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
JUDGMENT :
NAGARATHNA, J.
These appeals have been filed against three impugned judgments and orders of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, namely,
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
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs. State of Maharashtra
Noida Entrepreneur Association vs. NOIDA
Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, (2020) 2 SCC 569 [Para 8.3
Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
Lalaram Vs. Jaipur Development Authority, (2016) 11 SCC 31
Moon Mills Ltd. vs. M.R. Meher, President, Industrial Court, Bombay
M/s Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited vs. District Board, Bhojpur
Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dolly Das
Tukaram Kana Joshi vs. Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (2013) 1 SCC 353 [Para 8.4
Mohar Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. vs. State of UP Collector
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
G.T. Lad vs. Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd., (1979) 1 SCC 590 [Para 8.6
A.P. SRTC vs. S. Jayaram, (2004) 13 SCC 792
State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770, [Para 8.6
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Yeshwant Jagannath Vaity
Dehri Rohtas Light Rly. Co. Ltd. vs. District Board, Bhojpur
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....
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.
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....
Entitlement to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) arises only upon land surrender, not application submission, as per the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act.
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....
Town Planning – Cancellation of Transferable Development Rights Certificate long after surrender of land is not sustainable.
The right to property under Article 300A mandates just compensation for land utilized by authorities, overriding regulations allowing nominal payment, ensuring constitutional protections are upheld.
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.