Legal Review and Analysis of Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors 2025 INSC 1291

In-Short 

Case: Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.Citation: 2025 INSC 1291Short Caption: Supreme Court constitutes a one-Judge Committee to break the deadlock and facilitate the completion of a fraud-ridden, stalled housing project for the benefit of cheated homebuyers.

Legal Review and Analysis of Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors

1. Heading of the Judgment

Case Name: Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. vs State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.
Citation: 2025 INSC 1291
Court: Supreme Court of India
Jurisdiction: Extra Ordinary Appellate Jurisdiction
Petition Numbers: Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 9792 of 2017 and connected matters

2. Related Laws and Sections

The judgment involves and references the following legal frameworks:

• The Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1965: Governed the registration and operation of the housing society.

• The Uttar Pradesh Cooperative Societies Rules, 1968: The rules framed under the parent Act.

• Indian Penal Code, 1860 (Sections 409, 420, 467, 468, 472, 120B): Offences for which the developers and society office-bearers were chargesheeted, including criminal breach of trust, cheating, forgery, and criminal conspiracy.

• Article 136 of the Constitution of India: The extraordinary jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under which this Special Leave Petition was filed.

• Contract Law: Pertaining to the tri-partite agreements between allottees, the society/developer, and the banks.

3. Basic Judgment Details

This case originated from a writ petition filed before the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad by allottees of a group housing project named "Shiv Kala Charms" in Greater Noida. The High Court disposed of the petition without granting substantive relief, leading the allottees to file the present Special Leave Petitions before the Supreme Court.

The core dispute involves the cancellation of a lease deed by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA) in 2011 due to non-payment of dues by the fraudulent housing society and developer, leaving the homebuyers without their flats and saddled with bank loans for nearly two decades.

4. Core Principle and Analysis of the Judgment

The Core Issue: Administrative and Legal Deadlock in a Stalled Real Estate Project

The central issue before the Supreme Court was how to provide justice to genuine homebuyers who were defrauded in a massive housing scam, where the original lease was cancelled, the developer vanished, funds were misappropriated, and the project remained stalled for years. The Court was faced with a complex web of problems: identifying genuine allottees amidst fraudulent/multiple allotments, determining proportional liabilities for outstanding land dues, and finding a viable mechanism to complete the construction, all while dealing with the reluctance of the development authority (GNIDA) to cooperate in a piecemeal resolution.

The Supreme Court's Addressing of the Core Issue: From Adjudication to Facilitation

Recognizing that the matter had assumed "considerable administrative magnitude and intricacy" that could not be resolved through typical adversarial litigation under Article 136 of the Constitution, the Supreme Court adopted a unique, proactive, and solution-oriented approach.

A. In-Depth Analysis of the Factual Quagmire:
The Court meticulously chronicled the two-decade-long ordeal of the allottees, highlighting:

• Fraudulent Practices: The inquiry committee report revealed gross irregularities, including misappropriation of funds, multiple allotments of the same flat, and allotment of fictitious, non-existent flats.

• Criminal Proceedings: The registration of an FIR and filing of a chargesheet confirmed the criminal conspiracy and cheating perpetrated by the accused.

• Administrative Inertia: The Court expressly recorded its dissatisfaction with GNIDA's conduct, noting its "utter failure" to propose a viable plan or cooperate with the allottees' groups who were willing to pay their dues.

• Fragmented Allottee Base: The existence of multiple groups of allottees (e.g., a group of 40 for Tower-1, a group of 30 for Tower-2) and the presence of unverified claimants made a single, comprehensive court order impractical.

B. The Innovative Judicial Remedy: Constitution of a One-Judge Committee
The core of the judgment is the Supreme Court's decision to move beyond mere pronouncement and to create a mechanism for on-ground resolution. The Court constituted a one-Judge Committee headed by Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Naqvi (Retd.), High Court of Judicature at Allahabad.

C. Supreme Court's Directions and the Committee's Mandate:
The Court issued specific, detailed directions outlining the Committee's broad parameters:

• Identification and Consolidation: The Committee is tasked with scrutinizing all records to identify genuine allottees and preparing a list of those willing to join together to complete the project.

• Negotiation with GNIDA: A key mandate is to consult with GNIDA to find a solution for the partial restoration of the lease deed for specific towers, a major hurdle raised by GNIDA.

• Financial Formulation: The Committee must devise a fair mechanism to determine the proportional liability of each allottee for the outstanding dues payable to GNIDA.

• Comprehensive Plan: It is to prepare a time-bound plan for the development and completion of the housing project in consultation with all stakeholders.

• Auction of Unclaimed Towers: In a pragmatic move, the Court authorized the Committee to explore the feasibility of auctioning Towers 3 and 4 if their original allottees are unidentifiable. The proceeds would be used to cover construction costs and clear land dues, thereby protecting the interests of the allottees of Towers 1 and 2.

The Committee was given four months to submit its report, with full cooperation mandated from all state authorities and banks. The expenses are to be borne equally by the allottees and the State of Uttar Pradesh.

5. Final Outcome of the Judgment

The Supreme Court did not deliver a final verdict on the merits of the lease cancellation or the liabilities. Instead, it suspended the conventional adjudicatory process and instituted a fact-finding and resolution-oriented committee under the supervision of a retired High Court Judge. The matter has been listed for March 24, 2026, for receiving the Committee's report, which will then guide the Court's final orders. The judgment, therefore, represents an interim but crucial step towards justice, prioritizing a practical resolution over a purely legalistic one.

6. MCQs Based on the Judgment

1. In Ravi Prakash Srivastava vs State of Uttar Pradesh, what was the primary reason for the Supreme Court to constitute a one-Judge Committee headed by a retired Judge?
a) To conduct the trial for the criminal offences committed by the developers.
b) To directly oversee the construction and completion of the remaining towers.
c) To undertake a detailed enquiry and suggest a resolution for the complex administrative and factual deadlock.
d) To calculate and order the refund of money to all the allottees.

2. One of the major hurdles in resolving the "Shiv Kala Charms" housing project, as highlighted in the judgment, was the stance of the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA). What was GNIDA's primary contention?
a) That the allottees were not genuine and were part of the fraud.
b) That the land had been sold to a third party after the cancellation of the lease.
c) That the lease for the single plot could only be restored in its entirety, not partially for individual towers.
d) That the structural audit proved the towers were beyond repair and must be demolished.