AdvocateKhoj
Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library
    

Supreme Court Judgments


Latest Supreme Court of India Judgments 2018

Subscribe

RSS Feed img








Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Wel. Ason. Vs. U O I & Ors [2008] INSC 1795 (21 October 2008)

Judgment

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION I.As. NOS. 8 and 9 IN WRIT PETITION (C) NO. 876 of 1996 Okhla Enclave Plot Holders Welfare Association ....Petitioners Versus Union of India and Ors. ...Respondents

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 and how licenses came to be issued without proper verification of ownership of the same and other 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.

(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 and proper in the facts of the case."

2.     Aforesaid prayers have been made with reference to the orders passed by this Court on 2.12.1999 and 23.11.2000. Grievance of the petitioners is that while they were in correspondence with the authorities, they received letter from the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Faridabad, informing them that he had already sent his report on the enquiry to the 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 further grievance that Colonizer has failed to discharge his obligations under the Haryana Urban Development Act, 1975 (in short the `Act') and Haryana Municipal Corporation Amendment Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as the `Amendment Act'). Grievance is also made that the Colonizer has failed to discharge the obligations as per the licence agreement.

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 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 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 honorarium of Rs.45,000/-p.m. to be shared by the petitioners, the State and the Colonizer.

The learned Court Commissioner shall examine and submit report to this Court on the following aspects within four months:

(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 respect of which licenses were granted by the respondents authorities.

(a) In 1991-92 when the licenses to develop the colony were granted;

(b) In 1996 when the present writ petitions were filed; and (c) At present.

(ii) Identification of the allottees entitled to the plot with 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 development works with appropriate details;

(v) Furnishing account of the money received by the respondent authorities from Durga Builders and sister companies;

(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.

.................................J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

..................................J

 Back


 



Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered by nubia  |  driven by neosys