R. Banumathi, J. - (1.) The present dispute pertains to claim of number of allottees who have not been allotted plots on land owned by respondent No.6-Colonizer and not paid the amount to the Town and Country Planning for internal and external development. As per respondent No.6-Colonizer, in the year 1985, it purchased approximately 235 acres tract of land for the purpose of large-scale settlement in Section 91 of Faridabad-Ballabgarh Complex, Haryana. At that time, there was no State policy in place to regulate the colonization of land for settlement purposes. Respondent No.6-Colonizer entered into agreement with number of allottees who approached respondent No.6-Colonizer for the purpose of purchasing plots of land. In the year 1991, the State of Haryana enforced its colonization policy and respondent No.6-Colonizer accordingly obtained seven colonization licences. In the year 1996, writ petitions under Article 32 of the Constitution of India were filed by the members of the petitioner-Association before the Supreme Court contending that respondent No.6-Colonizer had not adhered to the terms of the agreement in allotment of plots to the allottees who had booked the plots with respondent No.6-Colonizer. In the writ petition, number of orders came to be passed. Vide order dated 02.12.1999, the Court noted that there seems to be a dispute as to the amount payable by each allottee to respondent No.6-Colonizer as well as to the government. Stating that it is not possible to fix the exact figure payable by each allottee to the government and to respondent No.6-Colonizer, the Court directed each allottee to pay a sum of Rs.50/- per sq. yd. towards development charges to the Director, Town and Country Planning within four weeks. The balance amount, if any, was to be worked out and fixed later.
(2.) Pursuant to the order dated 02.12.1999, the allottees are said to have deposited the amount with Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana (DTCP). Some of the allottees have not complied with the order of the Court by depositing the amount with DTCP. On 15.11.2013, the Director, Town and Country Planning (DTCP) has filed affidavit to the effect that whatever Internal Development Work has been done has become defunct with passage of time. It was also submitted that an estimate of the cost likely to be incurred on execution of remaining Internal Development Work will have to be worked out afresh and will have to be borne by the plot holders or licensee. It was also categorically stated that such cost cannot be borne by the government since public funds cannot be diverted for this purpose.
(3.) The Court vide order dated 13.01.2015 appointed Mr. Raju Ramachandran, senior advocate as amicus curiae to go into the detailed facts of the case and prepare a report. The Supreme Court vide order dated 27.01.2016 referred the matter to arbitration. Justice Vikramajit Sen, former Judge of the Supreme Court was appointed as the sole Arbitrator for resolving the terms of reference and the dispute between the parties. The learned Arbitrator held around twenty-two hearings in the matter to resolve the dispute among the parties. The learned Arbitrator has completed the mammoth task of identifying the eligible allottees. The learned Arbitrator noted that there are three categories of allottees for the purpose of allotment which are as under:-[1] I. General II. Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) III. No profit no loss (NPNL);