IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
A.S. GADKARI, KAMAL KHATA, JJ.
Saranga Anil Kumar Aggarwal – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent
W.P. No. 3087 of 2023
Decided On : 02-01-2025
(A) Constitution of India - Article 226 - Writ Petition seeking Mandamus for Transferable Development Rights (TDR) under Tripartite Agreements - Petitioner, a developer, contended entitlement to additional DRC under DCPR 2034 - Court held entitlement not crystallized, thus Writ not maintainable as per precedent. (Paras 6, 16)
(B) Development Control Regulations, 2034 - Applicability and conditions for entitlement to TDR - Court emphasized that benefits under new regulations apply only upon conversion of schemes from old to new, rejecting claims based on previous agreements without adherence to new conditions. (Paras 10, 14)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioner, representing a textile processing corporation, sought additional TDR for land surrendered under a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme, asserting entitlement under new DCPR 2034. The Petition was initially allowed but subsequently remanded by the Supreme Court for reconsideration. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The Court found the Petition not maintainable as the Petitioner could not claim benefits under DCPR 2034 without fulfilling necessary conditions, emphasizing the importance of legislative intent and public interest. (Paras 6, 17)
Issues: The main issue was whether the Petitioner was entitled to additional TDR under new regulations without fulfilling conversion requirements from the old scheme. (Paras 7, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Petitioner’s entitlement to TDR had not been established and could not claim benefits under new regulations without converting the scheme; thus, the Writ was dismissed. (Paras 16)
Result: Petition dismissed with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT :
KAMAL KHATA, J.
1. By this Writ Petition, filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner seeks the following reliefs:
(b) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the Respondents to issue a recommendation letter to MCGM for release and issuance of DRCs for Land TDR to the Petitioner for the entire land area at the rate specified in DCPR 2034 i.e. the DRCs for the balance land TDR of 19,436.24 sq. meters and also to direct the Respondents to permit the Petitioner the DRC so issued to be utilized as per DCR 1991 as the said Scheme is permitted to be completed in accordance with DRC, 1991 as per sub-clause 11.2 (1) of Regulation 33 (10) of DCPR 2034.
(c) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or a Writ in the nature of Mandamus, or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the Respondents to issue a DRCs for Land TDR to the Petitioner as set out in prayer clause (a), (b) and (c) above.
(d) that pending the hearing and disposal of the Petition the Respondents be directed by an interim order to issue or arrange for the MCGM to issue DRCs for Land TDR to the Petitioner for the entire land area at the rate specified in DCPR 2034 ie the DRCs for the balance land TDR of 19,436.24 sq. meters as set out in prayer clause (a) and (b) above within a period of no more than four weeks from the date of such order passed by this Hon’ble Court;
(e) for costs.
(f) for such further and other reliefs, as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Petitioner is a developer and Constituted Attorney of the original landowner, a textile processing corporation, which offered 37,935 square meters of land at village Goregaon, Oshiwara District Centre, for a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme specifically for construction of tenements for ‘Project Affected Persons’ (PAPs) in accordance with clause 3.11 of Appendix IV of Development Control Regulations (DCR) 1991, Regulation 33 (10).
2.1 The said land, forms part of the notified Oshiwara District Centre area, for which the Petitioner’s Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SR Scheme) was approved by the MMRDA, designated as a Special Planning Authority under Section 40 of the MRTP Act, 1966 .
2.2 The Petitioner executed a Tripartite Agreement dated 5th August 2003 for development of the SR scheme under which the Petitioner agreed to construct and provide tenements to PAPs identified by the Respondent No. 2 for rehabilitation of slum dwellers from the area required to be cleared for the Mumbai Urban Infrastructure Project (“MUIP”). As consideration, the Respondent No. 3 agreed to grant DRCs as per DCR 33 (10) read with clauses 3.11, 3.5 and 3.19 (II) of Appendix IV of DCR 1991.
2.3 During the project’s implementation, the Petitioner acquired development rights of the adjoining lands admeasuring 11,165.1 sq. mts and submitted a revised proposal to the MMRDA for including it in the earlier sanctioned scheme making it to a total of 49,100.4 sq.mts of land. The MMRDA accorded its sanction to the revised scheme and issued a revised Letter of Intent (LOI) on 20th June 2005. Pursuant to the issuance of the revised LOIs’, two further Tripartite Agreements, dated 12th August 2005 and 17th August 2005
Gas Authority of India Limited Vs. Indian Petrochemicals Corporation Limited and Others
Jamshed Hormusji Wadia Vs. Board of Trustees, Port of Mumbai and Another
Shabbi Construction Company Vs. City and Industrial Development Corporation and Another
Shree Sidhbali Steels Limited and Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others
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.
Entitlement to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) arises only upon land surrender, not application submission, as per the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act.
Point of Law : Right to property although is no longer a Fundamental Right after 42nd Amendment to the Constitution, it is constitutionally secured.
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.
TDR detached from originating land and utilized elsewhere loses immovable property character and link thereto; claimant cannot seek ownership in constructed units on receiving land or implead its own....
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....
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.