NARGIS JAL HARADHVALA versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2015] 1 S.C.R. 8 · Decided: 06-01-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.Y. EQBAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
(2015] 1 S.C.R. 8 
NARGIS JAL HARADHVALA 
V. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS 
(Civil Appeal No.5989 of 2007) 
JANUARY 06, 2015 
[M.Y. EQBAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 - s. 20 
- Application under, seeking exemption - Exemption order 
C tentatively specified 30% of the permissible floor space of the 
exempted land to be sold to Government Nominees -
Clarification that the percentage would be prescribed by the 
Government as per the extent of the land to be exempted -
Issuance of corrigendum by the Government that the 
o appellant-land owner to surrender to the Government 
nominees 20% of the floor space of the first 2000sq.mt. of the 
net permissible FSI of the land exempted and 30% of the 
balance sq.mt. permissible - Appellant's case that only 5% 
area-flats could be claimed in view of the judgment by this 
E Court - Respondent No. 3 asking the appellant to surrender 
805.58 sq.mt. of area in addition to 303.73 sq.mt. already 
surrendered by her - Writ petition by appellant, set aside by 
High Court - On appeal, held: Appellant bound to surrender 
to the Government a total 20% of the permissible floor space 
F in the light of the corrigendum - Calculating 20% of the floor 
space, appellant to sell 11 more flats to the persons that may 
be nominated by the Government. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
G 
HELD: Exemption under Section 20 of the Urban 
Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was granted on 
17.8.1987 with the condition to surrender 30% of the 
permissible floor space to the allottees nominated by the 
Government. It was clarified that the percentage would be 
H 
8 
NARGIS JAL HARADHVALA v. STATE OF 
9 
MAHARASHTRA 
prescribed by the Government as per the extent of the 
A 
land to be exempted. Subsequent corrigendum was 
issued by, the Government on 23.11.1990 wherein the 
extent of 30% was agreed as 20% of the floor space of 
the first 2,000 sq.mt. of the net permissible FSI of the land 
exempted under the order and 30% of the 2364.37 sq. mt. 
balance permissible area. However, there is no 
authenticity in the copy of the circular dated 22.10.1992 
produced by the appellant that the 20% quota fixed by 
B 
the corrigendum was further reduced to 10% of the floor 
space. Further, admittedly, the appellant executed an c 
indemnity bond on 12.10.1998 wherein it was agreed that 
the balance built up area would be surrendered to the 
Government within a period of five years i.e. up to 2003. 
The appellant is bound to surrender to the Government 
a total 20% of the permissible floor space in the light of 
0 
the corrigendum dated 23.11.1990 issued by the 
Government. Till date, the appellant has given only seven 
flats to the allottees nominated by the Government. 
Calculating 20% of the floor space, the appellant is 
directed to sell 11 more flats to the persons that may be 
nominated by the Government. The order passed by the 
High Court is set aside. [Para 11, 12] [14-C-H; 15-A, B] 
E 
Shantistar Builders vs. N.K. Toitame (1990) 1 SCC 520 
- referred to. 
Case Law Reference : 
(1990) 1 sec 520 
Referred to 
Para 3 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 
5989 of 2007 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.08.2007 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1394 
of 2007. 
F 
G 
C. A. Sundaram, Gopal Jain, Abhishek Roy, Devina 
H 
10 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS . (2015] 1 S.C.R. 
A Sehgal, Khushboo Bari, Nandini Gore, Manik Karanjawala for 
the Appellant. 
B 
Rahul Chitnis, Aniruddha P. Mayee, Charudatta 
Mahindrakar, A. Selvin Raja for the Respondents. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M.Y. EQBAL, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is 
directed against judgment and order dated 16.8.2007 of the 
High Court of Judicature at Bombay whereby Division Bench 
c of the High Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the 
appellant challenging orders issued by the respondents. 
2. The factual matrix of the oase is that the appellant 
applied for an exemption under Section 20 of the Urban Land 
(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (in short, 'the Act') in respect 
D of land bearing CTS No.1310 of village Versova in Andheri 
Taluka of Mumbai Suburban District, measuring 5892.5 sq.mt. 
(in short, "suit property"), out of which exemption in respect of 
3491.5 sq.mt. was granted by Respondent No.1 in August, 
1987. The balance 2401 sq.mt. did not need exemption being 
E reseNed for road and garden and was duly handed over to the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.