Bombay High Court Considered Full Bench Reference on Applicability of ULCR Exemption Scheme Guidelines to Pre-1990 Sanctioned Schemes. Reference Examined Whether Government Resolution Dated 15.10.1997 Could Restrict Benefit of Supreme Court's Shantistar Builders Guidelines Prospectively, Denying 5% Allotment to Identically Placed Petitioner Under Sections 20 and 21 of Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976.

Writ Petition seeking mandamus to quash orders dated 8 January 2007 and 16 June 2007 and to direct respondents to grant benefit of Government Resolution dated 15 October 1997 by restricting government nominee tenements from 30% to 5%.

Petitioner sought a Writ of Mandamus to quash the orders dated 8 January 2007 and 16 June 2007 and to direct Respondents No.1 and 2 to grant benefit of the Government Resolution dated 15 October 1997, thereby restricting the number of tenements to be allotted to Government nominated allottees to 5% instead of 30% as directed by the scheme dated 19 May 1989.

The State rejected petitioner's request to reduce tenements to 5% under the 1997 resolution, imposed a penalty of Rs.20,65,000 for delay, and registered offences for non-surrender of 30% tenements, despite parity with a similarly placed person and recommendation of the Deputy Collector.

Division Bench of Bombay High Court by order dated 11 June 2009 disagreed with Mandke Construction Company and referred three questions to Full Bench. Earlier Division Bench in Mandke Construction Company (27 January 2009) held Shantistar Builders applies prospectively and GR applies only to schemes sanctioned after 31 January 1990. Karmarahi Kanji Chandan (3 December 1992) also held guidelines prospective.

Whether it will be discriminatory and arbitrary to exercise the powers on the part of the State Government in placing reliance on the government resolution dated 15/10/1997 denying the petitioner the benefit of the decision in Shantistar Builders case wherein the facts of the said case as well as the case of the petitioner relating to the guidelines while sanctioning the scheme under section 20 and 21 of the U.L.(C. & R.)Act, 1976 is are identical as it violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner under Articles 14 and 300 A of the Constitution of India. Whether the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court in the given facts and circumstances will govern the case of the petitioners particularly when the petitioners' scheme was sanctioned on 19/5/1989 and the tenements are yet to be surrendered to the government in accordance with the scheme. Whether the guidelines modified by the Supreme Court in Shantistar Builders case is binding on all pending proceedings.

Petitioner relied on M/s. Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame And Others, (1990) 1 SCC 520, arguing that the facts were identical and denial of benefit of directions in paragraph 18 of that judgment was unjust, unfair, discriminatory, and in conflict with Article 14. Petitioner contended that the Government Resolution dated 15 October 1997 could not be upheld as valid on the ground it applied prospectively, as law laid down by the Supreme Court applies to all pending proceedings. Petitioner sought parity with a government decision dated 7 January 2002 granting similar benefit to Shri. Pravinsingh Jaisingh rao Ghatge in view of the GR dated 15 October 1997. State argued that the GR dated 15 October 1997 follows the law in Shantistar Builders prospectively, applying only to schemes sanctioned on or after 31 January 1990, the date of the Supreme Court judgment. State relied on Mandke Construction Company & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., where the Division Bench held Shantistar applies prospectively and the GR would not apply to the petitioner's case. State also relied on Karmarahi Kanji Chandan v. State of Maharashtra, where a Division Bench held the Shantistar guidelines could only be prospective and noted an oral clarification by the Supreme Court that the judgment would be prospective.

As per the Reference Order dated 11 June 2009, the Division Bench observed that where facts are identical to Shantistar Builders, denying the benefit of directions in paragraph 18 would be unjust, unfair, discriminatory and in conflict with Article 14; there is no prospective operation alone of law declared by the Supreme Court, it applies to pending proceedings.

there is nothing like any prospective operation alone of the law laid down by the Supreme Court; but such law applies to all pending proceedings as well. these require various acts to be performed the Builder from the time to received applications looking to the nature of the directions given by the Supreme Court in our view, they can only be prospective

Inquiry under Section 8 of ULCR Act led to order dated 19 May 1989 declaring 4796 sq. mtrs. surplus. Exemption sought under Section 20 with Scheme No.146 sanctioned on 19 May 1989 requiring 30% tenements to be surrendered. Building permission granted 27 August 1990; non-agricultural permission applied 13 November 1990 and granted. Petitioner applied for extension and made representations on 11 July 2001, 10 April 2002 and 10 May 2005 seeking 5% instead of 30% under GR dated 15 October 1997. Government decision dated 7 January 2002 granted parity to another person; Deputy Collector recommended petitioner's case. Order dated 8 January 2007 imposed fine and rejected 5% request. Order dated 16 June 2007 granted one-year extension subject to payment of Rs.20,65,000 and registered offences under Sections 38(4) and 39 of ULCR Act read with IPC. Writ Petition filed. Division Bench passed Reference Order on 11 June 2009 disagreeing with Mandke Construction Company and referred three questions to Full Bench. Full Bench heard matter; reserved on 30 June 2025 and pronounced on 8 July 2025.

• Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: 8, 20, 21, 38(4), 39
• Constitution of India: 14, 300A
• Indian Penal Code, 1860: 406, 418, 420