SHRIDHAR C. SHETTY (DECEASED) THR. LRS. versus THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY AND ORS.

Citation: [2020] 6 S.C.R. 1003 · Decided: 02-09-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.F. NARIMAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1002
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
SHRIDHAR C. SHETTY (DECEASED) THR. LRS.
v.
THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR AND COMPETENT
AUTHORITY AND ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 2019 of 2010)
SEPTEMBER 02, 2020
[R. F. NARIMAN AND NAVIN SINHA, JJ.]
Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976:
ss. 2(d), 20, 21 and 38(4) – Failure of landowner to handover
seven tenements to Government nominees as required under the
conditions of exemption granted u/ss. 20 and 21 – Demand of market
value of seven tenements plus interest, penalty and recovery expenses
as arrears of land revenue – Demand affirmed by appellate authority
as well as High Court – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: There has
been breach by the land-owner in terms of the exemption – The
Authority also did not take any action to withdraw the exemption in
view of the breach – The tenements, since have been sold, no
direction can be issued to hand-over seven more tenements from the
construction – The demand for the market value of the seven
tenements, fall outside the purview of the Act, and hence cannot be
construed as money due to the Government so as to vest in it the
nature of arrears of land revenue recoverable u/s. 265 of
Maharashtra Land Revenue Code, 1966 – The competent Authority
being the creature of statute u/s. 2(d) cannot act beyond its statutory
jurisdiction and shall remain circumscribed by the provisions of the
Act – The demand being de hors the provisions of the Act and being
beyond statutory powers of the Competent Authority is Arbitrary
and hence unsustainable.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Sections 20 and 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling
and Regulation) Act, 1976 contain provisions that if the
Government or the competent authority, as the case may be is
satisfied that any of the conditions subject to which exemption
was granted, is not complied with, it shall be competent for it to
withdraw the order of exemption or to declare such land to be
[2020] 6 S.C.R. 1002
1002
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1003
excess land under Section 21 of the Act with its attendant
consequences as provided under the Act. [Para 9][1009-F-G]
S. Vasudeva v. State of Karnataka and Ors. (1993) 3
SCC 467 : [1993] 2 SCR 715 – relied on.
1.2 In the nature of the composite exemption granted, the
failure of the authorities to cancel or withdraw the exemption for
breach by transfer of development rights to respondent Nos. 2
to 4 or construction on one plot only and the consequent claim
based on the “No Objection Certificate” dated 08.06.1993 issued
for purposes of a water connection, is of no avail to the appellant
as the certificate expressly recites that so far only seven
tenements had been handed over meaning thereby that the further
seven tenements remained to be handed over. The certificate
was therefore conditional in nature and not absolute. [Para
13][1012-E-F]
1.3 Subsequent to the grant of exemption, the appellant
entered into a development agreement with respondent Nos. 2
to 4 as early as on 29.08.1988 describing himself as the owner
and also handed over the title deeds of the property. But the
appellant informed the authorities of this fact very belatedly on
15.04.2005. The building plan was approved in the name of the
appellant on 19.10.1988. The permission to commence
construction was issued in his name on 28.02.1989. He alone
had applied for extension of the scheme leading to issuance of
the corrigendum dated 29.12.1988. The appellate authority in
his order dated 12.07.2006 has adequately noticed that it was the
appellant who was the de facto owner of the plot, had submitted
the application for exemption, given an undertaking on stamped
paper dated 16.05.2005 to fulfil the conditions of the exemption
by providing the additional seven tenements or market value in
respect thereof. The question of any estoppel, therefore, does
not arise. Therefore, any dispute between the appellant and
respondents Nos. 2 to 4 under the development agreement
between them falls in the realm of a private dispute and does not
detract from the exclusive liability of the appellant under the order
of exemption. [Para 14][1012-H; 1013-A-C]
SHRIDHAR C. SHETTY (DECEASED) THR. LRS. v. ADDL. COLLECTOR
AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1004
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 6 S.C.R.
1.4 There is thus no dispute with regard to the fact that
there had been a breach by the appellant in terms of the
exemption. The authority under the Act also did not take any
steps to withdraw the exemption because of such

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