{"id":66325,"date":"1997-04-07T00:00:00","date_gmt":"1997-04-06T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997"},"modified":"2018-06-11T15:46:55","modified_gmt":"2018-06-11T10:16:55","slug":"okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997","title":{"rendered":"Okhla Enclave Joint Action &#8230; vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 7 April, 1997"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"docsource_main\">Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_title\">Okhla Enclave Joint Action &#8230; vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 7 April, 1997<\/div>\n<div class=\"doc_bench\">Bench: K. Ramaswamy, D.P. Wadhwa<\/div>\n<pre>           PETITIONER:\nOKHLA ENCLAVE JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE\n\n\tVs.\n\nRESPONDENT:\nUNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS.\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT:\t07\/04\/1997\n\nBENCH:\nK. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA\n\n\n\n\nACT:\n\n\n\nHEADNOTE:\n\n\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n<p>       Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy<br \/>\n       Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice D.P Wadhwa<br \/>\nJitendra Sharma,  Rajeev Dhawan,  Arun Jaitley, H.N. Salve,<br \/>\nSr. Advs.,  Manu Mridul,  SuryaKant,  A.K. Sikri, V.K.Rao,<br \/>\nMs. Madhu  Sikri, R.S.Diwan, Rajesh Srivastava, H.K. Puri,<br \/>\nUjjwal Banerjee,  Prem Malhotra,  Puneet Bali,M.T. George,<br \/>\nAttar Singh,  Devendra Singh,  Balraj Dewan, Advs. withthem<br \/>\nfor theappearing parties.\n<\/p>\n<p>    WITH<br \/>\nWRIT PETITION (C) Nos.477, 792 &amp; 876 of1996<br \/>\n O R D E R<br \/>\n     Application  forimpleadment  are  allowed.\t All the<br \/>\napplicants be treated as the petitioners.\n<\/p>\n<p>     This writpetition came  to be filed fromtime totime<br \/>\nunder Article 32 of theconstitution ofIndia on the premise<br \/>\nthat the Coloniser, M\/s. Durga Builders(p) Ltd., respondent<br \/>\nNo.6 has  not been  sincere in allotment of theplots to the<br \/>\npetitioners who, admittedly, had bookedtheir plots with the<br \/>\ncoloniser. After the notice wasissued and the counterswere<br \/>\nfiled in  this Court,  we requested  Mr.  Harish  N.  salve,<br \/>\nlearnedsenior counsel for the coloniser, to personallylook<br \/>\ninto the  matter and  assist this  court  in  resolving the<br \/>\nproblem. We  deeply  appreciate and  place  on record our<br \/>\nappreciation for  the efforts  made byMr.  Salve  for the<br \/>\ncommendable jobhe has done in this behalf. After consulting<br \/>\nlearnedcounsel appearing forthe parties andalso looking<br \/>\ninto the matterpersonally, he has stated as under:\n<\/p>\n<blockquote><p>     &#8220;1. Various  meeting have been held<br \/>\n     between  the   Counsels   for   the<br \/>\n     petitioners and  the  Counsels  for<br \/>\n     the  respondents. The   situation<br \/>\n     which  emerges  appears  to  be  as<br \/>\n     under:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (i) Thereare petitionerswho have<br \/>\n     paid in full and have not committed<br \/>\n     any default. It isthe Respondent&#8217;s<br \/>\n     case thatdue allotments have been<br \/>\n     made to  these people, some of whom<br \/>\n     have beenput inpossession also;<br \/>\n     registrations, etc.,  are complete.<br \/>\n     Some of  such names are included in<br \/>\n     the list of petitioner however, the<br \/>\n     respondent\t insists   that\t  these<br \/>\n     petitioner\t  have\t been\tgiven<br \/>\n     possession.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<blockquote><p>     (ii) The  real bone  of  contention<br \/>\n     has    been    the\t  concept    of<br \/>\n     &#8216;defaulter&#8217;. The  short payments by<br \/>\n     the  subscribershave  arisen  on<br \/>\n     three counts, namely;\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<p>  (a) Increasein theprice of<br \/>\n  plotwith   fixation of   no<br \/>\n  profit no loss&#8217; by Government,<br \/>\n  Haryana   Town    &amp; Country<br \/>\n  planning Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>  (b)  Increase in  the\t amount<br \/>\n  payable  per plotdue\t to<br \/>\n  readjustment in  thesize  of<br \/>\n  the plot  (originallyproposed<br \/>\n  size of  plots was revised 100<br \/>\n  sq. yd. to 121 sq. yd. yds) as<br \/>\n  sanctioned by the  Government<br \/>\n  of Haryana.\n<\/p>\n<p>  (c) General non payment\n<\/p>\n<p>     2.There  does notappear to be any<br \/>\n     major dispute as to the identity of<br \/>\n     petitioners  whohave  made\t full<br \/>\n     payment. As regards the petitioners<br \/>\n     who have refused to pay the revised<br \/>\n     rates fixed  by the  Government  of<br \/>\n     Haryana, the  respondent had  given<br \/>\n     anoffer  that respondent had given<br \/>\n     an\t offerthat payment ofa sum of<br \/>\n     Rs.  550\/-(over   and   above   the<br \/>\n     originallyagreed cost of above the<br \/>\n     originally agreed cost  of\t land)<br \/>\n     would be  treated as proper payment<br \/>\n     ifpaid  on or before 15.9.1995. It<br \/>\n     ispetitioners  who have  paid  the<br \/>\n     due amount have  been  treated  as<br \/>\n     having made full payment and not in<br \/>\n     default and,  therefore, given  due<br \/>\n     allotments.\n<\/p>\n<p>     3.It  is the  case of  some of the<br \/>\n     petitioners  that they  were  not<br \/>\n     given proper  advice  notice  about<br \/>\n     either the revised demandcharges,<br \/>\n     the basisof thedemand, or\tthe<br \/>\n     revised  cost   of land(due  to<br \/>\n     increase in  land area)  and it  is<br \/>\n     for that  reason that  they did not<br \/>\n     make payment. The Respondent claims<br \/>\n     that notices  have\t beensent  to<br \/>\n     each and every petitioner.\n<\/p>\n<p>     4.It  isconceivable  that\tthere<br \/>\n     beinglarge number\tof  petitioner<br \/>\n     some of  them,  transferees,  whose<br \/>\n     names mayor maynot\t be on\tthe<br \/>\n     record atthe may not be on\t the<br \/>\n     record at the appropriate time, the<br \/>\n     notices were sent but not received.<br \/>\n     It is   extremely\tdifficult   to<br \/>\n     believe ordisbelieve either of the<br \/>\n     parties   on    this   score.   The<br \/>\n     Respondenthave  mailed  copies  of<br \/>\n     letters\/some of  these  petitioners<br \/>\n     deny receiving thesame.\n<\/p>\n<p>     5.It  was, therefore, suggested to<br \/>\n     the  respondent  that  one way  of<br \/>\n     resolving this problem is all those<br \/>\n     who   are defaulters  on account of<br \/>\n     non   payment    of   developmental<br \/>\n     charges or payment for  difference<br \/>\n     inarea  of land  could be treated<br \/>\n     more or  less  onpar  with\t their<br \/>\n     making some additional payment. The<br \/>\n     respondents  are, by  and\tlarge,<br \/>\n     agreeable to this proposalprovided<br \/>\n     the following can be safeguarded;\n<\/p>\n<p>  (a) The  actual amount payable<br \/>\n  should  now  be  paid at  the<br \/>\n  rates fixedby\t the Haryana<br \/>\n  Government. The respondent has<br \/>\n  suffered a  loss because  they<br \/>\n  have had  topay  the\tentire<br \/>\n  amount  to   the   Government,<br \/>\n  without petitioners making the<br \/>\n  due payment.It  isnot\t the<br \/>\n  case that  the respondent have<br \/>\n  pocketed  the moneyand  not<br \/>\n  paid.\t The situation\t  is<br \/>\n  converse.  The   situation  is<br \/>\n  converse. Theallotment of the<br \/>\n  plotswould be made upon grant<br \/>\n  of  sectionof\t the pending<br \/>\n  schemes (  The Respondent  has<br \/>\n  applied for  sanction of  the<br \/>\n  scheme to  the haryana  Town &amp;<br \/>\n  country Planning Authority for<br \/>\n  an area  which is  more enough<br \/>\n  the land  is in  possession of<br \/>\n  the  Respondent).   the   only<br \/>\n  problem in  the  allotment  is<br \/>\n  the clearanceof the scheme by<br \/>\n  the clearanceof the scheme by<br \/>\n  the  haryana Government   on<br \/>\n  account of anorder imposing a<br \/>\n  bar has  Surajkund  area.  Now<br \/>\n  the bar  has been  reduced  to<br \/>\n  one Km.  Therefore, this  land<br \/>\n  is  clear   as  faras\t this<br \/>\n  Hon&#8217;ble  Court  is  concerned.\n<\/p>\n<p>  However,    some    additional<br \/>\n  safeguards have been provided.\n<\/p>\n<p>  (b) In the existing sanctioned<br \/>\n  scheme, there area  large<br \/>\n  number of  plots available but<br \/>\n  they are   of\t  considerably<br \/>\n  larger  size. The  respondent<br \/>\n  has already  allotted smaller<br \/>\n  plots &#8211;   larger  plots   are<br \/>\n  unsold and  in  possession  of<br \/>\n  the unsold  and in  possession<br \/>\n  of the  Respondent. The  small<br \/>\n  plotshave  been  allotted  to<br \/>\n  the booking holders and partly<br \/>\n  givenunder  the commitment to<br \/>\n  the EWS scheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>     6. Since the   petitioners\t  are<br \/>\n     insistingfor   allotment in  the<br \/>\n     present sanctioned scheme,<br \/>\n     suggestionhad  been  made that  a<br \/>\n     joint applicationbe made by  the<br \/>\n     Respondent\t  and  the present<br \/>\n     petitioners to theHaryanaTown and<br \/>\n     country   planning\t Authority   to<br \/>\n     consider our  request for reduction<br \/>\n     inthe area of theplot bysuitably<br \/>\n     increasingthe density norms.\n<\/p>\n<p>     7.In  other words the position is<br \/>\n     that  theland  is\tavailable  the<br \/>\n     Respondentis  willing to make over<br \/>\n     the land at the originallypromised<br \/>\n     price  (although  the  prices  have<br \/>\n     gone up considerably) on payment of<br \/>\n     the   additional actual  amount<br \/>\n     demandedby\t   the\t  Government.\n<\/p>\n<p>     However,the exact\tpossession of<br \/>\n     the plot  would only  be  given  on<br \/>\n     clearanceof  the scheme by\t the<br \/>\n     Haryana  Town  &amp;  countryplanning<br \/>\n     Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>     8.To  sumup,  the position\t is as<br \/>\n     under :\n<\/p>\n<p>  (i)  It  is  the  Respondent&#8217;s<br \/>\n  case that  there  isadequate<br \/>\n  land in  itspossession.  The<br \/>\n  Respondent is also willing to<br \/>\n  abideby the originalprice of<br \/>\n  land together\t   with\t  such<br \/>\n  developmentalcharges as  are<br \/>\n  allowed   to\tit   by\t   the<br \/>\n  Government ofHaryana.\n<\/p>\n<p>  (ii) The  actual possession of<br \/>\n  the land  canbe given only on<br \/>\n  the grant  ofapproval for the<br \/>\n  revision of  density norms  by<br \/>\n  the Haryana  Town and Country<br \/>\n  planning Authority.\n<\/p>\n<p>  (iii)The  respondent, in  any<br \/>\n  way,is   committedto\t its<br \/>\n  original offer  to return  the<br \/>\n  moneytogether\t withinterest<br \/>\n  as  this  Court  mayconsider<br \/>\n  just and proper.&#8221;\n<\/p>\n<p>     A readingof theabove  would  clearly  indicate how<br \/>\nmeticulous analysis  ofthe problem. Two broad issues remain<br \/>\nto be  solved. Firstly,allotment of the plots either in the<br \/>\nexisting scheme or the schemepending approval  with the<br \/>\nHaryanaTown  and Country  Planning  Department,\t respondent<br \/>\nNo.5 (for  short the  &#8216;Department&#8217;).  Asuggestion camethat<br \/>\nif the Department agrees to increase the density of thearea<br \/>\nand thereby existing plots are converted into smaller plots,<br \/>\nall  the  petitioners  in  these  writpetitions\t could\tbe<br \/>\naccommodated in the  existingscheme. In\t case  thesaid<br \/>\nauthority findsit difficult toreduce the plotarea, in the<br \/>\nscheme pendingapproval, the  petitioners could be adjusted<br \/>\ntherein.  In   that  behalf,   we  find that  there  is\t no<br \/>\nintractable difficultyin  sorting  out\tthe  problem. The<br \/>\nDepartment is  directedto findthat there is no intractable<br \/>\ndifficulty in  sorting out  theproblem.\t The Department\t is<br \/>\ndirected to  find out first, whether the increase in density<br \/>\nof plots  be possible,whetherthe  increase in  density of<br \/>\nplots be  possible, thereby  reduce the plots into  smaller<br \/>\nsize in conformity with\t the existingRules governing the<br \/>\nsanction of thescheme.In casethere is any difficulty, the<br \/>\nDepartment is  free toapproach this  Court  for\t necessary<br \/>\norders.\n<\/p>\n<p>     In casethere  is\tany intractable\t difficulty  in<br \/>\nadjustment of  the same, on necessary sanction being granted<br \/>\nto  the pending\t scheme,  allthe  petitioners  should  be<br \/>\nadjusted in thependingscheme.\n<\/p>\n<p>     The next  area ofcontroversy pertains  to the cost of<br \/>\nthe land.  It is  seen that  the Government  ofHaryana has<br \/>\ndecided the   pay  charges  for\t internal  development and<br \/>\nexternal  development.As  far as  cost\tof  the\t land  is<br \/>\nconcerned, thecoloniser has  agreed to\tabideby\t therate<br \/>\nwhich it  had contracted  for, namely.Rs.100\/- to Rs.200\/-<br \/>\nper square yarddepending upon the sizeof the plots. As far<br \/>\nas thedevelopment charges  are\tconcerned,  they  are now<br \/>\ngoverned  by  the  orders  of  the  Department. As  regards<br \/>\ninternal development,  the Government has fixedRs.878\/- for<br \/>\nthe plots  of the  size, between  135 sq  yardsto  170 sq.<br \/>\nyards. Practically,  there may not be any difficulty inthis<br \/>\nbehalf for  thereasonthat  the\tmatter\tcould  be  easily<br \/>\nverified from  the record  of the  appropriate Department of<br \/>\nthe Haryana  Government. A  letter has been placed before us<br \/>\nin this behalf. Prima facie, we proceed on theterms of the<br \/>\nsaid letter.  If thereis any difference, it can sorted out<br \/>\nwith referenceto undisputed  record of\tthe Government. As<br \/>\nregardsexternal\t developments,it  is worked  out at Rs.4.7<br \/>\nlakhs  per  acre  thatwould  be\t borne\tobviously  be the<br \/>\nallottees.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Mr. Dhawan,  learned senior  counsel, haspointed out<br \/>\nthat licences held by the coloniser hadlapsed on account of<br \/>\nnon-conditions.mr.  Salve, learned  senior  counsel  , has<br \/>\nbroughtto  our notice that  pendingwrit\t petitions the<br \/>\ncolloniser hasalready deposited\t Rs. 3\tcrores\tand the<br \/>\nbalanceamount would bedeposited shortly afterthe disposal<br \/>\nof  the\t writpetitions.\t under\tthese  circumstance, the<br \/>\nnecessary licences  or renewalthereofwould  be granted by<br \/>\nthe appropriate\t authority  according to rules. Thereafter,<br \/>\nthe above  exercise would be done. Thiswould be done within<br \/>\na period  of six  weeksfrom  the dateof receipt\t ofthis<br \/>\norder.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Itis  then brought\t to our\t notice that  in  case the<br \/>\ndensityis  notincreased\t and therebythe plots  cannot be<br \/>\nconverted intosmallerplots  necessary plot  to all of the<br \/>\npetitioners in the pending scheme. Mr. salve, learned senior<br \/>\ncounsel,  has suggested that the record of thecoloniser is<br \/>\nopen to scrutiny and  in casethe petitionershave feeling<br \/>\nthat the  coloniser isavoiding allotment of the plots, 4th<br \/>\nrespondent is  at liberty to look into the matter and it can<br \/>\ndirectly allot the plots to theallottees whoselist will be<br \/>\nsupplied by  the coloniser to it. With this fair stand taken<br \/>\nby thecoloniser, we prima facie accept it to be justified.<br \/>\npartiesare at liberty to approach thisCourt in case of any<br \/>\ndifficulty for further direction.\n<\/p>\n<p>     Inthat  view of  the matter,  thewrit  petitions are<br \/>\ndisposed of. Nocosts.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of India Okhla Enclave Joint Action &#8230; vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 7 April, 1997 Bench: K. Ramaswamy, D.P. Wadhwa PETITIONER: OKHLA ENCLAVE JOINT ACTION COMMITTEE Vs. RESPONDENT: UNION OF INDIA &amp; ORS. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 07\/04\/1997 BENCH: K. RAMASWAMY, D.P. WADHWA ACT: HEADNOTE: JUDGMENT: Hon&#8217;ble Mr. Justice K. Ramaswamy Hon&#8217;ble [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-66325","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v27.3 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Okhla Enclave Joint Action ... vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 7 April, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Okhla Enclave Joint Action ... vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 7 April, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"1997-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-11T10:16:55+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Okhla Enclave Joint Action &#8230; vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 7 April, 1997\",\"datePublished\":\"1997-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-11T10:16:55+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997\"},\"wordCount\":1731,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997\",\"name\":\"Okhla Enclave Joint Action ... vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 7 April, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"1997-04-06T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-11T10:16:55+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Okhla Enclave Joint Action &#8230; vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 7 April, 1997\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Okhla Enclave Joint Action ... vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 7 April, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Okhla Enclave Joint Action ... vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 7 April, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"1997-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-11T10:16:55+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Okhla Enclave Joint Action &#8230; vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 7 April, 1997","datePublished":"1997-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-11T10:16:55+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997"},"wordCount":1731,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997","name":"Okhla Enclave Joint Action ... vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 7 April, 1997 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court &amp; High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"1997-04-06T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-11T10:16:55+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/okhla-enclave-joint-action-vs-union-of-india-ors-on-7-april-1997#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Okhla Enclave Joint Action &#8230; vs Union Of India &amp; Ors on 7 April, 1997"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66325","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=66325"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/66325\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=66325"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=66325"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=66325"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}