IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2017

Maharashtra Chamber of Housing Industry
through Chief Manager Finance Mr. Chandra
Prakash Goyal & Ors. ...Appellants

Versus

The State of Maharashtra

through Secretary
Urban Development Department
& Ors. ...Respondents

O R D E R

1. In this civil appeal, Maharashtra Chamber of Housing

Industry and others have questioned the judgment and order

dated 3.9.2014 by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay

passed by the Full Bench in W.P.No.9872 of 2010. The issue

before the Full Bench was with regard to interpretation of

Section 3(1)(b) of the Urban Land (Ceiling & Regulation)

Repeal Act, 1999.

2. When the interlocutory applications are listed for

hearing learned senior counsel on both the sides made a

request to dispose of the main appeal itself in view of the

developments which have taken place during the pendency of

Signature Not Verified

Digitally signed by
this appeal.
SANJAY KUMAR
Date: 2019.07.08
16:52:05 IST
Reason:

3. The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976

1
(hereinafter referred to as the Principal Act) was enacted by

the Parliament in the year 1976 with the object of prevention

of concentration of urban properties in the hands of a few

persons and to ensure equitable distribution/utilization of

urban vacant lands. The respondent-State of Maharashtra

enforced the said Act in nine agglomerations of the State. The

Principal Act provided for a ceiling on the holding of vacant

lands in urban agglomerations. When the Principal Act was

enforced, the possession of surplus vacant lands was taken by

the concerned authority by following the procedure. In 1986,

the State Government issued a circular dated 22 nd August, 1986

and decided to exempt certain surplus vacant lands from the

provisions of Chapter III of the said Act and adopted the

practice of granting exemptions under Section 20 of the Act,

where the vacant lands were to be utilized for specified

purposes. Under specified guidelines, the exemptions under

Section 20 were granted for various purposes and the exemption

holder was obliged to implement the terms and conditions of

the exemption order.

4. The Principal Act came to be repealed by the Urban Land

(Ceiling & Regulations) Repeal Act, 1999. The repealing Act,

however, enabled the different State Legislatures to adopt and

implement the repeal from different dates. The Maharashtra

State Legislature adopted the Repeal Act with effect from 28 th

2
November, 2007. Section 3 of the Repeal Act provided that the

repeal of the Principal Act shall not affect the vacant lands

which had already been vested under Section 10(3) of the

Principal Act, of which possession had been taken over by the

State Government or by the Competent Authority, before coming

into force of the Repeal Act. It also provided that the

repeal of the Principal Act shall not affect the validity of

any order granting the exemption under sub-section (1) of

Section 20 or any action taken thereunder, notwithstanding any

judgment of any court to the contrary.

5. The provisions of the Repeal Act were the subject matter

of challenge in various writ petitions before the Bombay High

Court and same resulted in conflicting judgments. Ultimately,

the position of law was clarified by the High Court of

Judicature at Bombay by Full Bench decision, vide impugned

judgment dated 23rd June, 2014. In the aforesaid

judgment, the Full Bench has opined that the validity of

exemption order granted under the Principal Act is saved in

every regard, so as to hold the same valid for all the

purposes. The Full Bench has also opined that Section 3(1)(b)

of the Repeal Act does not expressly bar or take away the

rights and liabilities under the exemption order. Thus it is

held that repeal of the Principal Act, would not affect the

rights, privileges, obligation or liability, acquired,

3
accrued, or incurred under the Principal Act qua Section 20(1)

of the exemption order.

6. During the pendency of this appeal, it appears, a calling

attention was raised before the State, regarding the multi-

fold difficulties being faced by the exemption holders. In

view of the same the State of Maharashtra has constituted a

Committee vide Government Resolution dated 16.6.2017 under the

Chairmanship of Hon’ble Shri B.N. Srikrishna, retired Judge of

this Court. The said resolution formulated the terms of

reference to the said Committee. The following were the terms

of reference to the Committee:

(a) In the background of pending appeal before this

Hon’ble Court, to explore the possibility of
imposing one time premium for completion of schemes
under Section 20 of the Principal Act.

(b) To consider the Government Resolution dated

November 23, 2007 and suggest the measures to be
taken with regard to the lands exempted from ULC Act
for agricultural and industrial purposes.

(c) To suggest the measures to be taken for

redevelopment of the schemes under Section 20
already constructed.

7. The above said Committee headed by Hon’ble Justice B.N.

Srikrishna, after issuing public notice and by considering

responses discussed the modalities of taking forward the

situation in a manner consistent with the public benefit to be

achieved and in the light of the present ground realities,

submitted its report on 9th August, 2018. In the Report the

4
Committee has opined that the objective of the Principal Act

could be achieved by granting permission for development in

the exempted lands upon charging appropriate premium to

develop which should be utilized for meeting with the

objective of the Principal Act. A copy of the Report is

placed on record.

8. Learned senior counsel Mr.Shekhar Naphade for the

appellants has submitted that the Report of the Committee was

placed before the Cabinet of the Maharashtra State and the

Cabinet has already approved the said Report but further steps

are not being taken because of the pendency of the appeal

before this Court. Learned counsel has made a request to

dispose of the matter in view of the recommendations made by

the Committee constituted by the State Government. It is

submitted that in view of the development which has taken

place during the pendency of the appeal, the appellants are

not pressing for adjudication of the question of law which

arises for consideration in the appeal filed by the

appellants.

9. Learned Additional Solicitor General Sri Atmaram

Nadkarni, appearing for the respondent- State of Maharashtra

has submitted that they are prepared to implement the

recommendations made, in the Report dated 9th August, 2018, by

the committee headed by Hon’ble Justice B.N. Srikrishna.

5
Learned counsel also made a request to dispose of the matter

by permitting the State of Maharashtra to prepare a scheme for

implementation of recommendations made in the Report of the

Committee.

10. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsel on

both sides we deem it appropriate to dispose of this appeal,

permitting the respondent-State to implement the

recommendations made in the Report dated 9th August, 2018.

Every effort should be made to resolve the present situation

of deadlock, at the earliest. We make it clear that if any of

the categories of exemption is not covered in the Report

referred to, it is open to such exemption holders to make

representation to the Government and we hope and trust that if

such representations are made, the same will be considered

keeping in mind the recommendations made in the Report dated

9th August, 2018. The civil appeal is disposed of with the

directions and observations as indicated above, with no orders

as to cost. All other pending interlocutory applications

stand disposed of.

...................J.
[S. Abdul Nazeer]

.................J.
[R. Subhash Reddy]

New Delhi,
02 July , 2019.

6
 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

I.A. No. 19706 of 2019

AND
I.A No. 92357 of 2019 and I.A. No. 36275 of 2017

IN
Civil Appeal No(s). 558/2017

MAHARASHTRA CHAMBER OF HOUSING INDUSTRY

THROUGH CHIEF MANAGER FINANCE MR. CHANDRA
PRAKASH GOYAL & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH

SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT & ORS. Respondent(s)

O R D E R

I.A. No. 19706 of 2019

Application for directions is rejected.

Appeal is disposed of, vide separate order.

I.A No. 92357 of 2019 and I.A. No. 36275 of 2017

Taken on Board.

Learned counsel seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the

applications.

Applications are dismissed as withdrawn by granting a liberty

to pursue any other remedy available in law including

representation to the Government.

…………………………………………….J.
[S. ABDUL NAZEER]

…………………………………………….J.
[R. SUBHASH REDDY]

New Delhi.
July 2, 2019.

7
 ITEM NO.2 COURT NO.15 SECTION III

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Civil Appeal No(s). 558/2017

MAHARASHTRA CHAMBER OF HOUSING INDUSTRY

THROUGH CHIEF MANAGER FINANCE MR. CHANDRA
PRAKASH GOYAL & ORS. Appellant(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH

SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT
DEPARTMENT & ORS. Respondent(s)

(IA No. 19706/2019 - CLARIFICATION/DIRECTION

IA No. 15916/2019 - PERMISSION TO FILE ADDITIONAL
DOCUMENTS/FACTS/ANNEXURES)

Date : 02-07-2019 This Matter was called on for hearing today.

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. ABDUL NAZEER

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY

For Appellant(s) Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Anirudh Joshi, Adv.
Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv.
Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv.
Mr. Shubham Kulshrestha, Adv.
Mr. Ajitesh Soni, Adv.
Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, ASG

Mr. Sanjay Singhvi, Sr. Adv.
Mr. V. Giri, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Suhasim Sen, Adv.
Mr. Salvador Santosh Rebello, Adv.
Mr. Sriram Srinivasan, Adv.
Mr. Raj Bahadur, AOR
Mr. Aniruddha P. Mayee, AOR
Mr. Pukhrambam Ramesh Kumar, AOR
Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR
Ms. Shally Bhasin, Adv.
Mr. Vaibhav Niti, Adv.
Ms. Deepa M. Kulkarni, Adv.
Mr. Anoop K., Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following

O R D E R

8
 We have heard learned counsel for both the parties.

I.A. No. 19706 of 2019

Application for directions is rejected.

Appeal is disposed of, vide separate order.

I.A No. 92357 of 2019 and I.A. No. 36275 of 2017

Taken on Board.

Learned counsel seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the

applications.

Applications are dismissed as withdrawn by granting a liberty

to pursue any other remedy available in law including

representation to the Government.

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 558 OF 2017

Appeal is disposed of in terms of the signed order.

Pending application, if any, stands disposed of.

(POOJA CHOPRA) (RAJINDER KAUR)

COURT MASTER BRANCH OFFICER
(Two signed orders are placed on the file)