The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of the petitioners to Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) under the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, and the impermissibility of revoking the Letter of Intent (LOI) when the petitioners had completed the work as per the LOI and the respondents had recorded the same.

Anoop V. Mohta, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

Heard finally, by consent of the parties.

2. The Petitioners, being the owner, Developer and Constituted Attorney, have challenged impugned communication/letters dated 5 March 2012 and 10 April 2013 issued by Respondents-Corporation, thereby revoked the Letter of Intent (for short, LOI) issued earlier and not considering the request for additional TDR against the construction of road.

3 The relevant prayers of the Petitioners are as under:-

“(a) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of certiorari or a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to call for the records and proceedings pertaining to the subject matter and after examining the legality, validity and impropriety of the impugned Letters dated 5.3.2012 (Ex. B and B-1 hereto) and impugned letter dated 10th April 2013 (Ex. C hereto), be pleased to quash and set aside the same, being invalid and illegal and ultra vires;

(b) That this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the Respondent No. 1 & 2 to issue to Petitioners the DRC for 100% of Amenity TDR as per law in force in respect of construction of 13.40 meter wide D.P. Road as per Letters of Intent both dated 6.2.2008 bearing Ref No TDR/ES/MW-44/Addl. MW 6 Rd in respect of CTS No. 2/3 and ref. no. TDR/ES/MW-44/Addl. MW-6 Rd in respect of CTS No. 2/6 for which the work is completed;”

4. Petitioner No.1 is absolutely seized and possessed of certain pieces of land at Village Mahul, near Chembur Taluka, including lands bearing CTS No. 2/3 (pt) and CTS No. 2/6 admeasuring 5360.00 and 3843.00 sq. meters respectively (for short, “the said land”).

5. On 9 April 1996, Respondent No.1 issued circular stipulating that additional TDR would be given for 15% of the area of Development Plan Roads constructed/developed. Various Petitions challenging the same were filed before this Court including Writ Petition No. 845 of 1998 (the Judgment whereunder was subsequently impugned before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1592 of 2007). On 1 October 1997, Petitioner No.1 entered into a Development Agreement with Petitioner No.2, granting thereby Petitioner No.2-Authority to develop, on “as is where is basis”, the immovable property described therein, pursuant to which, Petitioner No.2 is constructing on parts of the larger property tenements with the approval of the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (for short, “SRA”), which are to be handed over to Respondent No.1 under the provisions of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 (for short, “DCR”). On 9 November 2006, the SRA issued LOI, principally approving the implementation of the proposed Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (for short “the project”) and specifying certain stipulations in respect of handing-over to Respondent No.1. The said LOI was subsequently revised, entitling Respondent No.2 to complete the project on the terms and conditions as set out therein and further entitling Petitioner No.2 to Land TDRs of approximately 1,47,169.50 sq. mtrs and construction TDRs which would be issued by SRA/Respondent No.1 in the form of DRCs. The said land was reserved for public amenity in the Development Plan prepared under the MRTP Act. Under the provisions of the DCR, the owner/lessee of a plot of land which is reserved for an amenity/public purpose in the Development Plan is eligible for the award of TDRs in the form of FSIs equal to the gross area of the reserved plot surrendered under DCR, Appendix VII(5) and equivalent to the area of the construction/development done by him if he also develops or constructs the amenity on the surrendered plot at his cost, under DCR Appendix VII (6). Petitioner No. 2 has duly surrendered the said land covered by Development Plan Roads to Respondent No.1 and was given TDR equivalent to the area of the said land in terms of A