A ULC Litigation Watch: The Rulings That Decide Who Pays and Who Is Paid Back

Anyone dealing with a ULC premium today is standing on a body of case law that is still being built. This part sets out the rulings worth tracking — the ones that decide who owes a premium, and who can get one back. The settled principle. The anchor is Porbanderwalla v. State of Maharashtra (WP 4849/2022, 30 March 2023): premium under the 2019 GR attaches only to surplus vacant land, not retainable land. Modern Paints v. State (WP(L) 20916/2023) reiterated this in the strongest terms — the "entire land" in the 2019 and 2021 GRs means the whole surplus vacant land, not the whole holding. The refund door. Huhtamaki India Limited (WP 2789/2024, 15 July 2024) secured a refund of excess premium. In Riyaz Ismail Machhiwala & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra (WP 1125/2024, 7 August 2024; Justices B.P. Colabawalla and Firdosh P. Pooniwalla; 2024:BHC-OS:12088-DB), petitioners had paid premium on their entire 4,163 sq. mtrs Malad plot though only 2,227.45 sq. mtrs was exempted surplus land. The Court held the Government cannot hold on to money it had no authority to charge, protest or no protest, and ordered a refund of ₹2,66,75,750 within eight weeks — with 10% simple interest per annum if delayed. Where the door shuts. The frontier has a hard edge, and Sudarshan Chemical Industries v. State (WP 12014/2024) marks it. There, a refund was refused: the petitioner had taken the benefit of the GR and then sold the land, and was held estopped from claiming back the premium. The court treated Porbanderwalla as prospective — a principle for live demands, not a lever to unsettle concluded transactions. What remains to be watched: whether the Supreme Court settles the underlying MCHI appeal, and whether the State keeps issuing whole-land demands despite a settled principle.

Porbanderwalla (WP ४८४९/२०२२, ३० मार्च २०२३) — premium फक्त अतिरिक्त मोकळ्या जमिनीवर, राखीव जमिनीवर नव्हे. Machhiwala (WP ११२५/२०२४, ७ ऑगस्ट २०२४) प्रकरणात ४,१६३ चौ.मी. मालाड भूखंडापैकी फक्त २,२२७.४५ चौ.मी. अतिरिक्त जमीन असूनही संपूर्ण जमिनीवर अधिमूल्य आकारले गेले होते; न्यायालयाने २,६६,७५,७५० रुपये परताव्याचा आदेश दिला. Sudarshan Chemical (WP १२०१४/२०२४) मध्ये मात्र परतावा नाकारला — याचिकाकर्त्याने GR चा लाभ घेऊन जमीन आधीच विकली होती, त्यामुळे विबंध लागू झाला.