SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
V. Ramasubramanian, Pankaj Mithal, JJ.
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Through Its Constituted Attorney & Anr. – Appellant
Versus
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9021 of 2014
Decided On : 08-05-2023
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – Section 126 – Acquisition of land for public purpose – Rejection of claim for Additional Transferable Development Rights (TDR) – During period from 1996 to 2009, right to claim additional TDR was in suspended animation – Appellants had to necessarily wait till cloud over their right got cleared – To say that wait of appellants during period of this cloudy weather, tantamount to abandonment, is clearly unjustified and unacceptable – Appellants surrendered their land and accepted TDR in lieu of compensation – Owner of land is under obligation to develop or construct amenity on surrendered land at his cost and Planning Authority has to reciprocate the same by granting Additional FSI or Additional TDR – No amenity was developed as required by law, by appellant No.1, to be entitled to Additional TDR – High Court was right in recording a finding of fact that appellants did not develop amenity so as to be entitled to additional TDR – Finding of fact made by High Court in this regard upheld. (Paras 15, 18, 25, 27, 44 and 47)
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
V. Ramasubramanian, J.
1. Aggrieved by the dismissal of their claim by the Bombay High Court, for the grant of Development Rights Certificate, 1[For short “DRC”], for a total area of 31,057.30 sq.metres, for the construction and development of the amenity namely “Recreation Ground”, the writ petitioner before the Bombay High Court has come up with this appeal.
2. We have heard Shri P. Chidambaram, learned senior counsel for the appellants and Shri Atmaram N.S. Nadkarni, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents.
3. The background facts leading to the appeal on hand are as follows:-
(i) The second Development Plan (DP 1991) for Greater Mumbai was prepared for the period 1981-2001 and the same was sanctioned in parts between 1991 and 1994. In the said DP, the plots of land bearing CTS No.2B (part) falling in N-Ward & CTS Nos. 2B (part) and 3B falling in S-Ward were reserved for the purpose of “Recreation Ground”;
(ii) The aforesaid plot of land was admittedly owned by appellant No.1 herein. Appellant No.2 herein is the duly constituted attorney of appellant No.1 in respect of the said property;
(iii) Under Maharashtra Act 10 of 1994, clauses (a), (b) and (c) were inserted under sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (hereinafter called “the Act”), by way of substitution. These clauses were inserted with effect from 25.03.1991;
(iv) Section 126 (1) conferred power upon the Planning Authority/Development Authority, to acquire any land required or reserved for any of the public purposes specified in any plan or scheme, after the publication of a Draft Regional Plan, 2[For short “DRP”,] or a DP or Town Planning Scheme, 3[For short “TPS”]. The newly inserted clauses (a), (b) and (c) in sub-section (1) provided 3 different methods of such acquisition. One method of acquisition was by way of an agreement upon payment of an agreed amount. The second method of acquisition was by granting, in lieu of any compensation, Floor Space Index, 4[For short “FSI”], or Transferable Development Rights,5[For short “TDR”], against the area of land surrendered free of cost and also further additional FSI or TDR against the development or construction of the amenity on the surrendered land. The third method of acquisition was through the initiation of proceedings under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013;
(v) Vide letter dated 14.07.1994, appellant No.1 through their Architects, “Worthy Enterprises” made an application for surrendering land of the extent of 31,057.58 sq.metres (two plots) which was reserved under the DP for the purpose of “Recreation Ground”. An application for the grant of DRC was enclosed to the said letter;
(vi) It is relevant to mention at this stage that the TDR to be granted in lieu of compensation for acquisition of land, as contemplated in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 126 comprised of two components namely, (i) TDR equal to the area of land surrendered; and (ii) additional TDR against the development or construction of the amenity on the surrendered land at the cost of the owner;
(vii) Vide another letter dated 08.10.1994, the Architect of appellant No.1 wrote a letter to the Municipal Corporation, expressing their intention to develop the land sought to be surrendered;
(viii) By another letter dated 24.11.1994, the Architect of appellant No.1 forwarded to the Superintendent of Gardens, a set of drawings for the development of the land, after incorporating the suggestions made by the Department pursuant to the visit made by the Deputy Superintendent of Gardens;
(ix) Vide letter dated 03.12.1994 the Superintendent of Gardens forwarded to the Assistant Engineer, the appellants’ proposal;
(x) By a letter of intent dated 05.04.1995, issued by the Chief Engineer (Development Plan), appel
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. State of Maharashtra and Others
Owner of land is under obligation to develop or construct amenity on surrendered land at his cost and Planning Authority has to reciprocate the same by granting Additional FSI or Additional TDR.
The right to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for constructed amenities accrues at the time of land surrender, and amendments to regulations do not apply retrospectively, ensuring compensation r....
Entitlement to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) arises only upon land surrender, not application submission, as per the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act.
The owner of land reserved for public purposes is entitled to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) if no compensation has been awarded and possession has not been taken by the planning authority, de....
Town Planning – Cancellation of Transferable Development Rights Certificate long after surrender of land is not sustainable.
Reservation of land under the MRTP Act lapses if the land is not acquired within ten years from the date of publication of the final Development Plan and no declaration under Section 19 of the Act of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the doctrine of promissory estoppel and the constitutional guarantee of the right to property in the context of transferable dev....
Notice under Section 35(3) IFA for MPFA vesting must be by authorised officer, served on true owner pre- or proximately to appointed day; invalid notice fails strict compliance, preventing land class....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.