A Full Bench of the Bombay High Court comprising Justices Ravindra V. Ghuge, Sandeep V. Marne, and M.M. Sathaye held that the directions issued by the Supreme Court in Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame (1990) 1 SCC 520 are prospective in nature. The decision resolves a longstanding conflict over whether developers whose housing schemes were sanctioned before the 1990 judgment could claim the benefit of reduced Government-allottee quotas.
The ruling came in Writ Petition No. 5692 of 2008 filed by Dattatray Laxman Desai, who had sought the benefit of a 1997 Government Resolution (GR) limiting the quota of tenements to be handed over to government nominees to 5% instead of the 30% mandated in his original 1989 exemption scheme under Section 20 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (ULCRA).
The petitioner argued for parity with cases where similar benefits were granted post the Shantistar Builders judgment and relied on the 1997 GR as well as government actions in comparable cases. The earlier Division Bench had disagreed with a 2009 ruling in Mandke Construction Co., which had held that the Shantistar ruling and related GR applied only prospectively. Consequently, the matter was referred to a Full Bench for authoritative clarification.
After reviewing multiple decisions, including those in Karmarahi Kanji Chandan v State of Maharashtra Writ Petition No.2629 of 1992, Sardar Dalip Singh v State of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No.1174 of 1997, State of Maharashtra v Shantiniketan (AIR India) CHS Ltd, Writ Petition No.2165 of 1998, and the Supreme Court’s judgment in Shridhar C. Shetty v. Additional Collector (2020) 9 SCC 537, the Full Bench reaffirmed that the 1990 ruling in Shantistar Builders was intended to be prospective, and its directions on reducing the quota for weaker section allotments cannot be invoked in pending schemes predating the judgment.
Accordingly, all three reference questions framed by the earlier Division Bench were answered against the petitioner, and the matter was directed to be placed before the appropriate Division Bench for adjudication on merits.
Appearances:
Petitioner: Mr. Rajesh S. Datar, Advocate
Respondent: Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General a/w Ms. Neha Bhide, G.P., Ms. N.M. Mehra, AGP, Mr. Jay Shanklecha, ‘B’ Panel Counsel
