Holding

Given the protracted litigation, multiplicity of claimants, and administrative complexity, the Supreme Court held that an independent one‑judge committee must be constituted to conduct a detailed enquiry, verify genuine allottees, and recommend a resolution, including possible partial restoration of the lease.

Summary

The petitioners, original allottees of a group housing project in Greater Noida, challenged the Allahabad High Court's dismissal of their writ petition seeking restoration of a cancelled lease, identification of genuine allottees, and completion of construction. The Supreme Court observed that the dispute involved complex factual verification, multiple claimants, and substantial public interest, rendering a comprehensive judicial resolution impracticable. It therefore ordered the constitution of an independent one‑judge committee, headed by a retired High Court judge, to investigate the facts, verify genuine allottees, determine outstanding dues, and recommend a plan for partial lease restoration and project completion. The Court also directed GNIDA to cooperate, to consider partial lease restoration for Tower‑1, and to publish notices inviting all claimants. The matter was listed for the committee’s report, without granting any substantive relief on the merits of the petition.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition without substantive relief can be set aside under Article 136.
Whether the lease deed cancelled by GNIDA in 2011 can be restored, wholly or partially, to enable completion of the housing project.
How to identify and verify the genuine allottees among numerous claimants.
How to determine the proportional liability of each genuine allottee for outstanding land dues.
Whether the Supreme Court can direct the formation of an independent fact‑finding committee to resolve the dispute.
Whether the courts can direct GNIDA to consider partial lease restoration and facilitate construction.

Legislation cited

Headnote

Issue for Consideration Challenge to the judgment of the High Court whereby it disposed of the writ petition without granting any substantive relief as prayed for by the petitioners-allottees in a Group Housing Project stalled for nearly two decades. Headnotes† Housing Project – Stalled for nearly two decades – Prolonged litigation – Need for a comprehensive, structured examination by an independent fact-finding authority – In 2004, Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) allotted a plot in favour of Golf Course Sahkari

Subjects

Home buyersAllotteesGroup Housing ProjectHousing ProjectGreater Noida Industrial Development AuthorityGNIDAGolf Course Sahkari Awas SamitiShiv Kala DevelopersDeveloperIndependent fact‑finding authorityOne‑Judge CommitteeEnquiry CommitteeConstruction stalledLease restorationArticle 136Cooperative SocietyStructural audit

Judgment

[2025] 11 S.C.R. 549 : 2025 INSC 1291

Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors.
v.
State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
(Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9792 of 2017)
07 November 2025
[Vikram Nath and Sandeep Mehta,* JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Challenge to the judgment of the High Court whereby it disposed
of the writ petition without granting any substantive relief as prayed
for by the petitioners-allottees in a Group Housing Project stalled
for nearly two decades.

Headnotes†
Housing – Group Housing Project – Stalled for nearly two
decades – Prolonged litigation – Need for a comprehensive,
structured examination by an independent fact-finding
authority – In 2004, Greater Noida Industrial Development
Authority (GNIDA) allotted a plot in favour of Golf Course
Sahkari Awas Samiti (Samiti/Society) for a Group Housing
Project – A lease deed was executed by GNIDA in favour of
the Samiti – Thereafter, the construction of the project was
purportedly entrusted to a Developer – Since no payment
in respect of lease amount was being received by GNIDA,
eventually, it cancelled the lease deed in September 2011 –
Several complaints were lodged by the homebuyers with
the authorities alleging large-scale siphoning, diversion of
funds by the office bearers of the Samiti in collusion with the
developer – Petitioners-allottees of the Housing Project filed
Writ Petition before the High Court – Disposed of, without
granting any substantive relief – Challenge to:
Held: Original allotees have been struggling for the last nearly
20 years – Despite pursuing remedies before various fora,
their grievances remain unredressed – Even after nearly two
decades of booking their flats and making payments, some by
taking loans from financial institutions, the allottees have been

* Author
550 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

unable to take possession, as construction has remained stalled
since September, 2011, i.e., from the date of cancelling of lease
deed by GNIDA, owing to the fraudulent acts and irregularities
committed by the office bearers of the Samiti/Society and the
developer – All the original allottees are not before this Court,
impeding the formulation of a comprehensive plan of action
in respect of the development and completion of the Housing
Project – Having regard to the protracted pendency of these
proceedings spanning over several years, during which numerous
interlocutory and impleadment applications were filed by persons
asserting claims as original allottees of the Housing Project,
coupled with the complexities arising from verification of such
claims and the need to coordinate between multiple statutory
authorities and agencies, the matter has assumed considerable
administrative magnitude and intricacy – The overlapping issues of
restoration of lease, identification of genuine allottees, proportional
determination of land dues, and feasibility of completing the
stalled construction necessitate a comprehensive, structured, and
impartial examination under the supervision of an independent
fact-finding authority – One-Judge Committee, headed by an
Hon’ble Retd. Judge of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
constituted – Parameters of the Enquiry, stated – Committee to
submit a detailed report setting out its findings, conclusions, and
recommendations, facilitating the final resolution of the matter.
[Paras 33, 36, 37, 39, 40]

List of Acts
Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965; UP Cooperative
Societies Rules, 1968; Penal Code, 1860; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Home buyers; Allottees; Group Housing Project; Housing Project;
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA);
Golf Course Sahkari Awas Samiti; Shiv Kala Developers Pvt.
Ltd.; Shiv Kala Charms; Developer; Independent fact finding
authority; One-Judge Committee; Committee constituted; Enquiry
Committee; Construction remained stalled; Allottees unable to
take possession; Enquiry; Siphoning and diversion of funds by
office bearers.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 551

Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

Case Arising From
EXTRA ORDINARY APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave
Petition (Civil) No. 9792 of 2017
From the Judgment and Order dated 17.05.2016 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad at in WC No. 22576 of 2016
With
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15548 of 2017

Appearances for Parties
Advs. for the Petitioners:
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, Sr. Adv., Ms. Pyoli, Somesh Chandra Jha,
Ms. Saumya Dwivedi, Animesh Rajoriya, Akash Kishore.
Advs. for the Respondents:
Ravindra Kumar, Vishwajit Singh, Sr. Advs., Anuvrat Sharma, Navin
Prakash, Binay Kumar Das, Ms. Priyanka Das, Ms. Neha Das,
Shivam Saksena, Abhishek Kumar Singh, Pankaj Singh, Gopal
Sharan Pathak, Ms. Kanchan Kumari, Dhurya Shankar Mishra,
Ms. Geeta Shakya, Sonal Jain, Sanjiv Kumar Jain, Amit Kumar
Chawla, Ms. Swati Vishan, Akhileshwar Jha, Varun Varma,
Ms. Kanchan Kumari, M. Yogesh Kanna, Mahesh Agarwal,
Ankur Saigal, Victor Das, Chirag Nayak, Rajesh Kumar, E. C.
Agrawala, Himanshu Munshi, Shiv Ram Sharma, Vipin Kumar Jai,
Mrs. Gurinder Jai, Vipul Jai, Ms. Sanjna Dua, Anuj Bhandari, Hitesh
Sachaar, Ms. Anju Jain, Mrs. Anjoo Jain, Hitesh Sachar, Anuj
Bhandari, Satish Kumar, Ms. Pyoli, Somesh Chandra Jha, Sourav
Kumar Jena, Tarang Agrawal, Mrigank Prabhakar, Siddharth Sahu,
Ramesh N. Keswani, Pranav Singal, Rahul N., Ravi Raghunath
Vachher, Arjun Vachher, R. N. Keswani, Satyendra Kumar,
Ms. Vatsala Chandra Chaturvedi, Ms. Devyani Gupta, Aditya
Giri, Ms. Pyoli, Sudhir Naagar, Mohit Singh, Manohar Naagar,
Arun Kumar Nagar, Ms. Priya Rastogi, Kaushal Yadav, Arjun
Raghuvanshi, Ritul Tandon, Nandlal Kumar Mishra, Onkar Nath
Sharma, Dr. Ajay Kumar, Sakesh Kumar, Karunakar Mahalik,
Ms. Gitanjali N. Sharma, Ms. Alpha M. Prasad, Ravi Prakash,
Onkar Nath, Vivek Singh, Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Neeraj
Kumar Verma, Govind Bhardwaj, Pradeep Shukla, Ashwarya
C. Jha, Ms. Tanushree Pandey, Anuj Kumar, Sanjeev Malhotra,
Jeetender Gupta, Pramod Dayal, Nikunj Dayal, Ms. Ankita Kedia,
Rakesh Kumar, Ms. Himangi Saikia, Pankaj Naggar, Sunil Kumar
Sharma, Satyendra Kumar.
552 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Order

Mehta, J.

1. Heard.
2. The present special leave petitions1 have been preferred against the
impugned judgment and final order dated 17th May, 2016 passed
by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad2 in Writ-C No. 22576
of 2016. Vide the said order, the High Court disposed of the writ
petition without granting any substantive relief as sought for by the
petitioners. However, the petitioners were given liberty to approach
the Housing Commissioner in respect of the affairs of the Housing
Society and to file a civil suit in respect of the loan availed by the
petitioners to finance the purchase of the flats.
3. Succinctly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioners claim
to be the allottees in a Group Housing Project undertaken by Golf
Course Sahkari Awas Samiti3 (previously, JP Greens Employees
Sahkari Awas Samiti), which was formed in 2004 and registered as
a housing co-operative society under Section 7 of Uttar Pradesh
Cooperative Societies Act, 1965. The Samiti filed an application with
Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority4 seeking allotment
of land. GNIDA vide letter dated 9th September, 2004 allotted Plot
No. 7, Sector PI-2, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar
Pradesh, 201308 admeasuring 10,000 sq. meters @ Rs. 2975/-
per sq. meter in favour of the Samiti, for flat-based development,
stipulating payment of 30% of the lease amount within 60 days and
the balance 70% in eight half-yearly instalments.
4. Pursuant thereto, GNIDA executed a lease deed dated 29th March,
2005 in favour of the Samiti which in turn, submitted a layout plan
which was approved by GNIDA in 2005 itself. The approved plan

1 Petitioners in Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9792 of 2017 were also the petitioners in Writ-C No.
22576 of 2016 filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad whereas Petitioners in Special
Leave Petition (Civil) No. 15548 of 2017 were not party to the above-stated writ petition.
2 Hereinafter, being referred to as the “High Court”.
3 Hereinafter, being referred to as the “Samiti” or “Society”.
4 For short “GNIDA”.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 553

Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

of the Housing Society envisaged four towers (Ground+10 floors)
with two towers (1st and 4th) having 4 flats on each floor and other
two towers (2nd and 3rd) having 3 flats on each floor. In total, the
Housing Society was to comprise approximately 140 (±5%) flats
along with 2 shops.
5. Thereafter, the construction of the project was purportedly entrusted
to M/s Shiv Kala Developers Pvt. Ltd., of which Mr. Mahim Mittal
(respondent No. 20) is the Director. Advertisements were issued
in the newspapers and brochures were circulated, projecting the
development of a luxury residential complex under the name of
“Shiv Kala Charms”5 on the aforesaid plot. The petitioners herein
applied for the allotment of flats in the said project. It is stated that
although cheques were collected from prospective allottees in the
name of the Samiti, the corresponding receipts were issued in the
name of either M/s Shiv Kala Developers Pvt. Ltd. or M/s Advantage
Engineers and Developers Pvt. Ltd6.
6. The Housing Project was pre-approved for housing loan by various
banks. Influenced thereby, the petitioners availed housing loan
facilities, pursuant to which, tri-partite agreements were executed
between the petitioners, the Samiti/developer, and the respective
banks. Under the said agreements, the sanctioned loan amount was
directly disbursed to the Samiti.
7. It is stated that after 14th October, 2007, no payment in respect of
lease amount was received by GNIDA. Consequently, GNIDA issued
a letter in July, 2010, calling upon the Samiti to pay Rs. 3,14,42,238/-
(Rupees Three Crore Fourteen Lakh Forty Two Thousand Two
Hundred and Thirty Eight only) by 31st July, 2010. Since the Samiti
failed to comply, GNIDA issued a final show cause notice dated 21st
February, 2011, requiring the Samiti to explain why the lease deed
should not be cancelled. Ultimately, vide order dated 9th September,
2011, GNIDA cancelled the lease deed executed in favour of the
Samiti.
8. Several complaints were lodged by the homebuyers with the authorities
alleging large-scale siphoning and diversion of funds by the office

5 Hereinafter, being referred to as the “Housing Project”.
6 Hereinafter, being referred to as the “Developer”.
554 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

bearers of the Samiti in collusion with the developer. Taking cognizance
of the said complaints, District Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar vide
order dated 2nd December, 2011 constituted an inquiry committee to
examine the affairs of the Samiti. The committee submitted its report
on 5th March, 2012 highlighting grave irregularities in the affairs of the
Samiti and recording, inter alia, the following findings: -
• The construction of the Housing Society is not complete and at
present, the entire work has been stopped due to cancellation
of lease deed.
• The lease deed was cancelled owing to the failure of Mr. SU
Jafar7 and Mr. Mahim Mittal8 to make the requisite payment to
GNIDA.
• It is clear that the funds received by the Samiti from the
homebuyers have been misappropriated.
• The office bearers of the Samiti have failed to furnish the
information sought by the Committee regarding the list of
allottees and the amounts deposited by each of them towards
their respective flats, thereby deliberately withholding material
information.
• The Samiti was being run in an arbitrary manner and in
contravention of the provisions of the UP Cooperative Societies
Act, 1965; the UP Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968; and bye-
laws framed thereunder.
• It was found that the same flat has been allotted multiple times
to more than one allottee/s and in many cases, multiple loans
have been availed in respect of the same flat.
• It has also been found that Mr. SU Jafar and Mr. Mahim Mittal
have allotted fictitious flats which have never existed to certain
allottees, and loans have also been sanctioned in respect of
the said flats.
9. Based on the aforesaid conclusions/findings, the committee made
the following recommendations:-

7 Respondent No. 22- Secretary of the Samiti
8 Respondent No. 20- Director of M/s Shiv Kala Developers Pvt. Ltd.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 555

Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

1. That a letter shall be forwarded to Governor, Reserve Bank
of India for initiating an inquiry into the involvement of banks/
financial institutions in the fraud committed by the office bearers
of the Samiti.
2. That an enquiry be conducted by the Housing Commissioner, UP
Awas Evam Vikas Parishad in respect of the Housing Project.
3. That legal action/proceedings shall be initiated against all those
persons who were involved in the fraudulent housing scheme.
10. The homebuyers filed a criminal complaint against the office bearers
of the Shiv Kala Group and the Samiti before the Economic Offences
Wing, Delhi. The said complaint led to the registration of FIR No. 62 of
2012 against SU Jafar, Mahim Mittal and 8 other co-accused persons.
After investigation, chargesheet came to be filed by the Economic
Offences Wing, Delhi for offences punishable under Sections 409,
420, 467, 468, 472 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860.
11. On 27th December 2013, UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad appointed
an administrator to look into the affairs of the society. Additional
Housing Commissioner, UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad vide letters
dated 7th April, 2014 and 27th May, 2015, directed the Cooperative
Officers (Housing) to lodge an FIR against Mahim Mittal and other
concerned persons.
12. Petitioners claiming to be the allottees of the Housing Project filed
writ petition9 before the High Court seeking several reliefs/directions
against the Samiti, the developer and the financial institutions/banks.
For sake of ready reference, the reliefs sought in the writ petition
are reproduced hereinbelow:
“It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble
Court may graciously be pleased to allow this petition
and issue;
a) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the
nature of Certiorari to quash the order dated
09.09.201l (Annexure 9 to the writ petition)
issued by the Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority whereby the lease

9 Writ-C No. 22576 of 2016.
556 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

deed of Plot No.7, Sector PI-2, Greater
Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.- 201308
was terminated;
b) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus to the Authorities
to take appropriate action in terms of letter
dated 04.02.2014 and 27.05.2015 (Annexure
16 to the writ petition) issued by UP Awas
Evam Vikas Parishad against GCSAS Society
office bearer;
c) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus to the Housing
Commissioner of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad,
Lucknow to form a committee till the conduction
of fresh society elections;
d) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus to the Housing
Commissioner of UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad,
Lucknow, to identify the genuine members in the
GCSAS society and direct UP Sahkari Samiti
Nirvachan Ayog to conduct fresh society election;
e) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in
the nature of Mandamus to the Respondent
Authorities to recover the amount
misappropriated/diverted by Mr. Mahim
Mittal, Mr. Asit Mittal, Mr. SU Zaffar, Mr. Pankaj
Jindal and Mr. Umesh Garg from the coffers
of the Golf Course Sahkari Awas Samiti and
to return the same to the samiti;
f) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus to the Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority to restore
the lease deed dated 29.03.2005 with respect
to Plot No. 7, Sector PI-2, Greater Noida,
Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.- 201308;
g) An appropriate Writ, Order to restore the
lease deed dated 29.03.2.005 with respect
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 557

Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

to Plot No. 7, Sector PI-2, Greater Noida,
Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.- 201308;
h) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction to the
National Housing Bank and Reserve Bank of
India to conduct an enquiry against the bank/
financial institution involved in the project
GCSAS;
i) An appropriate Writ, Order or direction
to the Respondents LICHFL, HDFC Bank,
AXIS Bank, India Bulls HFL, DHFL, PNBHFL,
Indian Bank, Oriental Bank of Commerce,
and Syndicate Bank prohibiting them to
recover the loan from the petitioners till the
possession of the respective flats in question
is not handed over to the petitioners;
j) Any other writ, order or direction in the
circumstances of the case that this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper; and
k) award the costs of the writ petition.”
(Emphasis supplied)

13. The High Court, vide final order dated 17th May, 2016, disposed of the
writ petition without granting any substantive relief as sought for by the
petitioners. The High Court took note of the fact that the lease deed
has already been cancelled due to the non-payment of lease rent and
criminal proceedings have also been initiated and chargesheet has
been filed against the office bearers of the Samiti and the developer
whereas the role played by the officers of the bank is still under
investigation. In this view of the matter, the High Court expressed its
disinclination to issue any writ or pass any substantive directions in
the writ petition. Nevertheless, it was observed that if any adverse
report is submitted to the concerned authority, i.e., the Reserve
Bank of India and National Housing Bank by the Economic Offences
Wing, Delhi, appropriate action, as permissible in law, shall be taken
against the concerned individuals. The High Court further granted
liberty to the petitioners to approach the Housing Commissioner for
redressal of the grievances concerning the affairs of the Housing
Society and to file civil suits seeking appropriate relief in relation to
558 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

repayment of the loans availed by the petitioners for financing the
purchase of the flats. For ease of reference. operative portion of the
order passed by the High Court is reproduced hereinbelow:
“The records reflect that the petitioners have taken loan
from the respondent banks for the purposes of purchase
of flats offered by a Housing Cooperative Society.
From the records we find that the land, subject matter
of controversy, was provided to the Housing Society
by Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority
(respondent no. 4) and because of non-payment of
lease rent and other dues, the allotment was cancelled
as early as on 09.09.2011. We further find that a first
information report has already been registered against
the Directors of the Housing Society and further that the
role played by financial institutions is under examination
of the Economic Offences Wing, final report whereof is
still to be submitted. It has been stated that the Economic
Offences Wing has submitted a charge-sheet against the
Directors of the Housing Society while the role of the
officers of the bank is still under consideration. We, in the
facts of the present case, do not find any good ground
to interfere with the order dated 09.09.2011 cancelling
the lease of the land settled with the Housing Society
specifically when there is hardly any deposit of lease
rent and other dues by the Housing Society. Since a first
information report has already been lodged against the
Housing Society, no further direction against the office
bearers of the Housing Society is called for at this stage
nor is this Court required to issue any other mandamus
in the matter of running of the said Housing Society.
The petitioners are at liberty to approach the Housing
Commissioner for the said purpose.
So far as the enquiry against the officers of the bank and
other officers is concerned, the matter is already under
examination of the Economic Offences Wing. If any
adverse report is submitted to the concerned authority
namely the Reserve Bank of India and National Housing
Bank by the Economic Offences Wing, all action as
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 559

Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

permissible under law, shall be taken against them. We do
not find any good reason to interfere with the repayment
of the loan which has been availed of by the petitioners
from the bank.
However, it is always open to the petitioners to file a civil
suit for avoiding the agreement. We hope and trust that
the proceedings in respect of involvement of the officers
of the banks shall be concluded at the earliest by the
agency concerned.
With the aforesaid observations the present writ petition
is disposed of.”
14. The aforesaid order passed by the High Court is the subject matter
of challenge in the instant batch of special leave petitions filed at the
instance of the members of the society claiming to be the original
allottees of the flats-in-question.
15. This Court vide order dated 14th July, 2021 observed that the primary
issue to be dealt with in the present proceedings is in reference to
prayer Clause (f) of the writ petition. The said clause is reproduced
hereinbelow:
“(f) An appropriate writ, order or direction in the
nature of mandamus to the Greater Noida Industrial
Development Authority to restore the lease deed dated
29.03.2005 with respect to plot No. 7, Sector PI-2,
Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, U.P.- 201308.”
(Emphasis supplied)

16. During the pendency of the special leave petitions before this Court,
several intervention applications came to be filed by individuals
claiming to be the allottees in the Housing Project. Considering the
same, this Court vide order dated 29th July, 2021 directed Registrar,
Cooperative Societies to disclose by way of an affidavit, the details
of the genuine members of the Society along with their known
postal addresses/contact numbers/email addresses and whether
the proceedings for winding up of the Society had been taken to its
logical end and stage thereof.
17. In compliance of the aforesaid order, an affidavit dated 11th August,
2021 came to be filed by Housing Commissioner-cum-Registrar,
560 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

Cooperative Societies, Uttar Pradesh (respondent No. 5)10. The
petitioners were granted an opportunity to file their response to the
said affidavit.11
18. On 1st September, 2021, when the case came up for consideration,
this Court, upon perusing the said affidavit and the response filed
by the petitioners, placing on record details about the membership
and allotment of the concerned flat(s) to them, was of the opinion
that the claims of petitioners as well as the applicants have to be
verified by respondent No. 5-Commissioner. Hence, respondent No.
5-Commissioner was directed to conduct a limited enquiry regarding
the genuineness of the documents and the claims set up by the
concerned petitioners/applicants and to place on record list of such
members whose claims were found to be genuine. The relevant
extract of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:
“We have perused the affidavit dated 11.08.2021 filed by
respondent No.5-Housing Commissioner-cum-Registrar,
Cooperative Housing Society, Uttar Pradesh.
In response to that affidavit, the petitioners/applicants
have filed further affidavit placing on record details
about the membership and allotment of the concerned
flat(s) to the respective petitioners/applicants.
That claim will have to be verified by the Housing
Commissioner-cum-Registrar, in the first place within
four weeks from today.
We permit the Housing Commissioner-cum-Registrar to
conduct that limited enquiry about the genuineness of
the documents and the claim set up by the concerned
petitioners/applicants and if satisfied, that they were
bonafide members of the society, list of such members
can be produced along with affidavit before the next
date of hearing.
The petitioners/applicants who have not furnished the
documents are free to do so within one week from today.

10 Hereinafter, being referred to as the “respondent No. 5-Commissioner”.
11 Order dated 17th August, 2021.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 561

Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

They shall submit their claim documents to respondent
No. 5 directly within one week.”
(Emphasis supplied)

19. Respondent No. 5-Commissioner filed an affidavit dated 3rd October,
2021 stating that in total 53 applications had been received from
the concerned allottees. A chart was annexed to the said affidavit
detailing: (i) the amounts deposited by each applicant in the account
of the Samiti; (ii) the flat number against which such deposits were
made; and (iii) the particulars of the bank/financial institutions from
which loan had been taken by the respective applicants. However,
respondent No. 5-Commissioner sought further time to place on
record a comprehensive affidavit after due verification of the claims
of the aforesaid 53 applicants, in view of the fact that additional
information had been requisitioned from the concerned banks/financial
institutions, which was essential for ascertaining the genuineness of
the documents/claims furnished by the applicants.
20. This Court, vide order dated 19th May, 2022 recorded that respondent
No. 5-Commissioner had identified 42 allottees having credible
documentary evidence to indicate that they were original members
of the Housing Project and further noted that the claim of two
additional persons had also been verified. In view of the same,
respondent No. 5-Commissioner was directed to file a revised report.
The Court further recorded that Tower-1, in respect of which the
petitioners had set up their claim, is occupying around 3243.92 sq.
meters approximately whereas the total area of the plot was about
9731.76 sq. meters. Counsel for GNIDA submitted that a sum of Rs.
12 Crores remained outstanding in respect of price of the plot. This
Court observed that in the event, GNIDA were to restore the lease
in respect of the portion of land on which the said tower stands,
the outstanding dues would stand proportionately reduced with
reference to the area occupied by the subject tower. Counsel for the
petitioners submitted that the petitioners are willing to abide by all the
conditions to be specified by GNIDA, especially regarding payment
of outstanding dues. Accordingly, GNIDA was directed to submit a
plan concerning the restoration of the lease upon payment of the
outstanding dues. Liberty was also granted to all persons claiming
to be the original allottees to submit their claims before respondent
562 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

No. 5-Commissioner for due verification. The relevant extract of the
said order is reproduced hereinbelow:
“Pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the
Registrar has verified the claim of the petitioners and
other persons who had submitted to such verification. The
Registrar has identified 42 applicants having sufficient
documentary evidence to indicate that they were original
members in respect of the subject project.
The tower has been constructed on plot No. 7
admeasuring 9731.76 square meters; lease whereof has
been cancelled by the authority. The structure standing
on the said plot, in respect of which the petitioners
have set up their claim, is occupying around 3243.92
square meters approximately. In all, 44 flats have been
constructed, whereas only 35 petitioners are before this
Court. The Registrar has identified 42 persons as original
members while making it clear that 10 applications could
not be verified due to non-cooperation by the bank and
other agencies.
Today, during the course of hearing, learned counsel
appearing for respondent No. 13 (India Bulls Housing
Finance Ltd.) has confirmed payment made by Ravi
Prakash Shrivastava. Similarly, in the case of Jamila
Ansari, the Housing Commissioner (respondent No.5)
submits that confirmation has been received from the
concerned Agency.
The Registrar may submit a revised report giving
further break-up of eligible persons before the next
date of hearing.
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing
for the respondent No.4 (Greater NOIDA) submits that
as per his instructions around Rs.12 crore amount had
remained outstanding in respect of plot No. 7.
In the event, the said authority has to restore the
lease in respect of land on which subject tower is
standing being plot No. 7, the outstanding amount
would stand proportionately reduced in the context
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 563

Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

of area underneath the subject tower. The authority
shall produce a plan in respect of which lease can be
restored on payment of such outstanding dues. That
be placed on record along with affidavit of authorized
official.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioner(s), on instructions, submits that the
petitioners are willing to abide by all the conditions
to be specified by the Greater NOIDA, especially
regarding payment of outstanding dues.
For the time being, we do not wish to dilate on the manner
in which the 44 flats can be allotted — as the number of
claimants seem to be more than 44. That issue can be
deliberated on the next date.
It will be open to the concerned applicants and interested
persons to furnish further documents/evidence before the
Registrar for confirmation of their original membership.”
(Emphasis supplied)

21. On 22nd July, 2022, when the matter was placed before the Court, it
was noted that respondent No. 5-Commissioner filed a compliance
report stating that he had verified the claims of 52 applicants and
also found that 50 applicants (including the petitioners herein) were
able to substantiate their claims of having made the payment to
developer/society for flats in the Housing Project. It was further
submitted by learned counsel for India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd.
(respondent No. 13) as well as by counsel for the intervenors that
there exist more individuals who have not yet approached respondent
No. 5-Commissioner for the verification of their claims. Accordingly,
respondent No. 5-Commissioner was directed to verify the claims
of all such persons and submit a fresh status report as to their
eligibility or otherwise. It was also clarified that until the outstanding
dues pertaining to the plot are fully discharged, GNIDA cannot be
compelled either to revive the lease or to grant any further permissions,
including permissions for construction in deviation of the prevailing
regulations and building bye-laws.
22. Respondent No. 5-Commissioner submitted compliance report
dated 8th August, 2022 wherein it was stated that that in terms of
564 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

order dated 22nd July, 2022, claims of 15 more applicants were
scrutinized and it was found that 7 of the said applicants were
able to substantiate their claims. It was further stated that out of
67 applicants/allottees, claims of 57 applicants could be verified by
way of documentary evidence. However, it was stated that out of
the said 67 applicants, names of only 19 applicants had been found
included in the detailed list of members prepared in the year 2010
by the Secretary/President, Sahkari Awas Samiti and furnished to
respondent No. 5-Commissioner for the purpose of election to the
office of the management committee. Hence, only 19 applicants
were entitled to be considered as the actual members of the Samiti/
Society. The petitioners were afforded an opportunity to submit their
objections to the said affidavit.12
23. This Court vide order dated 9th January, 2024, noted the submissions
advanced by the counsel appearing for GNIDA and UP Awas Evam
Vikas Parishad regarding the need for a structural audit, to be
conducted by an expert agency and granted eight weeks’ time for the
conduct of audit of the structure constructed thus far. The relevant
extract of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:
“Pursuant to our order 18.10.2023 and the subsequent
order dated 21.11.2023, extending the time, Mr. Ravindra
Kumar and Mr. Vishwajit Singh, learned Senior Advocates
appearing on behalf of the Greater NOIDA and Uttar
Pradesh Awas Vikas Parishad, respectively, have stated
that the said respondents have already inspected the
site, and technically, they feel it appropriate that there
should be a structural audit to be conducted by an expert
agency, like Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi or any
other institute of equal competence for that matter, and for
the said purpose, they would require eight weeks’ time.
Although, there is opposition by Ms. Meenakshi Arora,
learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner(s) with respect to the time sought before
us, but considering the nature of expert report, which
is sought to be obtained, we deem it appropriate to
grant eight weeks’ time to the respondents.

12 Order dated 17th August, 2022.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 565

Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

It is ensured by the learned counsel for the aforesaid
respondents that the respondents will immediately start
the exercise of getting the structural audit, and they further
assured the Court that they would submit the report by
the next date of hearing.
We would also request the agency engaged by the
respondents for the purpose of structural audit to make
endevour to submit the report within time as fixed by this
Court.”
(Emphasis supplied)

24. Thereafter, on the request of counsel for the petitioners, this Court
granted 2 weeks’ time to the petitioners to place on record the list
of 40 allottees, who were willing to join together for the development
and completion of one tower comprising of 40 apartments, specifying
the details regarding the floor and the apartment number proposed
to be allotted to each of such 40 allottees.13
25. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the petitioners, along with other
allottees filed Interlocutory Application Nos. 103839 and 103703 of
2024 annexing therewith the list of 40 allottees, who were willing to join
together for the development and completion of Tower-1 comprising
of 40 apartments. The said interlocutory applications came up for
hearing before this Court on 30th April, 2024 and on the said date,
counsel for the applicants submitted that the 33 applicants who
were originally the petitioners, had been duly verified by respondent
No. 5-Commissioner whereas only three of the remaining seven
applicants could be verified. This Court directed that the details of
the four unverified applicants and any other individual whose claim
was yet to be verified, be provided to the counsel for respondent
No. 5-Commissioner along with the supporting documents for due
verification. This Court further noted that number of impleadment
applications had been filed by the allottees, some of whom were
keen to join the afore-mentioned group of 40 applicants but declined
to permit such claims at that stage. However, it was observed that it
will always be open for such applicants/allottee to join together and
if all the remaining 100 allottees joined together in groups of 40 and

13 Order dated 16th April, 2024.
566 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

60, their claims could be considered for the remaining two towers,
one of 40 apartments and other of 60 apartments. The parties were
also granted liberty to conduct a joint inspection in respect of the
existing construction. The Court also recorded the submission of the
counsel for GNIDA that if all the three towers are taken up together
for occupation, then there shall be no issue of division of land and
other complicated issues of separating and dividing common areas,
including parking in the basement. The relevant extract of the said
order is reproduced hereinbelow:
“Pursuant to order dated 16th April, 2023 I.A. No. 103839
of 2024 has been filed by the petitioners giving a list
of 39 allottees.
Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel appearing
for the petitioners submits that 40th gentleman has also
been identified as Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh. Impleadment
Application No. 103703/2024 has been independently
filed by Mr. Singh. Thus, the chart given as Annexure
A-1 to the aforesaid IA takes care of the 40 applicants
who are joining together.
Ms. Arora requested for an inspection of the site by a
technical team. She further submits that all 33 applicants
who were originally the petitioners are duly verified by
the Registrar-Housing Commissioner. However, out of
the seven who are newly added, three were only verified
and four remain to be verified. The details of these four
allottees along with supporting documents may be
provided to learned counsel for the Registrar-Housing
Commissioner within a week whereupon the Housing
Commissioner may get the same verified and submit
a report within the next four weeks.
Further any other claims now made before the Housing
Commissioner which claims may either be pending
before this Court by way of impleadment application(s)
or even otherwise, to be provided to learned counsel
for the Registrar-Housing Commissioner, such claims
may also be verified.
…………
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 567

Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

There are number of impleadment applications filed by
the allottees, some of whom are very keen to join the
team of 40 applicants represented by Ms. Arora, learned
senior counsel. However, we are not permitting such
claims to be considered at this stage. It will always be
open for the remaining parties to join together and if
all the remaining 100 allottees join together in groups
of 40 and 60 their claims would be considered for the
remaining two towers one of 40 apartments and other
of 60 apartments.
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel has also
pointed out that it will be in the interest of all the parties
that a joint inspection be made with regard to the existing
construction issues like common areas, basements and
other common amenities will stand sorted, to which
Ms. Arora, learned senior counsel has no objection. As
such, they may decide amongst themselves to make this
inspection. General Manager, Greater NOIDA, Planning
and Architecture may take care of this.
Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel further
submitted that if all the three towers are taken up
together for occupation, then there shall be no issue
of division of land and other complicated issues of
separating and dividing common areas, including
parking in the basement.”
(Emphasis supplied)

26. When the matter came up for hearing on 22nd October, 2024, this
Court recorded that structural audit report of Tower-1, conducted
by M/s. Architect Harish Tripathi & Associates, had been placed
on record and that the said report opined that Tower-1 could be
rendered fit for habitation upon strengthening and making certain
modifications. On the strength of this report, counsel for the petitioners
submitted that the 40 applicants/allottees who have come together
for developing and completing Tower-1, may be permitted to do so.
It was further submitted that the said 40 applicants/allottees are
willing to discharge all their liabilities towards GNIDA as well as any
other taxes, dues, fees or charges, as may be applicable under law.
568 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

It was finally submitted that out of these 40 applicants/allottees, any
of the allottee who was originally allotted three-bedroom flat would
also duly compensate to an allotee who was allotted four-bedroom
flat, who is deprived of getting a four-bedroom apartment, though
it was pointed out that Tower-4 also consists of 40 four-bedroom
apartments. Accordingly, the Court directed GNIDA to provide the
details of the proportional charges due to it from these allottees
with respect to Tower-1. However, counsel for GNIDA contended
that the main hurdle in allowing the said applicants/allottees to start
with the construction work is that the lease, being for a single plot,
had been cancelled in 2011, and as such, partial restoration of the
lease with respect to Tower-1 alone is not in the domain of GNIDA,
as the lease could either be cancelled in entirety or restored in toto.
27. Taking note of the aforesaid submissions, the Court directed GNIDA
to examine, as a special case, the feasibility of restoring the lease
partially in respect of Tower-1 and the adjoining areas necessary for
its use and utility. It was made clear that upon such restoration, the
allottees must first pay all outstanding dues, and only thereafter could
the construction work commence. No construction would be permitted
without full clearance of such dues. This Court also recorded that
certain other allottees had filed interlocutory applications seeking
similar reliefs as sought for by aforesaid 40 applicants/allottees. In
respect of the same, it was observed that such allottees could also
be permitted to proceed with construction, provided that they make a
unified effort to complete the Tower as is existing, i.e., either Tower-2
or 3, which have 30 apartments each of three-bedroom or Tower-4,
which has 40 apartments of four-bedroom. In case, the required
number of allottees joined together, the Court would consider the grant
of permission to such allottees to commence with the construction.
The relevant extract of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:
“1. Pursuant to order dated 30.07.2024, learned counsel
for the petitioners has filed a very detailed report, by M/s.
Architect Harish Tripathi and Associates (Arhta) (running
into 636 pages) related to structural safety audit and
strengthening for residential Tower-1 of Shivkala Charm
Society, Greater Noida.
2. According to the said report, after strengthening
and making required other changes in the existing
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 569

Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

form, Tower-1 can be made fit to be used as
habitable.
3. In view of the findings given in the said report, Ms.
Meenakshi Arora, learned senior counsel, appearing
for the petitioners, submits that the allottees who
have joined together and are now 40 in number, may
be allowed to continue with the construction work
of Tower-1 as they are interested in getting the said
Tower to be completed.
4. Learned senior counsel further submits that these
40 allottees will discharge all their liabilities towards
the Greater NOIDA (for short, the Authority) as may be
communicated to them by the Authority and any other
taxes, dues, fees or charges, as may be admissible
under law, to be collected from them, would also be
paid.
5. It is also submitted by learned senior counsel, that
out of these present 40 allottees, any of the allottee
who was originally allotted three-bedroom apartment
would also duly compensate to a four-bedroom allotee,
who is deprived of getting a four-bedroom apartment,
although, according to learned senior counsel, Tower-4
also consist of 40 apartments of four-bedroom.
6. In view of the above, we require the Authority to provide
the details of the proportional charges due to it from these
allottees with respect to Tower-1 within a month.
7. Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the Authority, however, submits that
there is one hurdle before these allottees start with the
work after making due payment. The hurdle is that the
entire lease which was for a single plot was cancelled
in the year 2011, as such partial restoration of the
lease with respect to Tower-1 alone is, apparently, not
in the domain of the Authority as it will either cancel
the entire lease or restore the lease in toto.
8. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
case, we require the Authority to examine this aspect,
570 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

as a special case that it may restore partial lease with
respect to Tower-1 and the required adjoining areas
which may be necessary for its use and utility.
9. After the dues are communicated and the partial lease is
restored, these allottees would make the required payment
to the Authority and only thereafter they will start with
the construction work. They would also file appropriate
undertaking with respect to the compensation, which they
have promised to make, with respect to the allotees having
three-bedroom apartment allotments. The said undertaking
may be filed on or before the next date.
10. After payment is raised by the Authority, four weeks’
time is granted to these 40 allottees to make the deposits.
11. We make it clear that no construction work will
start without being dues fully paid.
12. The applications, details of which given below,
have been pressed by the respective counsel, claiming
that these applicants are also the allottees and their
allotment and payment have been verified by U.P. Avas
Evam Vikas Parishad. As such, these applicants may
also be allowed to be considered for carrying out the
construction work with respect to Tower No.4 or the
other two Towers being Tower Nos. 2 and 3, as the
case may be.
IA NO.53283/2024
IA NO.103703/2024
IA NO.98909/2022
IA NO.103089/2022
IA NO.112130/2022
IA No.101087/2021
IA NO.124741/2021
IA NO.183601/2023
IA NO.74439/2024
IA NO.134469/2022
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 571

Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

IA NO.14612/2022
IA NO.92267/2023
IA NO.266400/2023
IA NO.142809/2021
13. This Court has no difficulty in permitting these
allottees to proceed with the construction, however,
they have to make a unified effort to take one complete
Tower as is existing, either Tower 2 or 3, which have
30 apartments each of three-bedroom or Tower 4,
which has 40 apartments of four-bedroom. In case,
the required number of allottees join together, the
Court would be more than happy to permit them to
continue with construction. In such case, one of the
applicants to take the lead till required number of
allottees join together.”
(Emphasis supplied)

28. It may be noted herein that despite repeated opportunities14 having
been granted to GNIDA to place on record a response or propose
a plan indicating the manner in which the Housing Project is to be
dealt with, or to suggest a viable mechanism keeping in view the
peculiar dynamics of the case, GNIDA has utterly failed to do so.
29. The dissatisfaction of this Court qua the conduct of GNIDA was
recorded in the order dated 18th March, 2025 and another opportunity
was granted to GNIDA to file an affidavit providing the details of
demand which it would have raised in case the original builders had
completed the project so that the proportional charges of each of
the allottee could be determined. By the self-same order, the Court
directed that the details of 10 applicants in I.A. No. 56220 of 2025,
who claimed to be the allottees of flats in the Housing Project, be
provided to the counsel representing respondent No.5-Commissioner
for verification. The relevant extract of the said order is reproduced
hereinbelow:

14 Orders dated 19th May, 2022; 5th April, 2023; 18th October, 2023; 21st November, 2023; and 22nd
October, 2024.
572 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

“We are not happy with the fact that the Greater Noida
Industrial Development Authority (hereafter referred
to as ‘Authority’) is not cooperating in the entire
exercise of reviving a dead project where the home
buyers have been cheated by the builder who has
vanished decades ago and some of the home buyers
have joined together to revive the entire project in part
and also other home buyers are coming in for revival
of the remaining part of the Project. The 40 home
buyers who have joined together to complete one Tower
containing 40 apartments of four-bedroom each have been
continuously in touch with the Authority requesting them
to provide the details and also to find out solutions as to
how they can go ahead with their aspirations of owning
their apartments. Further they are more than willing to
pay their proportionate share of the charges due to
the Authority but despite the same the Authority is not
coming up with the details of the demand/solutions
nor is it cooperating in and allowing them to continue
with their joint venture of completing one Tower of 40
apartments.
Today Mr. Ravindra Kumar, learned senior counsel
appearing for the Authority has prayed for a week’s
time to provide the details of the demand which the
Authority would have raised in case the original
builders had completed the project so that the
proportional charges of each of the home buyers can
be decided depending upon the size of the apartments
they are taking.
Let an affidavit be filed by the competent officer of the
Authority within a week.
List the matter again on 25th March, 2025.
In the meantime, I.A. No. 56220 of 2025 has been filed
by 10 applicants. Copy of the same be provided to Mr.
Abhishek Kumar Singh, AOR representing Respondent
no. 5-Housing Commissioner, UP Awas Vikas Parishad
who will verify as to whether these 10 applicants in the
said application are genuine or not and also about the
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 573

Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

payments made by them as claimed in the application
by supporting documents. For the said verification four
weeks’ time is granted.”
(Emphasis supplied)

30. At this stage, it is pertinent to note that Interlocutory Application No.
55798 of 2025 has been filed by another group of 30 allottees who
have joined together for the development and completion of Tower-2
of the Housing Project, with reliefs analogous to those claimed by
the earlier group of 40 allottees referred to supra.
31. Finally, the matter came up before this Court on 13th May, 2025, on
which date, extensive arguments were urged on behalf of the parties,
and the matters were closed for orders. Liberty was granted to allottees
to approach the counsel for respondent No. 5-Commissioner with
the details of their claims, so that the same could be verified. The
relevant extract of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:
“1. Arguments concluded.
2. Order reserved.
3. In the meantime, all the request received by Mr.
Abhishek Kumar Singh, Advocate-on-Record for the
Awas Vikas Parishad/Housing Board, the same would
be verified and report be submitted within next eight
weeks. No specific orders are required. The allottees
are free to approach Mr. Abhishek Kumar Singh,
Advocate-on-Record through their respective counsel.”
(Emphasis supplied)

32. We have heard and considered the submissions advanced by learned
counsel for the parties at bar and have gone through the material
available on record.
33. The preceding facts and circumstances would clearly indicate that
the original allotees who dreamt of a roof over their heads have
been struggling in a losing cause for the last nearly 20 years. It
is apparent that the petitioners/applicants/allottees have endured
immense hardship for all this time apart from losing their hard-
earned money and have been embroiled in administrative log-jam
and prolonged litigation. Despite pursuing remedies before various
574 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

fora, their grievances remain unredressed. Even after nearly two
decades of booking their flats and making payments, some by taking
loans from financial institutions, the allottees have been unable to
take possession, as construction has remained stalled since 9th
September, 2011, i.e., from the date of cancelling of lease deed by
GNIDA, owing to the fraudulent acts and irregularities committed by
the office bearers of the Samiti/Society and the developer.
34. Adding to the complexity of the situation is the fact that during the
pendency of the special leave petitions before this Court, numerous
intervention applications have been filed by persons claiming to be
original allottees of the Housing Project. It is pertinent to note that
respondent No. 5-Commissioner has verified most of these claims,
though several such claims are yet to be verified. Furthermore, it is
evident from the record that all the original allottees are not before
this Court, thereby impeding the formulation of a comprehensive
plan of action in respect of the development and completion of
the Housing Project comprising of four towers on the entire chunk
of land.
35. We are of the considered view that this unsavoury state of affairs
cannot be allowed to continue indefinitely, and the issue has to be
taken to its logical conclusion. While it is imperative to ensure some
measure of relief to the genuine allottees, it is equally important to
guard against any fraudster or imposter staking a false claim on the
legitimate entitlement of the genuine allottees, thereby, taking undue
advantage of the prevailing uncertainty.
36. Having regard to the protracted pendency of these proceedings
spanning over several years, during which numerous interlocutory
and impleadment applications have been filed by persons asserting
claims as original allottees of the Housing Project, coupled with the
complexities arising from verification of such claims and the need to
coordinate between multiple statutory authorities and agencies, this
Court is of the opinion that the matter has assumed considerable
administrative magnitude and intricacy. The overlapping issues of
restoration of lease, identification of genuine allottees, proportional
determination of land dues, and feasibility of completing the stalled
construction necessitate a comprehensive, structured, and impartial
examination under the supervision of an independent fact-finding
authority. Resolution of all these issues seems unlikely if not
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 575

Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

impossible in the proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution
of India.
37. In view of the aforesaid circumstances and to ensure an expeditious
and efficacious resolution, constitution of an independent Committee
under the aegis of a former Judge has become indispensable. Hence,
we are inclined to form a one-Judge Committee, headed by Hon’ble
Retd. Judge of High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, to undertake
a detailed enquiry into the entire factual matrix and give suggestions
for a suitable resolution.
38. On our request, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Naqvi, Judge (Retd.),
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, has graciously agreed to
conduct the requisite enquiry.
39. The broad parameters of the Enquiry would be as below:
I. Committee shall scrutinize all records, agreements,
correspondences, approvals, and other materials pertinent to
the issue including the affidavits filed by concerned authorities
before this Court and identify the genuine allottees of the
Housing Project.
II. Identify and prepare a list of such allottees who are willing
to join together for the development and completion of the
Housing Project.
III. Consult with GNIDA and if required, cull out a solution in respect
of partial restoration of the lease deed for Plot No. 7, Sector
PI-2, Greater Noida, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh,
201308 which was terminated vide order dated 9th September,
2011 issued by GNIDA, in case the entire Housing Project is
not being developed and constructed by the allottees identified
in terms of Clause (II).
IV. In case partial lease of the plot can be duly restored upon
payment of outstanding dues of GNIDA, the Committee shall
devise a fair mechanism/formula for determining the liability of
each allottee identified in terms of Clause (II).
V. Prepare a comprehensive plan in consultation with all the
stakeholders, for the development and completion of the Housing
Project in a time-bound manner.
576 [2025] 11 S.C.R.

Supreme Court Reports

VI. Any other matter which the Committee may deem relevant for
a complete and just resolution of the controversy.
VII. In the eventuality that the original allottees of the flats in
Towers 3 and 4 are found to be unidentifiable or unverifiable,
the Committee may also examine the feasibility and viability
of auctioning Towers 3 and 4 of the Housing Project by way
of an open lottery or such other transparent mechanism as
may be deemed appropriate, so as to ensure recovery of the
entire expenditure towards construction; discharge of all land
dues payable to GNIDA and any other financial obligations
in respect of the land appurtenant thereto. The said exercise
shall be undertaken keeping in view the objective of enabling
completion of the remaining towers and protecting the interests
of genuine allottees who have joined together to undertake the
construction and development of Towers 1 and 2.
40. Upon completion of the enquiry, the Committee shall submit a detailed
report setting out its findings, conclusions, and recommendations,
thereby facilitating the final resolution of the matter. The Committee
would endeavor to submit its report to this Court in a sealed cover
within a period of four months from the date of the commencement
of its effective functioning. The State of Uttar Pradesh; GNIDA;
Housing Commissioner, UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad; District
Magistrate, Gautam Buddha Nagar, Uttar Pradesh; all banks/financial
institutions, i.e., respondent Nos. 10 to 19 and all the petitioners
as well as other allottees who have filed intervention applications
before this Court or otherwise, shall extend full assistance and
cooperation to the Committee for facilitating the enquiry and to
ensure timely submission of the report. The expenses for travel
and incidental expenses for the sittings of the Committee shall be
borne equally by the allottees on the one hand and State of Uttar
Pradesh on the other.
41. The Committee shall be provided secretarial assistance comprising
of: one Personal Assistant (PA), one Lower Division Clerk (LDC),
and one Law Clerk, who may be assigned at the discretion of the
Hon’ble Chairperson. The Committee may hold its proceedings in
New Delhi or Noida, Uttar Pradesh, as deemed appropriate, with
the concerned State(s) and/or Union Territory making suitable
arrangements for its sittings.
[2025] 11 S.C.R. 577

Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.

42. The Committee shall be entitled to formulate its own modalities and
procedure for conducting the enquiry.
43. The Chairperson of the Committee shall be entitled to a fixed
honorarium to the tune of Rs. 15 lakhs (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs only)
which shall be paid in three equal tranches spread over a period of
four months.
44. The expenses for the aforesaid enquiry proceedings shall be equally
borne by the allottees on the one hand and State of Uttar Pradesh
on the other. The parties shall ensure that appropriate facilities are
provided for the conduct of the enquiry.
45. The logistic arrangements for the Committee shall be completed on
or before 21st November, 2025.
46. The parties shall be entitled to appropriate representation in the
proceedings to be conducted by the Committee.
47. The State of Uttar Pradesh and GNIDA shall publish a public notice
regarding the constitution and functioning of the Committee in two
national dailies, one in English and one in Hindi so as to apprise all
allottees, particularly those who have not yet approached this Court.
The notice shall specify that such allottees may submit their claims
before the Committee, which shall examine and verify the claims
through respondent No. 5-Commissioner.
48. List on 24th March, 2026 for receiving the Enquiry Committee’s report.

Result of the case: Matter to be listed for receiving the Enquiry
Committee’s report.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey