SHANTISTAR BUILDERS versus NARAYAN KHIMALAL GOTAME AND ORS. ETC.

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 478 · Decided: 17-11-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA, SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Disposed off
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
SHANTISTAR BUILDERS 
v. 
NARAYAN KHIMALAL GOTAME AND ORS. ETC. 
NOVEMBER 17, 1995 
[K. RAMASWAMY, B.L. HANSARIA AND 
SUJATA V. MANOHAR, JJ.] 
Housing-Weaker sections-Allotment t~Supreme Court-Directions 
to State Govemment for constitution of Committee comprising of Additional 
C District Judge-State Govemment seeking modification of order-Rejection 
of 
This Court in its judgment in Mis. Shantistar Builders v. Narayan 
Khimalal Gotame & Ors., (1990] 1SCC520 directed the State Government 
(i) to constitute a committee for monitoring allotment of the houses to the 
D weaker sections, as per the scheme sanctioned while exempting the urban 
land under section 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation) Act, 1976 
and (ii) that one of the members of the Committee should be Additional 
District Judge to ensure effective implementation of the schemes. The State 
filed an affidavit seeking modification of the order stating that if the 
E Additional District Judge was to supervise the allotment as per the scheme 
sanctioned under section 21 of the Act, it would be inconvenient to the 
appellate authority to consider the scheme under the Act. 
Disposing of the appeal, this Court 
F 
HELD : The entire thinking of the Government is wholly miscon· 
ceived. After the exemption under section 20 or 21 is granted, the Commit· 
tee is required to implement the scheme in terms of the sanction given by 
the Government for allotment of accomodation to weaker sections of the 
people. This Court intended to ensure that the builders would abide by the 
G guidelines laid down by this Court in the light of the judgment in Shantis-
tar Builders-I. The Committee would supervise the allotment of the houses 
to the homeless weaker sections of the people in the light of the guidelines 
laid down therein. The State Governmeet was also directed to recirculate 
the revised schemes in the light of the above judgment. In the circumstan-
ces, the question of the Commissioner sitting in appeal over the working 
H of the Committee does not arise. The Government is directed to comply 
478 
SHANTISTAR BUILDERS v. N.K. GOTAME 
479 
with the directions for the constitution of the Committee within 30 days A 
from the date of receipt of the order. [480-C-E; F] 
Mis Sltantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Gotame & Ors., (19901 
1 sec 520; referred to. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2598 of B 
1989. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 16.12.1988 of the High Court 
of Bombay in Writ Petition No. 4837/87. 
f'..S. Nariman, P.H. Parekh, R.F. Nariman, D.Y. Chandrachud, P.M. C 
Vakil, J.P. Pathak and Ms. Gitanjali Mithrani for the Appellant. 
S.K. Dholakia, Mrs. Indra Jaisingh, A.M. Khanwilkar, A.S. Bhasme, 
M.N. Shroff and M.P. Vashi for the Respondents. 
The Jridgment of the Court was delivered by 
CA. No. 2598 of 1989. 
D 
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 E 
committee for monitoring allotment of the houses to the weaker sections, 
as per the scheme sanctioned while exempting the Urban land under S.21 
F 
of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regularisation Act, 1976 (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 fulfilment 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 G 
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 H 
480 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1995] SUPP. 5 S.C.R. 
A 
modification 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, 
to Additiona
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.