ORAL JUDGMENT S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. :- Heard. 2. Petitioners seeks writ of mandamus for direction to the respondents only 5% tenements for allotment to the Government nominees in No. 248 of the Petitioners and further declaration quashing the Government nominees over and above 5%, in view of the the Apex Court delivered in the matter of Mis Shantistar Builders V.I. Khimalal Totame and others reported in AIR 1990 SC 630 . 3. The petitioner No. 1 was the owner of the properties bearing various bers situate at Lohegaon, Haveli, Pune. On return being filed under 1) of the Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976, (hereinafter as "the said Act") in respect of the properties held by him, he was ItO be the excess holder under section 8(4) of the said Act in respect of metres of land. In accordance with the Government Resolution dated the petitioner No. 1 applied for exemption of the said property from sions of the said Act and for permission to construct tenements, which ted while sanctioning Scheme bearing No. 248, whereby the petitioner as permitted to construct 50 tenements of 29.96 sq. metres and 20 of 43.30 sq. metres, out of which 10% tenements were required to be for Government nominees in terms of the said Scheme drawn under 20 and 21 thereof. Accordingly, the agreement was entered into by the No. 1 with the developer in the year 1958 and the project was sometime in the year 1992-1994. On completion of the Project, the r No.1 called upon the Government to furnish details of the nominees to e flats were to be allotted so that the petitioner No.1 could enter into the agreement with them, simultaneously the petitioner No.1 requested for of the reservation to 5% from 10% in view of the decision of Apex Mis ShalUistars case (supra). Since the said request was not considered, rs filed the present petition. 4. It is the defence of the respondents that the reservation of 10% of the Government nominees was after thorough correspondence between ies and for an Agreement to that effect by the petitioners. The entire was sanctioned and the exemption was granted subject to the said being accepted by the Petitioners. 5. 4. It is the defence of the respondents that the reservation of 10% of the Government nominees was after thorough correspondence between ies and for an Agreement to that effect by the petitioners. The entire was sanctioned and the exemption was granted subject to the said being accepted by the Petitioners. 5. It is their further case that the decision of the Apex Court in Mis tars case (supra) vas delivered on 31-1-1990 and it would apply prospectively, while the scheme in question was approved in the year 1 therefore, the decision will have no application to the said Scheme. 6. The learned Advocate for the petitioners also submitted that th Scheme was floated in the year 1986, it was completed much after the d decision by Apex Court in Mis Shantistars case and there~ implementation of the Scheme being after the decision of the Apex same would apply to the case in hand. 7. Undoubtedly the decision in Mis Shantistars case was deliver 1-1990. In the said decision, the Apex Court had held thus: "Government nominees contemplated under the Code must weaker sections of the society and shall also be subjected tot one family - one flat. The number of Government nominees should exceed 5% of the total accommodation available in any scheme. 8. The law on the point that any declaration about the law by judicial pronouncement would apply prospectively unless there are directions to the contrary issued by the Apex Court in the decision in t is well settled. Undoubtedly there are no such directions for retr applicability of the said guide-line laid down by the Apex Court relati limitation for Government reservation in favour of Government nomi scheme in the said decision. Being so, the decision would apply prospe rightly submitted on behalf of the respondents. 9. In the case in hand it is not in dispute that the scheme was a relation to the land which was declared to be in excess of the cei permissible for the Petitioners family. The scheme was approved purs request by the petitioner himself for construction of tenement in su land. The Scheme was approved subject to certain conditions w accepted by the petitioners without any reservation. The scheme was approved purs request by the petitioner himself for construction of tenement in su land. The Scheme was approved subject to certain conditions w accepted by the petitioners without any reservation. The construction scheme had commenced knowing well that 10% of the tenements required to be reserved for allotment in favour of government nomine because such construction was completed after 990 that would not at the benefit to the petitioner that the reservation could not exceed 5%. decision of the Apex Court laying down the guide-lines regarding res the extent of 5% of the total accommodation being made ava government nominees in any scheme, specifically holds that Government nominees should not exceed 5%. ". It does not lay down that under n already approved, the reservation made in favour of the government should not be allowed to exceed 5% of the total accommodation. 10. The said decision clearly lays down that the guide-lines woul the Schemes which were to be approved after 31-1-1990. 11. Besides, in the case in hand, the restriction to the extent of 1 total tenements in favour of government allottees was accepted by the without any reservation and knowing well the said requirement, the co of the buildings was carried out. It is also a matter of record that i after the sanction of the scheme, the petitioner entered into an agre development with the petitioner No.2 who is a developer. It is not the petitioner that consequent to the decision of the Apex Court movation the agreement between the petitioner No. I and petitioner No.2 in to the construction activities. 2. In the background of all these facts, therefore it is too late for the ers to contend that merely on the basis of the decision in Mis Shantistars at the reservation could not be allowed to exceed even in relation to the which was approved years prior to the said decision. 3. In the result, therefore, we do not find any substance in the grievance to be made by the petitioners and hence the petition is dismissed. Rule is ged with no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.