Back
M. S. SONAK, ARIF S. DOCTOR
Bholenath Developers Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, through Urban Development Department, through the Office of the Government Pleader, Original Side, Bombay High Court – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Arif S. Doctor J) :
1. Respondent No. 1 (State) vide a Notification dated 16th November 2016 issued under the provisions of Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (‘MRTP Act’) sanctioned a modification to Regulation 34 of the Development Control Regulations 1991 inter alia by which grant of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) was regulated.
2. The Petitioners’ claim to be the owner of a plot of land bearing S. No.91, Hissa No.7/1/1 (part) and 7/1/2 (part), CTS No.612-B, Village Borla, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai Suburban District, admeasuring around 1777 Sq. Meters (‘the said plot’). The said plot was affected by a reservation for the purpose of a playground in the sanctioned Development Plan dated 25th March 1991 (DCR, 1991).
3. The Petitioners, on 24th January 2017, made an application (‘Petitioners’ Application’) for issuance of a Development Right Certificate (‘DRC’) by offering to hand over the said plot in terms of the said Notification. Respondent No. 3 (MCGM), however, failed to grant the Petitioners the benefit of incentive TDR under the said Notification, and it is thus that the present Writ Petition has been filed.
4. Before adverting to th
Entitlement to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) arises only upon land surrender, not application submission, as per the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act.
A Writ cannot create a legal right; it can only enforce an already established right. Entitlement under new regulations requires compliance with specific conditions, which were not met in this case.
A developer cannot claim benefits under new regulations without fulfilling the necessary conditions stipulated, and a writ cannot be issued to establish a non-crystallized legal right.
Notification permitting 75% TDR utilisation via premium payment upheld; complies with MRTP Act procedure, within rule-making powers under Section 22(m), not ultra vires or manifestly arbitrary, addre....
The court established that retrospective application of government directives curtailing vested rights is impermissible unless expressly stated, reinforcing the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
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....
Town Planning – Cancellation of Transferable Development Rights Certificate long after surrender of land is not sustainable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
