list of plot holders and if so, their names may be
included accordingly.
28. With respect to Applicant Nos. 5 to 7, there can be no review of
the inclusion /exclusion of names from the final list prepared by the
Special Committee. With respect to Applicant Nos. 8 and 9, as per
the procedural order dated 07.05.2016, it was categorically stated
that multiplicity and duplicity of claims i.e. more than one claim from
one family will not be considered as eligible as they belong to the
NPNL category. Several claims have been disallowed on this ground
therefore, the same is rejected.
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2415

Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Wel. Ason. v.
Union of India Through Secretary & Ors.

IX. I.A. No. 68538 of 2022, I.A. No. 68540 of 2022 and I.A.
No.68548 of 2022 in M.A. No. 887 of 2022
29. I.A. No.68538 of 2022 has been filed by M/s S.K. Land and Finance
Ltd. seeking impleadment. I.A. No.68540 of 2022 has been filed
seeking permission to file impleadment. I.A. No.68548 of 2022 has
been filed for direction to the Special Committee to consider their
claim.
30. Relevant facts as set out in the application are as follows:
a. The Firm claims that there were certain material facts that were
not brought on record and to the attention of the Court:
i. That Respondent No.6, by the year 2004 was
suffering heavy losses & was unable to sustain its
business of developing the colony named Okhla
Enclave (Edinburg City). That thereafter, Respondent
No. 7 i.e. Director of Respondent No. 6 approached
Sh. Ram Gopal Sharma, the late husband of the
Proprietor of the Applicant Firm, with an offer to invest
in Respondent No. 6 in lieu of taking it over.
ii. That on 15.07.2004, an MoU was entered into
between Respondent No. 7 and Ram Gopal Sharma.
iii. That the Applicant Firm agreed to take over these
companies and paid a large sum, but the Respondent
No.7 did not hand over control or important documents.
b. The Applicant Firm claims to have paid a total of Rs. 20.42
crores as per MoU but did not receive the assets or documents
promised. The Applicant has also stated in Para (vi) that until
the subject project can be transferred, Respondent No. 6 can
adjust an amount of Rs. 3,50,00,000/-already paid by the
Applicant Firm towards the sale of the adjoining medical site.
c. The Applicant firm refers to the Order dated 03.10.2008 in
Company Petition No. 238/2005 titled “Manjit Kaur v. Durga
Builders Pvt. Ltd.” wherein the Hon’ble High Court imposed a
cost of Rs. 50,000/- on Respondent 7 and his wife each and
directed the Crime Branch to investigate into the aspect of
collusion between them and the Petitioner therein.
2416 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

d. The Applicant states that despite repeated requests, the
Respondent No.7 did not comply, causing significant losses to
the Applicant Firm.
e. The Applicant is seeking permission to appear before the
Special Committee.
31. From the material on record, there appears to be an inter se
dispute between the Applicant firm and the erstwhile colonizer.
While the mandate of the Special Committee was to resolve each
and every dispute relating to allotment, the Special Committee may
not be competent to determine the issues in this Application which
relates to third party claims against the respondent No.6 relating to
investment therein. Therefore, the applicant may seek remedy before
an appropriate forum as per law. The I.A. for direction is accordingly
rejected with liberty to the applicant M/s S.K. Land and Finance Ltd.
to avail such other remedy as may be available under law. The two
IA’s stand disposed off accordingly.

X. I.A. No. 101040 of 2023 & I.A No. 101041 of 2023 & I.A No.
101050 of 2023 in M.A. No. 1351 of 2023
32. I.A. No.101040 of 2023 has been filed by Raja Ram Prajapati and
12 others praying for impleadment. I.A. No.101041 of 2023 has
been filed seeking permission to file impleadment application. I.A.
No.101050 of 2023 is for direction to include the 13 applicants in the
NPNL category with a declaration that they are entitled for allotment
in the said category.
33. The IA’s have been filed by Mr. Raja Ram Prajapati, Mr. Jitendar
Bahadur Singh, Mr. Prem Swaroop Verma, Ms. Devi Kumari, Mr.
Rakesh Kumar Gupta, Ms. Subhadra, Mr. Ram Kali. Mr. Shyam Lal
Dadichi, Mr. Bhakta Singh Rawat, Mr. Gurdyal Singh, Mr, Chhatarpal
Singh, Mr. Jagdish & Mr. Ravinder Mendiratta. The Applicants refer
to the Special Committee final list of 866 eligible claimants under the
NPNL category. The Applicants, who belong to the NPNL category,
paid the full cost of the land but either paid part of the development
charges or none at all.
34. The Applicants are aggrieved by the non-inclusion of their names in the
list of eligible claimants for allotment under the NPNL category. They
argue that despite fulfilling the primary requirement of paying the full
cost of the land and being ready and willing to pay the development
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2417

Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Wel. Ason. v.
Union of India Through Secretary & Ors.

charges they seek the Court’s intervention to rectify this omission and
ensure that they are allotted plots as per the Court’s earlier orders
and the available land in the subject category i.e. NPNL.
35. However, in our opinion the Applicants cannot be considered for
allotment at this stage and may be considered for allotment in the
second phase, once requisite payments are made and as and when
land is made available by the State Government. IA’s are disposed
off accordingly.

XI. I.A. No. 129575 of 2023, I.A. No. 66516¶ of 2023 & I.A. No.
66513 of 2023 in M.A No. 1598 of 2023
36. I.A. No.129575 of 2023 is for seeking permission to file impleadment
application. I.A. No.66516 of 2023 is for impleadment. I.A. No.66513
of 2023 is for directions to the Special Committee to consider the
documents pertaining to Plot No. J-367, Okhla Enclave, Faridabad
or to refund the amount of Rs.1,74,600/-.
37. The IA has been filed on behalf of one N.R. Chauhan. The Applicant,
is a 79-year-old senior citizen who in his application has stated
that he has been pursuing the allotment of Plot No. J-367 in Okhla
Enclave, Faridabad, for almost 30 years. The Applicant claims that
despite fulfilling all the necessary requirements and adhering to
the orders of this Court and the Punjab and Haryana High Court,
his name was inexplicably excluded from the final list of allottees
mentioned in the report of the Special Committee dated 16.01.2023.
The applicant claims to have made all requisite payments amounting
to Rs. 1,74,600/- towards the plot, including development charges
and registration fees. The Applicant has stated that he was issued a
Letter of Allotment in 1995 and a Plot Buyer’s Agreement was also
executed in 1996. The possession of the plot was confined through a
Letter of Possession in 1996. The Applicant claims that he appeared
before the Committee and got his documents verified but his name
was not included in the list of allottees finalised by the Committee.
38. Having considered the submissions and the material on record
in particular the averment that he appeared before the Special
Committee and got his documents verified, we direct the applicant to

¶ Ed. Note: “I.A. No. 66516” instead of “L.A. No. 66516” in terms of subsequent corrigendum.
2418 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

approach the Special Committee again and the Special Committee
is requested to consider his claim afresh.

XII. I.A. No. 146968 of 2024 & I.A. No. 226306 of 2023 in M.A
No. 1221 of 2024
39. These IAs have been filed on behalf of Ms. Kiran Bala Nair seeking
permission to be impleaded and further have prayed for impleadment.
The Applicant claims that she falls in clause (c) as per the findings
of the Special Committee dt. 07.05.2016 which was recorded by
this Court in its Order dt. 03.10.2019. The Applicant claims that she
belongs to NPNL category and has paid the entire land cost and part
development charges thereby making her entitled for allotment. She is
aggrieved by the fact that allottees who have paid part development
charges have been excluded from the list of allottees.
40. In our opinion, the Applicants cannot be considered for allotment at
this stage and may be considered for allotment in the second phase,
once requisite payments are made and as and when land is made
available by the State Government.

Affidavit filed by the State of Haryana
41. The State of Haryana in its affidavit dated 22.09.2024 had raised
certain issues requiring this Court to issue necessary directions. This
Court as per the order dated 25.09.2024 had directed the Amicus
Curiae to file a reply to the aforesaid affidavit filed by the DTCP. The
DTCP in his affidavit raised the following issues:
i. As per the order of this Hon’ble Court dated 07.04.1997. 492
allottees were directed to be allotted plots. The State of Haryana,
pursuant to the aforementioned order has demarcated plots
with respect to these 492 allottees. Since the case of these
492 allottees were not considered by the Special Committee, a
direction is sought from this Hon’ble Court regarding demarcation
of available plots.
ii. There are 2045 plots for which sale deeds have been executed.
Should the demarcation be done taking into account these
sale deeds?
iii. At present. 32.50% of the area measuring 126.75 acres falling in
Phase-1. Okhla Enclave, Sector 91, Faridabad has been planned
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 2419

Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Wel. Ason. v.
Union of India Through Secretary & Ors.

for plotted development whereas, in Phase - I Okhla Enclave,
Sector 91, Faridabad having 107.95 acres land, 51.46% has
been planned for plotted development. Most of the roads and
infrastructure are laid at site and plots against which sale deeds
had been executed are situated on the said roads which cannot
be altered considering the developments at the site. However,
after the proposed revision of the area of the community facility
as per the latest norms; the land share for plotted development
will increase to some extent but there is no scope to optimize
the maximum permissible limit of plottable area that is 65% as
directed by the Special Committee.
42. We have given our anxious consideration to the facts and issues
raised by the DTCP in his affidavit of 22.09.2024 and also the
response submitted by the learned Amicus Curiae.
43. The query with respect to para (i) and (ji) has been answered above,
in response to I.A. No. 76802/2023 in M.A. (D.) 21286/2020. With
respect to query (iii) the insistence by the Special Committee to
increase the area available for plotted development was to ensure
that the maximum number of eligible allottees who have waited
for over 39 years to get a plot can be accommodated. The State
of Haryana is directed to demarcate plots and public facilities in a
feasible way to ensure that maximum number of allottees can be
accommodated. Accordingly, we issue following directions:
i) The Special Committee is requested to scrutinize the claims of
the remaining 480 allottees of the Okhla Enclave Plot Holders’
Welfare Association and finalise the list of eligible claimants
within a reasonable period.
ii) The State of Haryana is directed to consider 65% of the land
share for plotted development as agreed by them before the
Special Committee.
iii) The State of Haryana is directed to prepare a fresh layout plan
for the Project clearly marking the land available for allotment
within a period of 10 weeks from today.
iv) The State of Haryana is directed to remove all encroachments
at the earliest.
v) The State of Haryana is directed to initiate the scrutiny of
Commercial category claimants within 2 weeks from today.
2420 [2025] 4 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

vi) The Colonizer is directed to pay the amounts due as per the
judgement of this Court dated 03.10.2019 within 6 weeks from
today.
vii) Parties are directed to comply with all the other directions
laid down by the Special Committee as per the Report dated
16.01.2023.
viii) The Special Committee is requested to commence the process
of scrutiny under the second phase.
ix) With regard to the terms of engagement, the Special Committee
may fix its terms of engagement for the scrutiny of allottees
for the next phase.
44. We record our appreciation for the able assistance provided by
learned amicus Ms.Rashmi Nandakumar.

Result of the case: Directions issued.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey