Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 2
PETITIONER:
SHANTISTAR BUILDERS
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
NARAYAN KHIMALAL GOTAME & ORS. ETC.
DATE OF JUDGMENT17/11/1995
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
BENCH:
RAMASWAMY, K.
HANSARIA B.L. (J)
MANOHAR SUJATA V. (J)
CITATION:
1996 AIR 786 1996 SCC (1) 233
1995 SCALE (6)777
ACT:
HEADNOTE:
JUDGMENT:
WITH
C.A. NO.2599 OF 1989
O R D E R
C.A. NO.2598 of 1989
This Court by its judgment in M/s. Shantistar Builders
v. Narayan Khimalal Gotame & Ors., [(1990) 1 SCC 520] while
disposing of the matter directed in paragraphs 21 and 22 the
State Government to constitute a committee for monitoring
allotment of the houses to the weaker sections, as per the
scheme sanctioned while exempting the urban land under s. 21
of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1978 (for
short "the Act"). One of the members of the committee
suggested was Additional District Judge. The Bombay High
Court was requested to ensure that an Additional District
Judge be made available for enforcing the schemes in every
agglomeration, so that the Committee constituted by the
State Government would effectively implement the schemes.
This Court also impressed upon every Committee to ensure
fulfillment of the laudable purpose of providing a home to
the poor homeless to effectuate its commitment to the
constitutional goal and that every effort should be made by
it to ensure that the builder does not succeed in
frustrating the purpose. The State Government should
suitably modify its scheme in the light of the judgment
rendered in Shantistar Builders’ case and recirculate the
same to all concerned within four weeks from the date of the
judgment.
The State had filed an affidavit on March 30, 1990,
seeking certain modifications or clarifications of the
order. One of the modifications sought was that under the
Act, the Deputy Commissioner is competent authority and an
appeal was provided under the Act, except for Bombay and
Pune, the Additional Commissioner. For Pune and Bombay,
Commissioner would deal with the same. If the Additional
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 2
District Judge was to supervise the functioning of the
allotment as per the scheme sanctioned under s. 21 of the
Act, it would be inconvenient to the appellant authority to
consider the scheme under the Act.
The entire thinking of the Government is wholly
misconceived. The Committee had nothing to do with the
provisions of the Urban Ceiling Act. After the exemption
under s.20 or 21 is granted, the building is required to
implement the scheme in terms of the sanction made by the
Government for construction of buildings by the builders and
allotment to weaker section people. This Court intended to
ensure that the builders would abide by the guidelines laid
down by this Court in the light of the judgment. The
Committee would supervise the allotment of the houses to the
homeless weaker section people in the light of the
guidelines laid down therein. The State Government was also
directed to recirculate the revised schemes in the light of
the above judgment. In the circumstances, the question of
the Commissioner sitting in an appeal over the working of
the Committee does not arise.
It is submitted that the taking away of the
discretionary power of the Government in allotment of the
houses is not justified. We do not propose to modify our
earlier direction. The Government is directed to comply with
the constitution of the Committee within 30 days from the
date of the receipt of this order, since the same has
already been delayed for more than five years from the date
of the judgment constituting the committee.
C.A. No.2599 of 1989 & C.P. No.370/95
Rest of the matters are adjourned to next week.