Case: OKHLA ENCLAVE PLOT HOLDERS WEL. ASON Vs. UNION OF INDIA THROUGH SECRETARY

licensed area and other incidental expenses. If the above amount is not paid by the sixth respondent-Colonizer, it is for the State of Haryana to proceed against the sixth respondent to recover the amount as fee which is a land revenue.51. Surplus plots, if any, left – Entitlement of respondent No.6-Colonizer:- It has been submitted by Respondent No.6- Colonizer that a joint technological survey was conducted by the State and the Colonizer as per order dated 07.05.2016 of the Arbitrator. In this survey, electoral and electricity records of the encroached area were taken and tallied with the names in the scrutiny report to determine the genuineness of plot holders. It was found that a considerably large number of petitioners before this Court are already living on the licensed land* Under Point No.4 at Pg.3 of submissions on behalf of R6 to clarifications sought by the Supreme Court vide order dated 14.02.2019. . Respondent No.6 is required to submit a final list of such claimants before the Arbitrator. It is clarified that if it is found that any allottee is already living on the encroached land, they would not be entitled from claiming any further allotment in their favour.52. Surplus plot if any – Entitlement of Respondent No.6- Colonizer:- One last issue as to the entitlement over the surplus land, if any, left after allotment of land to eligible allottees has to be settled. In this context, it is observed that though there are various claims as to who is the present Director of M/s Durga Builders Private Limited, there is no serious dispute that the land in question was owned by said M/s Durga Builders Private Limited and its associate companies. Licenses were also granted to them by the State of Haryana. These licenses have long since expired and have not been renewed after 1999. However, till date no action has been taken against these companies on account of non-renewal of license. According to the State of Haryana, an amount of Rs. 21,86,97,901/- (as on 28.02.2019) is outstanding against licence renewal fee. On payment of this outstanding amount against the license renewal fee with interest from 28.02.2019 and also on payment of expenses borne by DCTP in engaging the security agencies for watch and ward of the licensed area, M/s Durga Builders Private Limited and its associate companies would be entitled to claim the surplus plots.53. Additionally, in case, if any of the allottees are not in a position to pay the apportioned internal and external development charges and expresses willingness to quit and consequently the plot falls vacant, the same shall be considered being allotted to the sixth respondent-Colonizer, of course, striking a balance between the allottee of the plot and the Colonizer. The Arbitrator shall determine the compensation payable by the sixth respondent-Colonizer and direct the sixth respondent-Colonizer to compensate the allottee of the plot by directing the sixth respondent-Colonizer to pay adequate compensation in lieu of the claim for the plot falling vacant. In order to make a claim for such plots falling vacant, the sixth respondent- Colonizer is to pay:- (i) the compensation to allottee as directed by the learned arbitrator; and (ii) to pay the apportioned amount of internal and external development charges.Question No.4:- The last direction as sought by the Arbitrator is to pass appropriate directions for converting these proceedings to that of a Special Committee:-54. In this context, we may usefully refer to the order of appointment of the Arbitrator dated 27.01.2016 wherein, this Court provided that all the parties shall submit their respective proposed terms of reference before the Arbitrator who shall first settle the terms of reference and thereafter, resolve the disputes involved between the parties. On completion of the arbitral proceedings, the Arbitrator was directed to submit a report to the Supreme Court.55. Arbitration is a mechanism to settle the disputes of the parties on the basis of the terms of arbitration agreement between the parties. In the present case, there is no agreement between the parties. The matter was referred to Justice Vikramjit Sen only as a remedial measure to solve the grievance of the petitioners who were aggrieved by the non-allotment of the plots by Colonizer and to resolve the lengthy issue involved in such allotment. Thus, the instant arbitration proceedings cannot be strictly called so and the term ‘arbitration? in this context is a misnomer and the proceedings actually are one of a Special Committee.56. In his letter dated 23.01.2018, the Arbitrator has also observed that ?these proceedings are not in the nature of arbitration and essentially, in the nature of a Special Committee of the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India.? We fully agree with the views expressed by Justice Vikramjit Sen. It is made clear that the present proceedings are not in the nature of arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; but essentially, in the nature of a Special Committee constituted by the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India.Other observations relevant for determination of the issue:-57. Remuneration payable to the Arbitrator:- As to the question of remuneration payable to the Arbitrator, reference can be made to the order dated 27.01.2016 wherein, it was provided that the fee shall be decided by the Arbitrator and be borne equally by all the parties. Accordingly, the Arbitrator shall decide his fee to be payable by the parties as directed by the learned arbitrator.58. Summary of Conclusion:-Number of claimants settled by the Scrutiny Committee:- The number of eligible allottees are to be decided by the Arbitrator applying the parameters as set out in the order of the Arbitrator dated 07.05.2016 and the learned Arbitrator to determine the final list of eligible plot owners in all the categories – NPNL, Economic Weaker Sections (EWS) and General and also commercial. Once the allottees are identified and the allottees pay the apportioned development charges, the learned Arbitrator shall direct the Director to execute necessary documents in favour of the allottees in terms of Section 8(4) of the HDRA Act.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]14. Issue of Ownership:- As per the report of Sh. H.P. Sharma, Court Commissioner, appointed by the Supreme Court, Sh. Arun Mehra father of Sh. Divij Mehra, on behalf of M/s Hindustan Commercial Investment Trust Ltd. and M/s Class Sales Pvt. Ltd. had filed claim for 87 plots (65 plots + 22 plots), which he claimed to have purchased from M/s Durga Builder Pvt. Ltd. This claim of plots was rejected by Court Commissioner. Pg.No.4 of the reply dated 19.08.2019 filed by DTCP, Haryana Sh. Arun Mehra filed an application of impleadment in WP(C) No.113 of 1996 in the Supreme Court on behalf of M/s Rajdhani Housing Syndicate Pvt. Ltd. in January, 2014. In its reply, the State of Haryana has stated that it has received an e-mail dated 18.07.2014 from Advocate Deepak Khosla mentioning that as per the decision of the Company Law Board dated 11.03.2014, Sh. Arun Mehra and Sh. Divij Mehra are the present Directors of M/s Durga Builder Pvt. Ltd. It is stated that one Sh. R.K. Nanda claims to have become the Director of M/s Durga Builder Pvt. Ltd. who attended the proceedings before the Director General, Town and Country Planning, Haryana at Chandigarh as Director of M/s Durga Builder Pvt. Ltd. It was submitted that by the Gazette Notification dated 24.09.2018, the name of M/s Durga Builder Pvt. Ltd. has been struck off from the Registrar of Companies and dissolved by the Government of India, Ministry of Company Affairs, New Delhi. On behalf of the Colonizer, an order dated 24.01.2019 passed by the National Company Law Tribunal has been produced to show that in the Gazette Notification dated 24.08.2018 qua M/s Durga Builder Pvt. Ltd. has been kept in abeyance. (Under Point No.1 at Pg. No.4-5 of Reply filed by DTCP, Haryana on 19.08.2019)far as the claim of Mr. Arun Mehra in respect of 87 plots, liberty is granted to Mr. Arun Mehra to work out his remedy in accordance with law by agitating the matter before the competent court. However, it is made clear that the claim of Mr. Arun Mehra in respect of 87 plots shall not come in the way of the claim of the beneficiaries identified by the Scrutiny Committee.17. Though the Commissioner rejected the claim of the sixth respondent-Colonizer, the correctness of the same shall be examined with reference to documents. The area claimed by the Colonizer can be considered by the arbitrator by considering the layout plan now produced by DTCP, Haryana.18. The claim of the sixth respondent can be considered by the arbitrator only subject to the condition that he is paying the licence renewal fee of Rs.21,86,97,901/- (as on 28.02.2019) payable with interest @ 6% from 28.02.2019 plus Rs.1.25 crores borne by DTCP, Haryana in maintaining the security as per the order of the Court dated 18.07.2013. The area claimed by the sixth respondent- Colonizer shall be considered by the learned arbitrator only after examining by the rightful claim of the beneficiaries identified by Scrutiny Committee (to be finalised and approved by the learned arbitrator).As discussed above, a total of Rs.117,00,00,000/- is required for completion of internal and external development works. Since the completion of internal and external development works would take some time, suitable provision has to be made for increase in cost of internal and external development works and other incidental expenses. In our view, in addition to Rs.117,00,00,000/- (Rs.70,00,00,000/-plus Rs.47,00,00,000/-) for internal and external development works, another 10% i.e. Rs.11,70,00,000/- is to be added to the total cost of internal and external development works. Thus, the amount of Rs.128,70,00,000/- (Rs.117,00,00,000/- + Rs.11,70,00,000/-) is payable to the Director General, Town and Country Planning (DGTCP), Haryana for undertaking and completing the internal and external development works.Apportionment of the total cost for internal and external developmentt of the total cost for internal and external developmente learned senior counselappearing for the petitioners submitted that the members of the petitioner association are ready to proportionately bear the cost of the internal and external development works.Taking the total amount as Rs. 128,70,00,000/- and the total extent of area to be allotted to the eligible allottees, the Arbitrator shall determine the cost for the square meter and proportionately apportion the total cost amongst the eligible plot owners. Each one of the eligible plot owners shall file individual affidavit undertaking to make the payment before the DTCP within the time frame fixed by the Arbitrator. If the proportionate amount so apportioned to the individual plot owners is not paid within the stipulated time frame, they shall forfeit the right over the plot. The format of the affidavit shall be finalised by the learned Arbitrator. In case if any of the eligible allottees are having difficulty in paying the amount, two or three eligible allottees are at liberty to join together depending upon the size of the plot and pay the development charges and share their proportionate right over the plot. It is made clear that the payment of the development charges will have to be time bound and in case, the amount is not paid within the time bound, the said allottee shall forfeit the right for the plot.33. From out of the above amount of Rs.1,28,70,00,000/-, Rs.70 lakhs to be kept apart to enable the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana to adjust the expenditure so far borne by DTCP in issuing various advertisements and other such incidental expenses. The details of such expenditure so far made by DTCP along with necessary bills/vouchers be produced before the learned Arbitrator and the learned Arbitrator to pass appropriate orders for adjustment of the expenditure amount so far borne by DTCP,request for one more opportunity to deposit the apportioned amount payable cannot be accepted since the matter is pending for more than two decades. The payment of apportioned amount should be a time bound one. In case if any of the plot owner (who has already obtained the sale deed) does not pay the apportioned external and internal development charges within the time frame, the developments/amenities like sewerage, water connection, electricity and other developments shall not be extended tothere are number of beneficiaries, it is necessary to clarify the consequence if the claimants do not pay the amount stipulated within the prescribed time frame. In case the claimants express unwillingness to pay the proportionate development charges or fail to give an undertaking within the given time frame, the land allotted to them will revert to the Colonizer on certain conditions viz. – colonizer will pay the claimant the amount paid towards the cost of land with interest from the date on which such payment was made at a rate which may be considered appropriate by the arbitrator. The Colonizer in addition to the above, shall also pay the proportionate amount towards development works payable for the said plot to the government of Haryana. On the order passed by the arbitrator, such payment shall be made within six weeks from the date of failure of payment by the claimant.36. Insofar as the other categories of allottees who have not been identified and who are yet to have the sale deed, in case if they do not pay the development charges within the time frame, as discussed earlier, they shall forfeit the right over the plot. The Colonizer has undertaken to refund the amount to the allottees in case of failure to pay the apportioned amount by the individual plot owners. The Colonizer has also undertaken to refund the amount to the allottees who cannot pay the due amount to DTCP, Haryana. In case of the plot owner who cannot pay the apportioned development charges or committed default in payment of the apportioned amount, the colonizer shall pay the consideration amount paid by the allottee along with the reasonable interest. Additionally, the Colonizer shall also pay the apportioned amount of the development charges qua those plots.37. Number of claimants settled by the Scrutiny Committee appointed by the learned Arbitratorper order dated 18.07.2013 of the Supreme Court, it was directed that fresh exercise to prepare a final list of claimants be undertaken by the Director General, Town and Country Planning. This was accordingly done and 3002 eligible plot holders were identified. This information was submitted to the Supreme Court through affidavit dated 15.11.2013. The Arbitrator vide order dated 07.05.2016 set the following conditions to determine the entitlement of each plot) Plot holders should have made bookings alongwith entire payments towards cost of land prior to 07.04.1997.b) Such plot holders should have paid/deposited the entire development charges with the Haryana Government upto 31.12.1999, in terms of the order of the Supreme Court dated 02.12.1999.c) The plot holders who have made bookings alongwith the entire payment towards cost of land prior to 07.04.1997 but had not made payments towards the development charges in terms of the order of the Supreme Court dated 02.12.1999, can be considered provided they are willing to pay the development charges as would be required on the date of carrying out the actual development.d) Multiplicity and duplicity of claims, i.e. more than one claim from one family will not be considered as eligible. Further, if any person is already in occupation of a plot illegally or by encroachment, he will similarly not be considered for any further allotment.(Para Nos.3-5 of the Order dated 07.05.2016 of Arbitrator)The exercise of deciding eligible candidates was started with the NPNL category. The Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana issued a public notice on 18.08.2016 in the newspaper inviting applications to file claims accompanied with supporting documents regarding allotment/booking of plot in NPNL category. The Scrutiny Committee decided that an amount of Rs. 550/- be taken as development charge for scrutiny of claims. (Under Point No.6 at Pg 4 of submission of R6 dated 22.07.2019) The Scrutiny Committee received 2690 applications for the purpose of scrutiny before the cut-off date. However, 523 applicants did not appear before the Committee for the purpose of scrutiny. After scrutiny of applications, the Committee found total 1932 NPNL category applicants, 73 general category applicants, 165 commercial category applicants and 2 EWS category applicants.(Pg 23 of vol. 1 of scrutiny committee report dated 28.10.2017) 39. NPNL Category were divided into five categories as under (Under Point No.3 at Pg.9 of the Reply filed by DTCP, Haryana on 19.08.2019)40. Thereafter, scrutiny qua general and EWS category claimants was started. Vide order No.20 dated 13.07.2018, the Arbitrator directed the State to again give state-level advertisements inviting representation from all parties alongwith documents supporting their allotment in General and EWS category by 31.07.2018. The cut-off date for submitting application/claims was four weeks from the date of advertisement. In compliance of this order, public notice was advertised on 04.08.2018 in Amar Ujala, Dainik Jagran (Hindi) and Tribune (English). The last date for receipt of application was 03.09.2018 but since 03.09.2018 being a gazetted holiday, the applications received upto 04.09.2018 were considered by the Committee.(Pg 3 of scrutiny committee report qua general and EWS category).Under the EWS category, draw was held on 30.07.1994 and 18.11.1995 where 350 persons were successful. Only 106 applicants applied for allotment.(Pg.6 of scrutiny committee report qua general and EWS category) 41. General Category:- During scrutiny of documents, it was observed that in the general category plots where Builder Buyer Agreement has been executed, the rate for plot size more than 263 sq. yards had been fixed @ 425 per sq. yards.The Scrutiny Committee consisting of Senior Town Planners and others have thus identified the number of eligible plot owners. The number of eligible allottees have to be decided by the Arbitrator applying the parameters as set out in the order of the Arbitrator dated 07.05.2016 and the learned Arbitrator to determine the final list of eligible plot owners in all the categories – NPNL, Economic Weaker Sections (EWS) and General and also commercial.43. Once the number of allottees are identified, as discussed earlier, the amount of internal and external development cost has to be proportionately apportioned amongst each one of the eligible allottees. It is seen from the Scrutiny Committee Report and the status report filed by the State of Haryana, about 452 plot owners have got the sale deed from the Colonizer; some of the allottees are yet to get the sale deed. Section 8 of the Haryana Development and Regulation Urban Areas Act, 1975 (HDRA Act) inter alia provides for cancellation of licences if the Colonizer contravenes any of the conditions of the licence or the provisions of the HDRA Act and also provides for mode of carrying out the development works in the colony. Section 8(4) of the HDRA Act enables the Director to transfer the possession and title of the land to the plot owners.Out of the total 234.675 acres licensed land under seven licences, 46.85 acres land is under encroachment/unauthorised construction and 187.825 acres land is stated to be available for planning. In the report filed by the DTCP, Haryana dated 19.08.2019, it is stated that out of the above 187.825 acres area,43.68 acres area was reserved for general category plots, 23.475 acres area was reserved for community/infrastructure sites. Balance, 120.67 acres was planned for EWS and NPNL category plots.On behalf of the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana, it is stated that as per the revised layout plan of Phase-I and Phase-II, the plotted area shall not exceed 55% of the net planned area of the colony. The commercial area shall also be included in this plotted area for calculations of the area under the plots. In Phase-I, the total area under the scheme is 126.724 acres out of which the area under the residential plot is 61.64 acres. In Phase-II, the total area under the scheme is 107.95 acres out of which 51.03 acres is the area in residential plots.* Under Point No.2 at Pg. 3 in the status affidavit filed by DTCP, Haryana dated 07.03.201946. Insofar as the question raised by the learned Arbitrator that whether the present density norms can be relaxed for the project, Mr. Maninder Singh, learned Senior counsel appearing for the State of Haryana has submitted that the density norms like the area reserved for roads, common purposes, etc. cannot be reduced. Insofar as the density of the plots, the learned Arbitrator if need be, shall make appropriate adjustments of the plots in conformity with the existing rules. The adjustments of the plot area will have to be done from amongst the plot owners. The State of Haryana shall render its co-operation in adjustment of the plot sizes in the approved layout of course, subject to the conformity with the existing rules and governing sanction of the scheme.Licence fee payable by the Colonizer, issue of encroachment and the expenses met by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana in engaging the watch and ward of the licensed area and other issues.47. Licence fee:- As discussed earlier, seven licences were issued to M/s Durga Builders Private Limited and its associate companies for the total area measuring 234.674 acres under Section 3 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (HD&RUA Act). The above said licensed areas are in two pockets i.e. as Okhla Enclave Phase-I (Area 126.724 acres) and Okhla Enclave Phase-II (Area 107.95 acres). The copies of the approved layout plans of Okhla Enclave Phase-I and Phase-II are revised on 24.09.1997. In terms of the provisions of the Act and as per the conditions of the licence, the Colonizer has to pay the licence fee and the licence renewal fee. In the status affidavit filed by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana in March, 2019, it is stated that an amount of Rs.21,86,97,901/- (as on 28.02.2019) is outstanding from the Colonizer. As per the terms and the conditions of the licence, the Colonizer/Developer is bound to bear the expenses to carry out the internal development works in the colony and to clear the government dues of fee for renewal of licence and other expenses borne by the State of Haryana. However, with a view to move forward with the development, the allottees of the plots have undertaken to pay the cost of the internal and the external developments. But the Colonizer cannot be allowed to go scot free. The sixth respondent-Colonizer is bound to pay the licence fee of Rs. 21,86,97,901/- (as on 28.02.2019) towards the fee for renewal of licence which is payable with interest @ 6% per annum from 28.02.2019. If the amount is not paid by the sixth respondent, it is for the State of Haryana to proceed against the sixth respondent to recover the amount as if it is a land revenue. For the said amount of 21,86,97,901/- (as on 28.02.2019), there would be a charge on the properties of the sixth respondent- Colonizer.In this regard, DTCP, Haryana has pointed out that an amount of Rs.1.25 crores already spent by the Department towards the watch and ward and the same is also payable by the sixth respondent-Colonizer. Thus, the total amount payable by the Colonizer to the Department is Rs.21,86,97,901/- (as on 28.02.2019) which is payable with interest @ 6% per annum from 28.02.2019 Plus Rs.1.25 crores borne by the Department to the security agency till August, 2019-the date of filing of the affidavit before the Supreme Court and further expenses borne by the Department for watch and ward of the licensed area and other incidental expenses. If the above amount is not paid by the sixth respondent-Colonizer, it is for the State of Haryana to proceed against the sixth respondent to recover the amount as fee which is a land revenue.51. Surplus plots, if any, left – Entitlement of respondent No.6-Colonizer:- It has been submitted by Respondent No.6- Colonizer that a joint technological survey was conducted by the State and the Colonizer as per order dated 07.05.2016 of the Arbitrator. In this survey, electoral and electricity records of the encroached area were taken and tallied with the names in the scrutiny report to determine the genuineness of plot holders. It was found that a considerably large number of petitioners before this Court are already living on the licensed land* Under Point No.4 at Pg.3 of submissions on behalf of R6 to clarifications sought by the Supreme Court vide order dated 14.02.2019. . Respondent No.6 is required to submit a final list of such claimants before the Arbitrator. It is clarified that if it is found that any allottee is already living on the encroached land, they would not be entitled from claiming any further allotment in their favour.52. Surplus plot if any – Entitlement of Respondent No.6- Colonizer:- One last issue as to the entitlement over the surplus land, if any, left after allotment of land to eligible allottees has to be settled. In this context, it is observed that though there are various claims as to who is the present Director of M/s Durga Builders Private Limited, there is no serious dispute that the land in question was owned by said M/s Durga Builders Private Limited and its associate companies. Licenses were also granted to them by the State of Haryana. These licenses have long since expired and have not been renewed after 1999. However, till date no action has been taken against these companies on account of non-renewal of license. According to the State of Haryana, an amount of Rs. 21,86,97,901/- (as on 28.02.2019) is outstanding against licence renewal fee. On payment of this outstanding amount against the license renewal fee with interest from 28.02.2019 and also on payment of expenses borne by DCTP in engaging the security agencies for watch and ward of the licensed area, M/s Durga Builders Private Limited and its associate companies would be entitled to claim the surplus plots.53. Additionally, in case, if any of the allottees are not in a position to pay the apportioned internal and external development charges and expresses willingness to quit and consequently the plot falls vacant, the same shall be considered being allotted to the sixth respondent-Colonizer, of course, striking a balance between the allottee of the plot and the Colonizer. The Arbitrator shall determine the compensation payable by the sixth respondent-Colonizer and direct the sixth respondent-Colonizer to compensate the allottee of the plot by directing the sixth respondent-Colonizer to pay adequate compensation in lieu of the claim for the plot falling vacant. In order to make a claim for such plots falling vacant, the sixth respondent- Colonizer is to pay:- (i) the compensation to allottee as directed by the learned arbitrator; and (ii) to pay the apportioned amount of internal and external development charges.In this context, we may usefully refer to the order of appointment of the Arbitrator dated 27.01.2016 wherein, this Court provided that all the parties shall submit their respective proposed terms of reference before the Arbitrator who shall first settle the terms of reference and thereafter, resolve the disputes involved between the parties. On completion of the arbitral proceedings, the Arbitrator was directed to submit a report to the Supreme Court.55. Arbitration is a mechanism to settle the disputes of the parties on the basis of the terms of arbitration agreement between the parties. In the present case, there is no agreement between the parties. The matter was referred to Justice Vikramjit Sen only as a remedial measure to solve the grievance of the petitioners who were aggrieved by the non-allotment of the plots by Colonizer and to resolve the lengthy issue involved in such allotment. Thus, the instant arbitration proceedings cannot be strictly called so and the term ‘arbitration? in this context is a misnomer and the proceedings actually are one of a Special Committee.56. In his letter dated 23.01.2018, the Arbitrator has also observed that?these proceedings are not in the nature of arbitration and essentially, in the nature of a Special Committee of the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India.?We fully agree with the views expressed by Justice Vikramjit Sen. It is made clear that the present proceedings are not in the nature of arbitration within the meaning of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996; but essentially, in the nature of a Special Committee constituted by the Hon?ble Supreme Court of India.Other observations relevant for determination of theRemuneration payable to the Arbitrator:- As to the question of remuneration payable to the Arbitrator, reference can be made to the order dated 27.01.2016 wherein, it was provided that the fee shall be decided by the Arbitrator and be borne equally by all the parties. Accordingly, the Arbitrator shall decide his fee to be payable by the parties as directed by the learned arbitrator.ber of claimants settled by the Scrutinynumber of eligible allottees are to be decided by the Arbitrator applying the parameters as set out in the order of the Arbitrator dated 07.05.2016 and the learned Arbitrator to determine the final list of eligible plot owners in all the categories – NPNL, Economic Weaker Sections (EWS) and General and also commercial.The learned amicus curiae submitted that as per the affidavit dated 19.08.2019 filed by DTCP, Haryana and e-mail dated 18.07.2014 received by the Department from the advocate Deepak Khosla mentioning that as per the decision of the Company Law Board dated 11.03.2014, Mr. Arun Mehra and Divij Mehra are the present Directors of M/s Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd. The learned amicus submitted that when Mr. Arun Mehra is claiming to be the Director of M/s Durga Builders Pvt. Ltd. of which he is a Director, the claim of Mr. Arun Mehra need not be considered as it has been rejected by the Court Commissioner. Sofar as the claim of Mr. Arun Mehra in respect of 87 plots, liberty is granted to Mr. Arun Mehra to work out his remedy in accordance with law by agitating the matter before the competent court. However, it is made clear that the claim of Mr. Arun Mehra in respect of 87 plots shall not come in the way of the claim of the beneficiaries identified by the Scrutinyit is submitted that an amount of Rs.37.739 crores is outstanding against External Development Charges. As per rough estimate given by the Superintending Engineer, HSVP Circle, Faridabad, about Rs.47.00 crores would be required for completion of the external development works around the colony area and connecting the services with the internal works to be executed in the colony. (Para No.2 at Pg.4-6 of Status Affidavit filed by DTCP, Haryana filed on 07.03.2019)12. Before we consider the claim of M/s Durga Builder Pvt. Ltd., it is necessary to point out that M/s Durga Builder Pvt. Ltd. had not renewed the licence by paying necessary fee. The above seven licences i.e. licence Nos.1-3 of 1991, 65 of 1992 to 68 of 1992 were not renewed after 1999. In its reply, the State of Haryana stated that an amount of Rs.21,86,97,901/- is outstanding against the licence renewal fee.(Under Point No.1 at Pg. 2 of reply filed by DTCP, Haryana on 19.08.2019)This amount is payable by the sixth respondent-Colonizer to DTCP, Haryana. There are also other charges payable by the sixth respondent-Colonizer to the DTCP, Haryana. DTCP, Haryana has spent about Rs.1.25 crores in keeping watch and ward over the property and this amount is also payable by the sixth respondent. The claim of the sixth respondent- colonizer could be considered only if respondent No.6-Colonizer pays the licence renewal fee of Rs.21.89 crores and other amount spent by DTCP, Haryana towards keeping watch and ward of the licensed area and other charges.Once the number of allottees are identified, as discussed earlier, the amount of internal and external development cost has to be proportionately apportioned amongst each one of the eligible allottees. It is seen from the Scrutiny Committee Report and the status report filed by the State of Haryana, about 452 plot owners have got the sale deed from the Colonizer; some of the allottees are yet to get the sale deed. Section 8 of the Haryana Development and Regulation Urban Areas Act, 1975 (HDRA Act) inter alia provides for cancellation of licences if the Colonizer contravenes any of the conditions of the licence or the provisions of the HDRA Act and also provides for mode of carrying out the development works in the colony. Section 8(4) of the HDRA Act enables the Director to transfer the possession and title of the land to the plotthe allottees are identified and the allottees pay the apportioned development charges, the learned Arbitrator shall direct the Director to execute necessary documents in favour of the allottees in terms of Section 8(4) of the HDRA Act.Issue of encroachment and the expenses met by the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana in engaging the watch and ward of the licensedof claimants settled by the Scrutinynumber of eligible allottees are to be decided by the Arbitrator applying the parameters as set out in the order of the Arbitrator dated 07.05.2016 and the learned Arbitrator to determine the final list of eligible plot owners in all the categories – NPNL, Economic Weaker Sections (EWS) and General and also commercial.the allottees are identified and the allottees pay the apportioned development charges, the learned Arbitrator shall direct the Director to execute necessary documents in favour of the allottees in terms of Section 8(4) of the HDRAof claimants settled by the Scrutinynumber of eligible allottees are to be decided by the Arbitrator applying the parameters as set out in the order of the Arbitrator dated 07.05.2016 and the learned Arbitrator to determine the final list of eligible plot owners in all the categories – NPNL, Economic Weaker Sections (EWS) and General and alsothe allottees are identified and the allottees pay the apportioned development charges, the learned Arbitrator shall direct the Director to execute necessary documents in favour of the allottees in terms of Section 8(4) of the HDRA