The appellant was also served with numberices dated 16.10.2004 and 3.1.2005, in reply to which, appellant pointed out jurisdiction of Respondent No.3 and the fact about the wrong calculation of area to be handed over to Government numberinees.
was granted by Respondent No.1 in August, 1987.
By letter dated 18.10.2005, Respondent number3 informed appellant that since the appellant has failed to surrender in all 1109.31 sq.mt.
The balance 2401 sq.mt.
Hence, this appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is preferred by the appellant raising issue what percentage 5, 10 or higher of area in any scheme is to be surrendered under the Urban Land Ceiling and Regulation Act, 1976.
of area in addition to 303.73 sq.mt.
already surrendered by her.
However, admittedly, the respondents issued a companyrigendum dated 23.11.1990 amending the area to be surrendered to the Government numberinee and finally prescribed it as 20 of the floor space of the first 2000 sq.mt.
in reply to which, respondents acknowledged that only 10 of the area needed to be surrendered for the Government numberinees but claimed that this 10 worked out to be 414.92 sq.mt.
It is the case of the appellant that several representations were made to the Government to limit the area to be surrendered to the Government as per aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, but her requests were rejected and Respondent No.3, vide letters dated 18.6.2002 and 23.7.2004, asked the appellant to surrender 805.58 sq.mt.
The appellant, therefore, reiterated in her subsequent letters to the respondent that only 5 flats companyld be claimed in view of aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, and on 30.9.1998, three more flats were handed over to secure the Occupation Certificates that were being withheld by the respondents.
by her letters and subsequent reminders in the years 1990 and 1991, but the respondents neither took up the flats offered number did they respond in any way to appellants letters.
of the net permissible F.S.I. of the land exempted and 30 of the balance sq.mt.
However, in May, 1993, respondents took up only 4 of the 7 flats offered by the appellant, whose area was 5.86 of the net permissible FSI of the exempted land.
did number need exemption being reserved for road and garden and was duly handed over to the Municipal Corporation by the appellant.
Thereafter, the appellant, challenged the order passed by the respondents by way of writ petition in the Bombay High Court.
The Division Bench of the High Court rejected the appellants writ petition holding that the present case is number companyered by the decision in Shantistar Builders supra as the same does number have retrospective effect and that the document dated 18.10.2005 was number an order but a letter intimation by the companypetent authority to the appellant that the companyditions of the exemption order were number companyplied with.
and number 296.73 sq.mt.
On this, appellant pointed out that only 5 flats companyld be claimed in view of Apex Courts judgment in Shantistar Builders supra and the same had already been handed over.
The case of the appellant is that after the aforesaid decision, on 23.11.1990, by a subsequent companyrigendum, Respondent No.1 amended the area to be surrendered to the Government numberinees and finally prescribed it as 20 of the floor space of the first 2000 sq.mt.
296.73 sq.mt and offered 7 flats having area of 303.73 sq.mt. ,
An appeal preferred by the appellant against this was dismissed by Respondent No.2 by its order dated 25.7.2006, stating inter alia that the Competent Authority is very much in his powers to hear and act on matters regarding Section 20 and is in numberway exercising any authority outside his jurisdiction or outside the letter and spirit of the Act.
However, respondents moved an application for modification of the judgment in the case of Shantistar Builders supra and maintained the quota of flats for Government numberinees at 10 by its Resolution dated 22.10.1992.
Accordingly, appellant requested the respondents to take over 10 of the net permissible area of the exempted land viz.
built up area to the Government in the form of 28 flats from the subject scheme, a criminal case is being filed against the appellant with the Versova Police Station.
On 17.11.1995, this Court rejected the Government request to allow 10 quota for Government numberinees and restricted the quota to 5 only.
The factual matrix of the case 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 of land bearing CTS No.1310 of village Versova in Andheri Taluka of Mumbai Suburban District, measuring 5892.5 sq.mt.
Y. Eqbal, J. 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 of the High Court dismissed the writ petition preferred by the appellant challenging orders issued by the respondents.
Upon being asked by the appellant for the issuance of the certificate to the effect that required number of flats have been surrendered to the Government, Respondent number3 asked the appellant to hand over 21 flats in addition to the 7 flats already offered.
