Committee‑Led Revival of Stalled Cooperative Housing Projects: Supreme Court Enables Partial Lease Restoration, Pro‑Rata Dues, and Verification Framework in Ravi Prakash Srivastava v. State of U.P. (2025 INSC 1291)

Introduction

This reportable order of the Supreme Court of India in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 9792/2017 and 15548/2017, titled Ravi Prakash Srivastava & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., dated 07 November 2025, addresses the aftermath of a failed group housing project undertaken by a cooperative society—Golf Course Sahkari Awas Samiti (formerly JP Greens Employees Sahkari Awas Samiti)—on land allotted by the Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority (GNIDA).

The matter stems from the cancellation of the lease in 2011 following non‑payment of land dues, allegations of fraud by the society’s office bearers and the developer (Shiv Kala Developers Pvt. Ltd.), and widespread harm caused to homebuyers who had financed their bookings through direct payments and bank loans. Multiple interlocutory applications by allottees, verification exercises by the Registrar (Housing Commissioner, UP Awas Evam Vikas Parishad), and persistent judicial supervision culminated in a unique remedial architecture.

The Supreme Court, acknowledging the complexities around identifying genuine allottees, computing proportionate land dues, feasibility of reviving construction, and the institutional reluctance of GNIDA to propose solutions, has constituted an independent one‑Judge Enquiry Committee headed by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Naqvi (Retd., Allahabad High Court). The Committee is tasked with a structured fact‑finding and solution‑building mandate, including exploration of partial lease restoration, a pro‑rata liability formula, and a transparent fallback mechanism (including auction) for unclaimed towers.

Parties involved include the petitioning allottees, the State of Uttar Pradesh, GNIDA, the Housing Commissioner/Registrar of Cooperative Societies, multiple banks/financial institutions, and intervening allottees. The principal issues were whether (and how) the project could be revived, who the genuine allottees are, how to apportion GNIDA’s dues, and whether a partial restoration of a cancelled lease could be engineered to facilitate completion of the project in phases.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court did not grant the original writ relief of straight restoration of the 2005 lease cancelled in 2011. Instead, recognizing the limitations of Article 136 proceedings to conduct granular fact‑finding, it designed a supervised, independent mechanism to:

Identify genuine allottees through scrutiny of records, payments, tri‑partite bank agreements, and society documents, leveraging the Registrar/Housing Commissioner’s verification processes already underway.
Assemble willing allottees into cohesive groups for tower‑wise completion (notably, a group of 40 for Tower‑1 had emerged, with structural audit indicating the tower can be made habitable with strengthening).
Consult GNIDA to explore, “as a special case,” partial restoration of the lease—previously cancelled for the entire single plot—limited to the tower and appurtenant areas taken up for completion.
Devise a fair and transparent mechanism to compute each verified allottee’s pro‑rata liability towards GNIDA’s outstanding dues, proportionate to apartment type/area and the land footprint concerned.
Prepare a comprehensive, time‑bound plan to develop and complete the housing project, tower by tower, in coordination with relevant authorities.
Consider, if genuine allottees for Towers 3 and 4 cannot be identified or verified, an open, transparent allocation mechanism (including auction/lottery) to fund completion, clear GNIDA dues, and protect the interests of verified allottees in Towers 1 and 2.

Operational directions include:

Constitution of a one‑Judge Committee (Hon’ble Justice Pankaj Naqvi, Retd.), with secretarial support (PA, LDC, Law Clerk), liberty to set its own procedure, and sittings in New Delhi/Noida.
Cost sharing for enquiry/logistics: equally between allottees as a group and the State of Uttar Pradesh; fixed honorarium for the Chairperson of Rs 15 lakhs in three tranches over four months.
Mandatory public notice by the State and GNIDA in national English and Hindi dailies to inform unapproached allottees to file claims; verification through the Housing Commissioner.
Logistic arrangements by 21 November 2025; report to be submitted to the Court in sealed cover within four months of the Committee’s effective commencement; listing on 24 March 2026 for consideration of the Committee’s report.

Detailed Analysis

Factual Matrix and Procedural History

2004–2005: Cooperative society formed; GNIDA allotted 10,000 sq. mtrs (Plot No. 7, Sector PI‑2) for a four‑tower plan. Lease executed on 29 March 2005. Developer: Shiv Kala Developers Pvt. Ltd.
Allottees paid to the society; receipts sometimes in names of developer entities; tri‑partite bank loan agreements executed; disbursals made directly to the society/developer.
Post 14 October 2007: No lease payments to GNIDA; final show cause issued; lease cancelled on 09 September 2011.
2011–2012: DM’s committee found grave irregularities—misappropriation, multiple allotments of same flat, fictitious flats with loans, non‑compliance with cooperative law; EOW, Delhi registered FIR No. 62/2012 and chargesheeted key office‑bearers under IPC sections for breach of trust, cheating, forgery, conspiracy.
2016: Allahabad High Court declined to interfere; permitted complaints to Housing Commissioner, and civil suits against bank recoveries; left bank officers’ role to ongoing EOW probe; refused to quash lease cancellation.
2017–2025: In SLPs, the Supreme Court repeatedly curated a fact‑verification track:
- Directed Registrar/Housing Commissioner to verify genuine members/allottees; iterative affidavits identified 42, then 50+, eventually 57 verified claimants, with ongoing verifications.
- Commissioned structural audit; report on Tower‑1 indicated feasibility for habitation after strengthening.
- Encouraged tower‑wise regrouping—40 allottees for Tower‑1; later, a group of 30 for Tower‑2 sought similar reliefs.
- Recurrently asked GNIDA to propose a plan or dues computation for pro‑rata recovery; recorded dissatisfaction with GNIDA’s non‑cooperation.
- Recognized ANVIL: lease cancellation covered whole plot; GNIDA insisted it could cancel or restore only in toto; Court invited GNIDA to examine partial restoration “as a special case.”

Key Issues the Court Addressed

Whether the Court could direct restoration (even partial) of a cancelled lease for a single plot to enable completion of a tower by verified, willing allottees.
How to identify genuine allottees credibly and prevent imposters from staking fraudulent claims, given past manipulations (multiple/fictitious allotments, multiple loans).
How to structure a fair formula for pro‑rata land dues to GNIDA, factoring apartment types/areas and the tower’s land footprint.
Feasibility and sequencing of tower‑wise completion, including the need for structural audits and adherence to building regulations.
Managing stakeholder coordination across multiple agencies (GNIDA, Housing Commissioner, banks) within the constraints of Article 136 proceedings.

Precedents Cited

The order does not cite prior judicial precedents. Instead, it builds on its own sequence of interim directions within these proceedings (from 2021 onwards) concerning verification of claimants, feasibility through structural audit, and the possibility of partial lease restoration. The Court’s approach is driven by equitable considerations, administrative pragmatism, and a recognition of procedural limitations inherent in SLP jurisdiction under Article 136.

Note: Although the order itself does not rely on earlier case law, it resonates with the Supreme Court’s broader remedial pattern in complex real estate collapses—crafting project‑specific, court‑supervised mechanisms to protect homebuyers while balancing statutory dues. These parallels are contextual and not sources relied upon in this order.

Legal Reasoning

Article 136 limits: The Court underscores that a “comprehensive, structured, and impartial examination” of overlapping factual and administrative issues (lease restoration, allottees’ verification, dues computation, structural viability) is impractical within SLP confines. This acknowledgment grounds the move to an independent Committee.
Equitable protection of homebuyers: The Court recognizes two decades of hardship, financial loss, and administrative limbo for homebuyers, and prioritizes a pathway to possession where feasible, without compromising statutory land dues or regulatory compliance.
Tailored, tower‑wise solution: Given structural viability of Tower‑1 and preparedness of a group of 40, the Court adopts a staged, tower‑wise revival strategy. This avoids a binary (all‑or‑nothing) restoration, reduces stakeholder conflict over common areas, and enables tangible progress.
Partial lease restoration as a special case: While GNIDA maintained restoration must be in toto for a single plot lease, the Court invites a bespoke administrative solution permitting partial restoration limited to a tower and appurtenant areas. This is not a final adjudication on legal permissibility but a directed exploration through the Committee, tethered to full discharge of proportionate dues before construction.
Verification safeguards: Given the history of multiple/fictitious allotments and multi‑bank financing on the same flat, the Court places verification with the Housing Commissioner at the core of the process, reinforces documentary scrutiny, and mandates public notice to reach unapproached allottees.
Fallback for unverifiable towers: To avoid perpetual stasis if original allottees are untraceable, the Court authorizes the Committee to examine transparent market mechanisms (lottery/auction) for Towers 3 and 4 to raise funds for completion and dues, while shielding verified groups (Towers 1 and 2).
Administrative accountability: The Court records dissatisfaction with GNIDA’s non‑cooperation across multiple orders and places an onus on GNIDA to engage with the Committee on dues computation and lease modalities, thus re‑centering the authority’s role in solution‑finding.

The Remedial Architecture Designed by the Court

Core elements:

Independent one‑Judge Committee under Justice Pankaj Naqvi (Retd.) with a broad, six‑plus‑one (contingent) mandate:
- Scrutinize records and identify genuine allottees.
- List and cluster willing allottees for development/completion.
- Consult GNIDA on partial lease restoration for tower‑wise revival if full‑project revival is not feasible.
- Devise a fair pro‑rata dues formula for each allottee.
- Frame a comprehensive, time‑bound completion plan.
- Address any other matter necessary for just resolution.
- Contingent authority: if allottees for Towers 3/4 are unidentifiable/unverifiable, examine transparent allocation/auction to fund completion and dues clearance.
Procedural and financial scaffolding:
- Sealed‑cover report within four months of effective commencement; listing fixed for 24 March 2026.
- Logistics by 21 November 2025; Committee empowered to set its own procedure; support staff sanctioned.
- Cost sharing: allottees collectively and State of U.P. to share enquiry/logistics equally; Chair’s honorarium fixed at Rs 15 lakhs in three equal tranches.
- Public notice by State and GNIDA in English and Hindi national dailies inviting claims; Housing Commissioner to verify claims.
- Stakeholders (State, GNIDA, Housing Commissioner, banks/financial institutions, petitioners and intervening allottees) directed to give full cooperation.
Preconditions to construction:
- No construction without full payment of communicated dues for the relevant portion.
- Structural audit and strengthening to be acted upon; compliance with building by‑laws and planning norms preserved.

Impact and Implications

Blueprint for revival of stalled cooperative housing: The decision offers a replicable, court‑supervised template for project‑specific resolution where developer default, society mismanagement, and land‑dues cancellation intersect.
Doctrinal significance—partial lease restoration: While not definitively ruled upon, the Court’s orchestration of a “special case” partial restoration via a consultative Committee signals openness to micro‑restoration models to salvage habitable segments without waiting for total‑project revival.
Rebalancing equities: The design harmonizes three imperatives—homebuyers’ legitimate expectations, GNIDA’s statutory dues, and regulatory compliance—without letting any single imperative trump the others.
Administrative accountability: Development authorities are nudged from a strictly transactional posture (cancel or restore in toto) towards constructive problem‑solving in extraordinary circumstances involving mass consumer harm.
Consumer protection without displacing statutory schemes: The Court refrains from adjudicating factual disputes under Article 136 and instead builds a fact‑finding bridge to a solution, complementing ongoing criminal proceedings and administrative actions.
Market fallback through transparent allocation: The auction/lottery pathway for unclaimed towers reduces the risk of stalemate and provides a lawful funding channel to complete construction and discharge land dues.
Procedural inclusivity: Public notice and iterative verification guard against exclusion of genuine, unapproached allottees and deter imposters.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Special Leave Petition (Article 136): A discretionary remedy allowing the Supreme Court to examine errors in orders/judgments of lower courts. It is not designed for detailed fact‑finding; hence the need for an independent Committee in this case.
Cooperative Housing Society: A member‑driven entity formed to acquire and develop land for housing its members. It must comply with the Cooperative Societies Act, Rules, and bye‑laws. Misgovernance can lead to criminal, administrative, and civil consequences.
GNIDA Lease: Land in Greater Noida is typically given on long‑term lease by GNIDA. Non‑payment of dues can lead to cancellation, as happened here in 2011 for the entire plot.
Partial Lease Restoration: Restoring lease rights only to a subset of the plot (e.g., the footprint and appurtenant areas of a particular tower). GNIDA initially resisted, stating lease acts in toto; the Court calls for a “special case” exploration via the Committee.
Tri‑partite Loan Agreements: Agreements among borrower (homebuyer), builder/society, and bank where disbursal goes directly to the builder/society. These are key evidence for verifying genuine allotments and payments.
Pro‑Rata Dues: Apportioning GNIDA’s outstanding land dues across allottees based on a fair metric—typically apartment size/type and share in land/common areas—so that each pays a proportionate share before construction resumes.
Structural Audit: An expert assessment of a building’s safety and remedial strengthening needs. Here, Tower‑1’s audit indicated that after strengthening and modifications, it can be made habitable.
Sealed Cover Report: A report submitted confidentially to the Court. The Committee’s report is to be furnished in sealed cover within four months of effective commencement.
Public Notice: A formal advertisement inviting claims or objections. It ensures inclusion of all potential claimants, especially those not before the Court.

Practical Guidance for Stakeholders

For Allottees:
- Respond promptly to the public notice and submit claim documents to the Committee/Housing Commissioner: allotment letters, payment receipts, bank sanction letters, tri‑partite agreements, and correspondence.
- Organize into tower‑wise groups (e.g., 40 for Tower‑1; 30 for Towers‑2/3; 40 for Tower‑4) to facilitate phase‑wise completion and focused dues computation.
- Budget for: pro‑rata GNIDA dues; strengthening costs; regulatory fees (plan approval, occupancy certification); and share of Committee/logistics costs.
- Coordinate with banks on loan accounts to align construction milestones with disbursements or restructuring, as applicable.
For GNIDA:
- Engage substantively with the Committee to provide: historical ledger of dues, a proportioning methodology, and a draft framework for partial lease restoration covering tower footprints and essential common areas.
- Prepare a compliance roadmap: plan sanction regularization (if required), occupancy norms, safety certifications, and clear protocols for common areas/parking in a tower‑wise revival.
For the Housing Commissioner/Registrar:
- Continue robust verification; maintain a dynamic registry of verified claimants; cross‑verify with banks and society records; flag duplications and anomalies.
For Banks/Financial Institutions:
- Cooperate fully with verification; provide transaction histories; assist in avoiding double‑financing on the same flat; coordinate on any restructuring aligned to revived construction schedules.
For the State of Uttar Pradesh:
- Ensure logistics, staffing, and funding (50% share) reach the Committee on time; support timely public notice; facilitate inter‑departmental coordination (planning, fire, safety, electricity, water, registrar).

Open Questions and Challenges

Legal modality for partial lease restoration: While explored “as a special case,” GNIDA must articulate a legally sound mechanism for restoring lease rights for sub‑parcels linked to specific towers and their appurtenant common areas.
Common areas and services: Tower‑wise revival must address shared infrastructure—basements, parking, utilities, and amenities—without compromising planning norms or the rights of future/all other allottees.
Regulatory compliance: Fresh or revised plan sanctions, structural certifications, fire safety, environmental clearances (as applicable), and occupancy certificates must be integrated into the revival timeline.
Cost escalations and fairness: The pro‑rata formula must equitably distribute GNIDA dues and revival costs across apartment types and phases, while addressing compensation between 3‑BHK and 4‑BHK allottees as recorded by the Court.
Integration with ongoing criminal proceedings: The revival mechanism should preserve claims for restitution/compensation from wrongdoers and ensure that any recovered sums reduce allottees’ financial burdens where possible.
Inclusion risks: Despite public notice, some genuine allottees may remain untraceable; the Committee’s fallback (auction/lottery) must balance speed with safeguards for late‑claimants who can credibly establish rights.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s order in Ravi Prakash Srivastava v. State of U.P. pioneers a pragmatic, committee‑led pathway to rescue a long‑stalled cooperative housing project burdened by fraud, regulatory defaults, and a blanket lease cancellation. Rather than issuing blanket directions on disputed facts, the Court crafts a granular framework that:

Centers the verification of genuine allottees and transparency;
Enables, for the first time in this litigation, a structured exploration of partial lease restoration, tower by tower, as a “special case” tied to full payment of pro‑rata dues;
Builds a fair dues‑sharing mechanism and a time‑bound roadmap to completion under an experienced, independent former judge;
Provides a contingency plan (transparent allocation/auction) to avoid paralysis where original claims are unverifiable.

In doing so, the Court sets a governance blueprint likely to influence how authorities and courts respond to the wider real estate distress—especially cooperative housing failures—by balancing buyer protection, statutory dues, and regulatory integrity. The decision’s significance lies less in doctrinal pronouncements and more in its institutional design: a carefully sequenced, stakeholder‑inclusive, and accountable model aimed at converting decade‑long stalemate into habitable homes.