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.