The interpretation and application of DC Rules, 1967, Coastal Regulation Zone Notification, and the Planning Authority's discretion under Rule 10(2) for granting additional FSI were central to the judgment.

J. M. PANCHAL, J.

( 1 ) LEAVE granted.

( 2 ) THE instant appeal is directed against judgment dated August 13, 2007 rendered by the Division Bench of High court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No. 1627/2007 by which the prayers made by the appellants, (1) to declare that application submitted by them on December 26, 2005 to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to give permission to develop land bearing CTS No. 2193 (P) of bhuleshwar Division at Dr. Babasaheb Jaykar Marg stands granted in view of Section 45 (5) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, (2) in the alternative to direct the respondents to grant forthwith their application for permission to develop land referred to above with additional fsi of 3. 73 times the FSI permissible under Rule 10 (2) of DC rules, 1967, and, (3) to direct the respondents to allow them to proceed with the development of their plot mentioned above for construction of luxury hotel by utilization of additional FSI of 3. 73 times the FSI permissible on the said plot as per DC rules, 1967, are refused.

( 3 ) THE appellants No. 1 and 2 are the Companies incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. The petitioner No. 2 holds/owns a plot of land bearing CTS No. 2193 (P) of Bhuleshwar Division at Dr. Babasaheb Jaykar marg, Thakurdwar. The plot admeasures approximately 8983 square meters. The respondent No. 1 is the Municipal corporation for Greater Mumbai, and the Planning Authority under the provisions of Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888 as well as Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 ( 'the M. R. T. P. Act ', for short ). The appellant No. 1, obtained requisite rights in respect of plot referred to above. The plot was reserved for play ground of Municipal Primary school and Secondary School as well as for D. P. Road. The appellant No. 1 caused a purchase notice to be served to the municipal Authorities on June 16, 2005. The Municipal corporation found that the land was encumbered with residential as well as commercial structures and the cost of purchase would be roughly about Rs. 13. 6 crores which was very high. The Municipal Corporation, therefore, decided not to purchase the said plot of land, as a result of which the reservations on the plot lapsed on December 16, 2005 under the relevant provisions of the M. R. T. P. Act. The appellants thereupon desired to develop the plot for construction of a luxury hotel. It may be mentioned that in exercise of rule-making power conferred by the M. R. T. P. Act, the State government had earlier framed Development Control Rules, 1967. According to the appellants, the Ministry of environment and Forests issued Notification I on February 19, 1991 under Section 3 (1) and 3 (2) (v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and Rule 5 (3) (d) of the Environment (Protection) Rules, 1986 declaring coastal stretches as Coastal regulation Zone (CRZ) and regulating activities in the CRZ, as result of which the plot belonging to them falls within CRZ II. What is claimed by the appellants is that the buildings permitted in CRZ II on the landward side of the existing and proposed road would be subject to the existing local Town planning Regulations and therefore, the luxury hotel will have to be constructed as per D. C. Rules of 1967 which were existing local Town Planning Regulations. The appellant, therefore, submitted the plans to develop the land in question by constructing a luxury hotel in terms of Rules of 1967 on december 26, 2005. The case of the appellants is that they are entitled to additional FSI of 3. 73 times the FSI in addition to 1. 33 FSI allowable on the said plot as per the provisions of rule 10 (2) of DC Rules, 1967. The appellants did not receive any communication from the Municipal Authorities about their application by which permission to develop the plot was sought. On December 31, 2005 the Municipal Corporation submitted a proposal to the Principal Secretary, Urban development