Prem Kumar Subnani And ANR v. National Buildings Construction Corporation Delhi, & ANR.

$~40 to 44 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + W.P.(C) 7191/2024 PREM KUMAR SUBNANI AND ANR .....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Prabhat Kaushik, Advocate.

versus NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION DELHI, & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Ms. Arunima Dwivedi, CGSC with Ms. Monalisha Pradhan & Ms. Priya Khurana, Advocates for UOI.

Ms. Sakshi Garg, Advocate.

+ W.P.(C) 10048/2024 RANDHIR SINGH & ANR.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Prabhat Kaushik, Advocate.

versus NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

+ W.P.(C) 10575/2024 The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

ANIL KAPOOR & ANR.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Prabhat Kaushik, Advocate.

versus NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

+ W.P.(C) 7302/2024 VINAY KUMAR GUPTA .....Petitioner Through:

Mr. Prabhat Kaushik, Advocate.

versus NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Chetanya Puri, SPC for R2/UOI.

+ W.P.(C) 1151/2025 S C KAUSHIK & ANR.

.....Petitioners Through:

Mr. Prabhat Kaushik, Advocate.

versus NATIONAL BUILDINGS CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION DELHI & ANR.

.....Respondents Through:

Mr. Puneet Yadav, SPC for UOI.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

O R D E R

% 13.01.2026 1.

The petition essentially relates to the project launched by the NBCC in the name of 'NBCC Green View Apartment' in the year 2012 for public servants. The petitioners in each of the writ petitions booked a flat and accordingly allotment had taken place. They claim to have made the payment of entire sale consideration and received the No Dues Certificates. The NBCC had also issued the Possession Certificates. It appears that thereafter IIT, Delhi found the building structurally unsafe and unfit for residents.

2.

Thereafter, the petitioners submit that the NBCC has offered certain settlement terms and, finding one of the settlement proposal to be suitable, the petitioners acceded to the same and have settled their dispute while taking the money back. The grievance raised by the petitioners is that the respondent shall abide by their purported undertaking dated 26.02.2022 and pay rent till the settlement had arrived at.

3.

Additionally, the petitioners also prayed to adopt uniform settlement policy as per their letter dated 26.04.2022. As per the submissions made by the petitioners' counsel, there has been various occupants and the NBCC has illegally discriminated the benefit to the petitioners which otherwise was The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.

conferred to the other similarly situated occupants. 4.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners also submits that even after the petitioners accepted the offer made by the respondent, the respondent again issued the fresh policy.

5.

The learned counsel who appears for the respondent, however, contends otherwise, and according to him, the petitioners voluntarily accepted the buy-back policy and had executed a conveyance deed. 6.

Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the parties, it appears that the dispute essentially has arisen out of a private contract which has the element of civil dispute. The petitioners have taken full and final payment as agreed in the settlement terms. Whether the settlement was on account of the fraud and coercion is concern, the same, is precisely is the reason, why the Courts should refrain from adjudicating such a grievance in a writ jurisdiction. 7.

Under these circumstances, the Court finds that if any policy is being floated by the NBCC and if the petitioners have been illegally discriminated with its benefit, the same will depend upon the adjudication to be carried out after affording the opportunity of hearing to both the parties including to adduce the evidence etc.

8.

Under the jurisdiction of Article 226 of the Constitution of India, aforesaid exercise is not warranted. Accordingly, the instant petitions are disposed of. Liberty is however reserved to the petitioners to take any other alternate remedy, if available in law.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV, J JANUARY 13, 2026/tr/ap The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.