BANSAL PROMOTERS AND BUILDERS Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Indian Constitution to seek directions from respondents 1 and 2 to hold that they are entitled only to 5% of the total number of 44 tenements in the scheme which is sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and not 10% of the tenements in the light of the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble supreme Court and also to seek directions for disposal of the First No. B-14 since it has not been taken up by the Government nominees during the last seven years.

(2.) WE have heard Mr. Anturkar, learned Counsel for the petitioner. None appeared for the respondents. However, affidavit in reply has been filed by nayab Tahsildar V. U. Zole from the office of the Additional Collector and the competent authority Pune Urban Agglomeration, Pune, on behalf of respondent No. 2.

(3.) THE petitioner is a promoter and builder. The construction has been made by the petitioner on the property bearing CTS No. 2217 Sub-Plot no. 124 situated at Bopodi, Tal. , Havel Dist. , Pune. Said land belongs to one Smt. Malathi Vinayak Bhide and other person and it has been declared as an excess land under the provisions of the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976. An application was made under the provisions of section 21 (1) of the said Act by the concerned land holder. Scheme No. 552 was framed by the respondents. The office of the Additional Collector and the Competent Authority Agglomeration, Pune, sanctioned the scheme on 30-1-1984. According to the scheme, 10% of the dwelling units shall be reserved for sale at the rate of Rs. 130/- per sq. ft. of plinth area to the allotees as nominated by the Government. Total number of the tenements which were to be constructed on the said property was 44 tenements. Therefore, 10% thereof comes to 4. 4 i. e. round about 4 tenements. Out of the said 4 tenements, 2 were already given to the Government allotees and the said allotees already occupied the said flat and there is no dispute in that regard. The dispute only remains regarding fourth flat, namely, the tenement bearing No. B-14 on the said property. The said property in the said scheme framed by the respondents was described as C-14 instead of B-14. On 19-6-1985, the Housing and the Special Assistant Department, mantralaya, Bombay had made the allotment of the said flat from the government Nominee Quota in favour of a person who was working as district Judge at the relevant time. Said nominee on 1-7-1986 wrote a letter to the Secretary praying for renewal/change of the allotment, therefore, by letter dated 8-11-1989 the respondents informed the said nominee that since he had not taken the possession of the flat for a period of four years, the allotment regarding the aforesaid flat in his favour stood cancelled. In the meantime, on 7-1-1986, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Additional Collector and informed that the correct number of the flat is B-14 and not C-14 as mentioned in the relevant records. Thereafter the allotment was also made of the said flat in favour a person who was sitting M. L. A. at the relevant time. It was made in the year 1994, however, the said M. L. A. also did not make payment nor took the possession of the flat inspite of repeated communications to him by the petitioner. Resultantly, it is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that he has incurred expenditure and though the tenement is ready and though the respondent No. 1 has tried to make the allotment in favour of the nominee, the nominees have not taken the possession and the petitioner's capital is blocked. In the light of these aspects present petitions is filed by the petitioner inter alia submitting that in view of the Supreme Court decision in (M/s. Shantistar Builder v. Narayan Khimlal and others), reported in 1990 (1) S. C. C. 520, it should be held that respondent No. 2 is entitled only to 5% of the total number of 44 tenements in the scheme which is sanctioned in favour of the petitioner and not 10% of the tenements and consequently the present tenement should be handed over to the petitioner for sale of his choice.