Navin Sinha JUDGMENT
Navin Sinha, J.
1. The Appellant is aggrieved by the order of the High Court affirming the demand dated 15.10.2005 by Respondent No. 1 for Rs. 51,97,196/- plus interest, penalty and recovery expenses as arrears of land revenue. The demand was raised consequent to the failure of the Appellant to handover seven tenements to government nominees as required under the conditions of exemption granted Under Sections 20 and 21 of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act") (since repealed in 1999). The Additional Commissioner, Konkan Division, Mumbai as the appellate authority affirmed the same by his order dated 12.07.2006.
2. Shri Amar Dave, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that exemption was granted Under Section 20 of the Act on 02.03.1988 for raising construction over two plots being CTS No. 261 and CTS No. 245. In lieu thereof the Appellant was required to surrender 20 per cent of the constructed area to government nominees. The competent authority despite being aware that construction had been raised on only one plot, never withdrew the exemption. On the contrary, it consciously issued a "No Objection Certificate" acknowledging that seven tenements had been handed over. It was next submitted that if there had been any breach of the conditions of exemption, the Act empowered the authorities to withdraw the exemption with all its attendant consequences. Our attention was invited to provisions of Sections 20 and 21 of the Act.
3. It was next submitted that Respondent No. 1 did not have any statutory authority under the Act to levy the impugned demand much less recover it as arrears of land revenue. Relying upon Section 38(4) of the Act, Shri Dave submitted that the Appellant could statutorily impose a punishment of fine, order imprisonment or impose both. The demand being dehors the provisions of the Act must be struck down. Reliance was placed on Naraindas Indurkhya v. The State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors. 
MANU/SC/0066/1974 : (1974) 4 SCC 788.
4. Contending that the "No Objection Certificate" dated 08.06.1993 was post 30.01.1990 judgment of this Court in M/s. Shantistar Builders v. Narayan Khimalal Totame and Ors. MANU/SC/0115/1990 : (1990) 1 SCC 520, the authorities at best could have enforced a 5% limit for........