1. Landowners surrendered land for public purposes and constructed amenities under Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act, seeking additional FSI/TDR as per Development Control Regulations. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 783
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
B.V. NAGARATHNA, NONGMEIKAPAM KOTISWAR SINGH, JJ.
Kukreja Construction Company & Others – Appellants
Versus
State Of Maharashtra & Others – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 9702 of 2024 With Civil Appeal No. 9703 of 2024 Civil Appeal No. 9704 of 2024 Civil Appeal No. 9705 of 2024 Civil Appeal No. 9706 of 2024 Civil Appeal No. 9707 of 2024 Civil Appeal No. 9708 of 2024 Civil Appeal No. 9709 of 2024 Civil Appeal No. 9710 of 2024 Civil Appeal No. 9711 of 2024 Civil Appeal No. 9712 of 2024
Decided On : 13-09-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv. M/S. Pratap And Co., AOR Mr. Ans Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pallavi Pratap, Adv. Ms. Prachi Pratap, Adv. Dr. Prashant Pratap, Adv. Mr. Pravin K. Samdani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pravin Samdani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Gopal, Adv. Mr. Raghav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Filji Frederick, Adv. Mr. Chiranjivi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Vasu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Uday Mathur, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Goyal, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Adv. Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Shikhil Suri, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Madhu Suri, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Suri, Adv. Ms. Wamika Chadha, Adv. Ms. Ishita Ahuja, Adv. Mr. Vibhor Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Divya Swami, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Pravin K. Samdani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raghav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Chiranjivi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Vasu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Uday Mathur, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Goyal, AOR Ms. Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Taly, Adv. Mr. Phiroze Merchant, Adv. Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv. Mr. Navneet R., AOR Ms. Anchala C, Adv. Ms. Mallika Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Bagavathy Vennimalai, Adv. Ms. Alankrita Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv.
For the Appellant(s) : Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv. M/S. Pratap And Co., AOR Mr. Ans Nadkarni, Sr. Adv. Ms. Pallavi Pratap, Adv. Ms. Prachi Pratap, Adv. Dr. Prashant Pratap, Adv. Mr. Pravin K. Samdani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Pravin Samdani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Gaurav Gopal, Adv. Mr. Raghav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Filji Frederick, Adv. Mr. Chiranjivi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Vasu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Uday Mathur, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Goyal, AOR Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Rishi Agrawala, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Anshuman Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Divyanshu Srivastava, Adv. Mr. Kaustubh Singh, Adv. Ms. Vidisha Swarup, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Shikhil Suri, Sr. Adv. Mrs. Madhu Suri, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Suri, Adv. Ms. Wamika Chadha, Adv. Ms. Ishita Ahuja, Adv. Mr. Vibhor Choudhary, Adv. Ms. Divya Swami, AOR Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, AOR Mr. Pravin K. Samdani, Sr. Adv. Mr. Raghav Gupta, Adv. Mr. Chiranjivi Sharma, Adv. Ms. Apoorva Kaushik, Adv. Mr. Vasu Gupta, Adv. Mr. Uday Mathur, Adv. Mr. Pranaya Goyal, AOR Ms. Liz Mathew, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mukul Taly, Adv. Mr. Phiroze Merchant, Adv. Ms. Mamta Singh, Adv. Mr. Navneet R., AOR Ms. Anchala C, Adv. Ms. Mallika Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Bagavathy Vennimalai, Adv. Ms. Alankrita Sinha, Adv. Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Ms. Preet S. Phanse, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Asha Gopalan Nair, AOR Ms. Nivedita Nair, Adv.
Important Points
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 rights are upheld.
Subject
Land Law - Development Rights
Act Referred
CONSTITUTION OF INDIA: Art.226, Art.300(a), Art.21
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI: Reg.34, Reg.33, Reg.3(7), Reg.33(1), Reg.34(5), Reg.34(6), Reg.34(7)
MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT: S.126(1)(b), S.2(2)
RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT: S.19
DEVELOPMENT CONTROL REGULATIONS FOR GREATER MUMBAI: Reg.34, Reg.33, Reg.3(7), Reg.33(1), Reg.34(5), Reg.34(6), Reg.34(7)
MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT: S.126(1)(b), S.2(2)
RIGHT TO FAIR COMPENSATION AND TRANSPARENCY IN LAND ACQUISITION, REHABILITATION AND RESETTLEMENT ACT: S.19
Headnote
(A) Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 126(1)(b) - Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 - Regulation 34 and Appendix-VII - Appeals against High Court judgments regarding Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for constructed amenities on surrendered land - The High Court dismissed several writ petitions on grounds of delay and laches, while allowing others based on the precedent set in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 5 SCC 24. The Supreme Court held that the notification dated 16.11.2016 does not have retrospective effect and the rights to TDR accrue at the time of surrender. (Paras 1.1, 4.8, 20)
(B) Delay and Laches - The Supreme Court emphasized that delay and laches should not bar claims for compensation when the rights are vested and the State has a duty to pay compensation. The High Court's dismissal on these grounds was set aside. (Paras 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellants surrendered land reserved for Development Plan Roads and constructed amenities at their own cost, claiming TDR. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation denied full TDR based on amendments to regulations and grounds of delay.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in dismissing writ petitions on delay and laches, reaffirming the entitlement to TDR based on prior judgments.
Issues: The main issues included the applicability of the notification dated 16.11.2016, the interpretation of delay and laches, and the entitlement to TDR based on the construction of amenities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to TDR is vested upon surrender and that the notification does not apply retrospectively, emphasizing the State's obligation to compensate landowners.
Result: Appeals allowed; the High Court's dismissal on delay and laches set aside.
(B) Delay and Laches - The Supreme Court emphasized that delay and laches should not bar claims for compensation when the rights are vested and the State has a duty to pay compensation. The High Court's dismissal on these grounds was set aside. (Paras 18, 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellants surrendered land reserved for Development Plan Roads and constructed amenities at their own cost, claiming TDR. The Mumbai Municipal Corporation denied full TDR based on amendments to regulations and grounds of delay.
Findings of Court:
The Supreme Court found that the High Court erred in dismissing writ petitions on delay and laches, reaffirming the entitlement to TDR based on prior judgments.
Issues: The main issues included the applicability of the notification dated 16.11.2016, the interpretation of delay and laches, and the entitlement to TDR based on the construction of amenities.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the right to TDR is vested upon surrender and that the notification does not apply retrospectively, emphasizing the State's obligation to compensate landowners.
Result: Appeals allowed; the High Court's dismissal on delay and laches set aside.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
constitutional law
-
right to property
- article 300a (Para 18)
-
right to property
-
administrative law
-
delegated legislation
- development control regulations
-
delegated legislation
- land law
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Appellants claim vested constitutional rights to 100% TDR regardless of delay; Respondents argue claims are barred by laches, abandonment, and subsequent DCR amendments. (Para 3 , 9 )
3. The court observed that compensation for land acquisition is a vested constitutional right and delay does not bar claims unless third-party rights are prejudiced. (Para 4 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 )
4. Compensation for land acquisition is a vested right under Article 300A; delay and laches cannot deny such rights absent third-party prejudice or intentional abandonment. (Para 17 , 18 )
5. Appeals allowed; High Court's findings on delay and laches set aside; Municipal Corporation directed to release balance FSI/TDR to eligible appellants. (Para 20 )
6. Can a claim for compensation in the form of FSI/TDR be denied on the grounds of delay and laches?
No, because the right to fair compensation is a constitutional right under Article 300A. Delay and laches do not apply to continuing causes of action or where no third-party rights are prejudiced. (Para 17 , 18 )
7. Does waiting for a judicial decision to clear legal uncertainty constitute abandonment of a legal claim?
No. Abandonment requires an intentional relinquishment of a known right. Waiting for a court to resolve a legal cloud over a right does not amount to abandonment or waiver. (Para 14 )
JUDGMENT :
NAGARATHNA, J.
These appeals have been filed against three impugned judgments and orders of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, namely,
i) Judgment dated 18.12.2018 whereby Writ Petition Nos. 1898/2009, 1823/2012, 839/2015, 2871/2015, 2107/2016, 2170/2016, 384/2017 and 541/2017 were rejected on the ground of delay and laches and the writ petitioners therein/appellants herein have filed an appeal. Writ Petition Nos. 203/2014 and 2262/2010 were allowed and Writ Petition No.1860/2017 was partly allowed.
As against Writ Petition No.203/2014, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (hereinafter referred as “Mumbai Municipal Corporation”) has filed Civil Appeal No.9708/2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13365/2019. However, as against orders in Writ Petition No.2262/2010 and 1860/2017, there are no Special Leave Petitions filed by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation;
ii) Judgment and Order dated 18.10.2019/08.11.2019 whereby Writ Petition No.2531/2009 was allowed and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation has filed Civil Appeal No.9711/2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10430 of 2020;
iii) Judgment dated 20.10.2022 whereby Writ Petition No.411/2013 was allowed and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation has filed Civil Appeal No.9712/2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.606 of 2023.
1.1 Thus, there are sets of judgments and orders of the Bombay High Court which have been considered together owing to their similarity.
1.2 The High Court considered the writ petitions on the issue concerning the implementation of the decision of this Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 5 SCC 24 (“Godrej & Boyce I”). The said decision dealt with Regulation 34 read with Para 6 of Appendix-VII to the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 (“the DCR” for short).
Relevant facts:
2. With regard to the order dated 18.12.2018, the writ petitioners before the High Court (appellants herein) were holding plots of land shown as reserved in the sanctioned development plan under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act” for short) which were reserved for Development Plan Road (“DP Road” for short). According to the writ petitioners, they constructed DP Roads at their own cost and voluntarily surrendered the reserved lands to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. In lieu thereof, in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act read with Regulations 33 and 34 as well as Para 5 of Appendix-VII of DCR, the writ petitioners were granted Floor Space Index (“FSI” for short) and/or Transferrable Development Rights (“TDR” for short) in the form of Development Rights Certificates (“DRC” for short) equal to the gross area of the plots surrendered by them. Para 6 of Appendix-VII (as it stood prior to its amendment) provided that when an owner or a lessee also develops or constructs the amenities on the surrendered plot at his own cost and hands over the developed/constructed amenity to the Municipal Commissioner, he is entitled to DRC in the form of FSI or TDR equivalent to the area of construction/development done by him. The expression “amenity” has been defined in sub-section(2) of Section 2 of the MRTP Act as well as clause (7) of Regulation 3 of DCR.
2.1 For the purpose of implementation of the DCR, two Circulars were issued on 09.04.1996 and 05.04.2003. By Circular dated 09.04.1996, the DRC equivalent to 15% area of the DP Road constructed by the owner or lessee on the surrendered plot was to be provided when the owner or lessee surrendered the developed amenity together with the reserved plot. By Circular dated 05.04.2003, the figure was enhanced to 25%.
2.2 In Godrej & Boyce I, this Court held that the expression “equivalent” in Para 6 of Appendix-VII would entitle the owner or lessee to 100% FSI or TDR for the construction of an amenity at his cost. Therefore, FSI or TDR for construction of an ame
