Holding

The Court held that a Court Commissioner should be appointed to examine the title, licensing, and related issues and submit a report within four months, with provision for interested parties to be heard.

Summary

The Supreme Court had earlier ordered the builder (colonizer) of the Okhla Enclave residential colony to hand over possession of plots to the allottees. Subsequently, the Deputy Commissioner discovered that the builder did not own the entire land and appointed an Inquiry Officer, whose report was submitted without hearing the allottees. The allottees filed interlocutory applications seeking a Court Commissioner to investigate the title of the land, the manner in which licences were granted, and related development issues. The Court appointed retired H.P. Sharma as Court Commissioner, directing him to advertise for any interested parties, conduct an inquiry, and submit a detailed report within four months covering ownership, allottee entitlement, development status, costs, and financial accounts. The matter was to be listed after the report’s submission.

Issues considered

What is the appropriate mechanism to determine the title of the land and the validity of licences granted to the colonizer?
Should the allottees be given an opportunity to be heard in the inquiry into the land title and development matters?
Is the appointment of a Court Commissioner necessary to ensure a fair and comprehensive investigation?

Subjects

urban developmenttown planningland titlecourt commissionerpossessionlicensinginquiryinterlocutory applicationreal estateallottee rights

Judgment

[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
(Writ P'etition (C) No. 876 of 1996)
i
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
of a part of the land in question - Inquiry directed on the ques-
.I 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
submit the report within four months before Court. E

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.
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
G 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
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

i (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
,A, with the authorities, they received letter from the Additional Deputy D
-l
Commissioner, Faridabad, informing them that he had already
sent his report on the enquiry to ttie Deputy Commissioner,
Faridabad, on 22.8.2005. The petitioners also make a grievance
that neither they were heard nor informed about the so called
conclusions of the enquiry for about 12 months. They make a E
further grievance that Colonizer has failed to discharge his obli-
gations underthe Haryana Urban DevelopmentAct, 1975 (in short
the 'Act') and Haryana Municipal Corporation Amendment Act,
2001 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Amendment Act'). Griev-
-r ance is also made that the Colonizer has failed to discharge the
; . obligations as per the licence agreement. F

3. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we direct
as follows:
Mr. H.P. Sharma, retired member of Delhi Higher Judicial
Services is appointed as Court Commissioner to examine the G
issues and submit his report to this Court within four months.
The Commissioner shall issue an advertisement to be published
in one English Newspaper 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 H
1012 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 14 S.C.R.
t--
A enquiry to be conducted by the Court Commissioner. The cost
of advertisements shall be shared by the petitioners, State and
the Colonizer. The Court Commissioner shall receive an hono-
rarium of Rs.45,000/-p.m. to be shared by the petitioners, the
State and the Colonizer.
B The learned Court Commissioner shall examine and sub-
mit report to this Court on the following aspects within four months:
r
(i) How much of the land was and is in the ownership of
Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd. and its sister companies in
Okhla Enclave Colony, Phase I & II, Faridabad in
c respect of which licenses were granted by the
respondents authorities.
(a) In 1991-92 when the licenses to develop the
colony were granted;
D (b) In 1996 when the present writ petitions were ).
filed; and (·

(c) At present.
(ii) Identification of the allottees entitled to the plot with
E appropriate details setting out the basis on which
their entitlement has been determined;
(iii) Extent of the development works already carried out
with appropriate details;
(iv) Cost involved in carrying out the remaining 't
F development works with appropriate details; ' ....

(v) Furnishing account of the money received by the
respondent authorities from Durga Builders and
sister companies;
G (vi) Furnishing account of the amount received by Durga .,.,.
Builders and sister companies from plot holders.
4: List these matters after four months after submission of
report by the Court Commissioner.

H K.K.T. Matters adjourned