The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and applicability of the provisions of UDCPR 2020, particularly Rule 10.2.10, and the impact of the order dated 19.11.1971 on the use of the land.

JUDGMENT :

R.N.Laddha, J.

The petitioners have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the actions of respondents no.1 and 2. The petitioners contend that respondents No.1 and 2 have approved the plan and layout of redevelopment and granted permission for development and the commencement certificate thereafter in contravention of the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act (for short ‘MRTP Act’) and Regulations under the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2020 (for short ‘UDCPR 2020’).

2. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent no.3/Society originally had 452 members who were living in buildings no.1 to 13 standing on the land bearing CTS Nos.2459, 2460, 2461, 2546, 2547, 2490, 2491 and 2492 admeasuring 17,196 sq. mtrs., situated at old Mumbai, Puna road, Kalwa, Thane. The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies Thane passed an order on 13.7.2018 under Section 17 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act 1960 (for short MCS Act) r/w Rule 16 of the Maharashtra State Cooperative Societies Rules (for short ‘MCS Rules’) separating building no.3 from respondent no.3/ Society and dividing the larger land into (i) land bearing CTS No.2546, 2490, 2491 and 2492 admeasuring 2511.27 sq. mtrs. together with building no.3 and other structures on it. ii) After this order, respondent no.3/Society had 384 members out of a total of 452 members excluding 68 members who were occupants of building no.3 on the said land.

3. Thereafter, before the demarcation of the boundaries of respondent no.3/Society’s land and the said (proposed) earmarked Neo Land as per the said order dated 13.7.2018 and updating/recording of entries to that effect in the revenue records, respondent no.3/Society executed a development agreement and registered it with the office of Sub-Registrar of Assurances at Thane on 3.11.2021. Many members, including petitioners, objected to the execution of said development agreement for various reasons. The development agreement authorises respondent no.4/Developer to redevelop respondent no.3/Society’s land as per the terms and conditions set out therein. Accordingly, Respondent no.4/Developer has proposed and agreed to give and allot free of cost and on an ownership basis, each member of respondent no.3/Society, a residential flat measuring 421 sq. mtrs. i.e. 39.11 sq. mtrs. carpet area in the proposed new building.

4. The petitioners, who are members of respondent no.3/Society, repeatedly made several representations and expressed their grievances to the managing committee of respondent no.3/Society as well as respondent no.4/Developer and respondent no.5/a licensed Architecture firm registered with the Council of Architecture and appointed as Project Management Consultant (for short ‘PMC’) for the redevelopment of the land of respondent no.3/Society regarding the proposed allotment of lesser carpet area compared to similar development projects carried out in the city and also raised their concern about implementing the order dated 13.7.2018 passed by the Deputy Registrar Cooperative Society, Thane regarding the division of the larger land before executing the development agreement and applying for sanction of plan and layout of redevelopment and grant of permission.

5. The petitioners also informed the management committee of respondent no.3/Society, respondent no.4/Developer and respondent no.5/PMC that the Additional Collector Thane vide order dated 19.11.1971 granted permission to respondent no.3 to change the said larger land earlier earmarked as agricultural land into non-agricultural land for housing purposes and imposed certain conditions for using the said non-agricultural lands. One of the conditions in the said order prohibited any other use of land other than the use for which the permission was given, i.e. the said non-agricultural land was permitted only for housing purposes. Therefore the layout and plan for the redevelopment of respond