Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Komalsingh Sonusingh Pardeshi and M/s. Makhija & Vora Associates, filed a writ petition seeking a mandamus to direct the respondents to reserve only 5% tenements for government nominees in Scheme No. 248, and to quash the reservation over and above 5%. The petitioner No.1 was the owner of land at Lohegaon, Pune, and was declared an excess holder under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976. He applied for exemption and permission to construct tenements under a Government Resolution dated 27.8.1986, which was granted, sanctioning Scheme No. 248. The scheme included a condition that 10% of the tenements would be reserved for allotment to government nominees. The petitioners argued that based on the Supreme Court decision in Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame, only 5% reservation was permissible. The respondents contended that the reservation was in accordance with the Government Resolution and the Act. The court analyzed the provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act and the Government Resolution, and found that the reservation of 10% was not arbitrary. The court noted that the petitioners had accepted the terms of the scheme and could not challenge the reservation later. The petition was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Urban Land Ceiling - Reservation of Tenements - Government Nominees - Sections 20, 21 Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - The petitioners challenged the reservation of 10% tenements for government nominees in Scheme No. 248, arguing that only 5% should be reserved as per Shantistar Builders case. The court held that the reservation of 10% was not arbitrary and was in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 27.8.1986 and the provisions of the Act. The court found that the petitioners had accepted the terms of the scheme and could not later challenge the reservation. (Paras 1-5)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the reservation of tenements for government nominees in excess of 5% in a scheme sanctioned under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is valid and not arbitrary.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Reservation of tenements for government nominees
- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act
- 1976
- Section 20
- Section 21
- Government Resolution dated 27.8.1986
- Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame
- AIR 1990 SC 630
Case Details
2006 LawText (BOM) (08) 156
Writ Petition No. 2248 of 2000
R.M.S. Khandeparkar, Naresh H. Patil
Shri R. Datar i/b. Shri R.D. Soni for Petitioners, Shri V.S. Gokhale, AGP for Respondents
Komalsingh Sonusingh Pardeshi and M/s. Makhija & Vora Associates
State of Maharashtra, The Additional Collector and Competent Authority, Pune Urban Agglomeration, Pune, and The Secretary, Housing and Special Assistance Department, Government of Maharashtra
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition seeking mandamus and declaration regarding reservation of tenements for government nominees in a housing scheme.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents to reserve only 5% tenements for government nominees and a declaration quashing reservation over 5%.
Filing Reason
Petitioners challenged the condition in Scheme No. 248 that reserved 10% tenements for government nominees, arguing it exceeded the permissible 5% as per Supreme Court decision.
Previous Decisions
Petitioner No.1 was declared excess holder under Section 8(4) of the Act; exemption and permission to construct were granted under Government Resolution dated 27.8.1986, sanctioning Scheme No. 248 with 10% reservation for government nominees.
Issues
Whether the reservation of 10% tenements for government nominees in Scheme No. 248 is valid under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 and the Government Resolution dated 27.8.1986.
Whether the petitioners are estopped from challenging the reservation after accepting the terms of the scheme.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that based on Shantistar Builders vs. Narayan Khimalal Totame, only 5% reservation for government nominees is permissible.
Respondents contended that the reservation of 10% is in accordance with the Government Resolution and the Act, and the petitioners had accepted the terms.
Ratio Decidendi
The reservation of 10% tenements for government nominees in a scheme sanctioned under the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 is not arbitrary and is in accordance with the Government Resolution dated 27.8.1986. The petitioners, having accepted the terms of the scheme, cannot challenge the reservation later.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioners seeks writ of mandamus for direction to the Respondents to reserve only 5% tenements for allotment to the Government nominees in Scheme No. 248 of the Petitioners and further declaration quashing the reservation for Government nominees over and above 5%.
The Petitioner No.1 was the owner of the properties... On return being filed under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976... he was declared to be the excess holder under Section 8(4) of the said Act in respect of 2390.12 sq. metres of land.
Procedural History
The petitioner No.1 filed a return under Section 6(1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, was declared an excess holder under Section 8(4), applied for exemption under Government Resolution dated 27.8.1986, which was granted sanctioning Scheme No. 248 with 10% reservation for government nominees. The petitioners then filed the present writ petition challenging the reservation.
Acts & Sections
- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976: Section 6(1), Section 8(4), Section 20, Section 21
