Back
2025 Supreme(Bom) 994
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, SANDEEP V. MARNE, M.M. SATHAYE, JJ.
Dattatray Laxman Desai - Petitioner
Versus
Deputy Collector And Competent Authority, Kolhapur Urban Agglomeration, Kolhapur and Anr. – Respondents
Writ Petition No. 5692 of 2008
Decided On : 08-07-2025
For the Petitioner:Mr. Rajesh S. Datar, Advocate
For the Respondent/State:Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General a/w Ms. Neha Bhide, G.P., Ms. N.M. Mehra, AGP, Mr. Jay Shanklecha, ‘B’ Panel Counsel.
The court highlighted that the guidelines in Shantistar Builders case apply to pending proceedings, emphasizing equality and non-discrimination in the interpretation of government resolutions.
Headnote:(A) Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - Section 8, 20, 21 - Articles 14 and 300A of the Constitution of India - Dispute regarding allotment of tenements; petitioner claims benefit of Government Resolution dated 15/10/1997 to restrict Government allotment to 5%. (Paras 2-10)
(B) Discrimination in State’s exercise of powers and retrospectivity of Supreme Court judgment in Shantistar Builders case; claimed rights were unjustly denied to petitioner under the same guidelines. (Paras 2-12)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, owner of surplus land, sought to limit government allotment of tenements based on a specific government resolution. A significant delay in implementing the scheme led to penalties and restrictions under ULCR Act.
Findings of Court:
Division Bench stated that the discrimination faced by the petitioner under the questioned government resolution cannot be upheld as valid.
Issues: Questions regarding the discriminatory nature of government resolution and retrospective application of Supreme Court's guidelines from Shantistar Builders case.
Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that Supreme Court rulings are binding and should not operate prospectively against petitioners in similar situations.
Result: Tribunal to adjudicate further.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court disagreement with prior judgments (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's prayer and state response (Para 3 , 4 , 10) |
| 3. petitioner's compliance and representations (Para 5 , 6 , 8) |
| 4. application of supreme court's precedent (Para 12 , 19 , 20) |
| 5. court's observations on previous rulings impacting case outcomes. (Para 13 , 18) |
| 6. petitioner's prior compliance and arguments analyzed. (Para 14) |
| 7. prospective operation of case laws (Para 17 , 23) |
| 8. direction for further adjudication (Para 24 , 25) |
JUDGMENT :
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J.)
1. By an order dated 11th June, 2009 (herein after referred to as the Reference Order), the Division Bench of this Court issued Rule in this Writ Petition and, by the said speaking order, recorded that it was unable to agree with the view taken by a Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court, in the order dated 27th January, 2009 passed in Mandke Construction Company & Ors. V/s. The State of Maharashtra & Ors., (Civil Writ Petition No.5052 of 2008).
2. Having disagreed with the view taken by the Court in Mandke Construction Company (Supra), the Division Bench of this Court formulated the following questions with a request to the Hon’ble the Chief Justice to refer the following 3 questions to the Full Bench :-
“[i] 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.
[ii] 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.
[iii] Whether the guidelines modified by the Supreme Court in Shantistar Builders case is binding on all pending proceedings”
3. As we proceed to deal with the submissions of the learned Advocates, we deem it appropriate to refer to the main prayer made by the Petitioner in this Writ Petition, which is as under :-
“12(a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, Order or Direction thereby quashing and setting aside the Orders dated 8th January 2007 and 16th June 2007 issued by Respondent No.2 and Respondent No.1 respectively and this Hon’ble Court be further pleased to direct Respondents No. 1 and 2herein to grant benefit of the Government Resolution dated 15th October 1997 to the Petitioner thereby restricting the number of tenaments to be allotted to Government nominated allottees to 5% instead of 30% as directed by the Scheme dated 19th May 1989 sanctioned by Respondent No.1;”
4. We have heard the learned Advocate General, Dr. Saraf along with the Government Pleader, Ms. Bhide, on behalf of the State of Maharashtra, and the learned Advocate, Mr. Datar, on behalf of the Petitioner.
5. When the Division Bench passed the Reference order dated 11th June, 2009, it noted the prayer of the Petitioner that the State be directed to restrict the allotment of tenements to the extent of 5%, which was based on the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Shantistar Builders V/s. Narayan Khimalal Totame And Others , (1990) 1 SCC 520 . It also noted the prayer for exempting him from penalty for his failure to implement the scheme within the stipulated period.
6. The Petitioner was the owner of the land bearing City Survey No. 775 at Kasba, Karveer, District Kolhapur. The said land was subjected to an inquiry under Section 8 of the Urban Land (Ce
