SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2024 Supreme(Bom) 1196

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B. P. Colabawalla, Somasekhar Sundaresan, JJ.
Raj Realtors - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and ors. - Respondents
Writ Petition No.2693 of 2024
Decided On : 09-12-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Suresh Sabrad a/w. Mr. Jeetendra Sachhdev, Abubakar Patel & Pournima Sawant i/b. JS Legal, Advocates
For the Respondent: Ms A.I. Patel, Addl.G.P. a/w. Ms P.M.J. Deshpande, AGP

Development permissions obtained before the implementation of new regulations remain valid; non-issuance of an occupation certificate violates legal entitlements established by prior approvals.

Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 - Sections 14 and 18 - Unified Development Control and Promotional Regulations, 2020 - Regulation 5.1.3 - Refusal to issue Occupation Certificate (OC) contested - Petitioner sought and obtained necessary permissions for construction before the relevant regulations took effect - The court held that restrictions on land use apply only after relevant approvals are obtained - There were no valid grounds for non-issuance of OC despite objections - Direction issued to issue OC within eight weeks. (Paras 6 - 24)

(B) Administrative Procedure - Discretion of authorities - Authorities must act within the framework of law and cannot withhold decisions without valid reasons established through statutory provisions. (Paras 23)

Facts of the case:
The petition concerns an appeal against the refusal to issue an OC for ten buildings constructed by a partnership firm under development permissions granted by state authorities. The completion and sale of units were confirmed; however, the OC was withheld based on an opinion sought from a Divisional Office regarding compliance with new regulations.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the development permissions were valid and compliant with both the MRTP Act and UDCPR, thus entitling the Petitioner to an OC.

Issues: The main issues were whether the development permissions complied with statutory requirements, specifically in light of the MRTP Act and UDCPR.

Ratio Decidendi: The court determined that the Petitioner had lawfully obtained permissions prior to the enactment of the UDCPR, making refusal of the OC unjust.

Result: Rule made absolute; OC shall be issued within eight weeks.

Table of Content
1. refusal to issue an oc is contested. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5)
2. arguments center on permissions and compliance. (Para 6 , 11 , 12 , 23)
3. mrtp act outlines development permissions. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 14 , 21)
4. oc issuance upheld under legal requirements. (Para 19 , 24)
5. judgment orders issuance of oc. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)

SOMASEKHAR SUNDARESAN, J.

Somasekhar Sundaresan J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Respondents waive service. By consent, heard finally.

Factual Background :

2. This Petition seeks a declaration that the refusal to issue an Occupation Certificate ( “OC” ) by the Tahsildar, Alibag, (Respondent No. 4), in respect of ten buildings constructed by the Petitioner pursuant to development permissions granted by the Collector (Respondent No. 2), is illegal, and also seeks a direction that the OC be issued to the Petitioner.

3. The Petitioner is a partnership firm, which has constructed ten buildings pursuant to development permissions and commencement certificates issued from time to time in respect of land admeasuring 7 Hectares, 90.2 Ares, situated at Mouje Pashane, Taluka Karjat, District Raigad, bearing Survey Nos.8/2A/1, 8/2A/2, 8/3A/1, 9/1A, 10/5, 10/7, 11/1A/2, 11/1A/3, 168/2B/3C, 168/3D and 170/1 (“Subject Land” ). The buildings contain seven storeys above the ground floor, and comprise 446 residential units and 20 commercial units under the project name Tulsi Vivaan on the Subject Land.

4. The facts relevant for adjudication of this Petition, as discerned from the pleadings and submitted by counsel, may be summarized as follows:-

a) On March 7, 2014, the Gram Panchayat issued a No- Objection Certificate for carrying out the construction in question;

b) In 2016, boundaries for the Subject Land were fixed, and on December 19, 2016, the Petitioner applied to the Collector, Raigad (Respondent No.2) for permission to classify the Subject Land as non-agricultural land, and to accord development permission for the project;

c) Meanwhile, on March 22, 2017, the Regional Planning Board passed a resolution for publication of the Draft Regional Plan (“ DRP ”) for development of Thane-Palghar- Raigad regions;

d) On April 4, 2017, the Collector granted permission for the Subject Land to be treated as non-agricultural land and also accorded development permission for the project, after consideration of various reports received from the Tahsildar, Zilla Parishad and the Assistant Director, Town Planning, Raigad, Alibaug;

e) On April 5, 2017, the DRP was published in the Official Gazette;

f) The Petitioner commenced construction, and on October 31, 2017 applied for grant of a revised development permission;

g) On January 6, 2018, the DRP was sanctioned by the Government of Maharashtra;

h) On March 6, 2018, the sanctioned regional plan came into force;

i) On April 21, 2018, the revised development permission as sought by the Petitioner was granted by the Collector;

j) On February 2, 2020, the Government of Maharashtra sanctioned the Unified Development Control and Promotional Regulations (“UDCPR”), to administer the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (“ MRTP Act ”). The UDCPR would take effect from December 2, 2020;

k) Based on the permissions received from time to time, including the development permissions, the Petitioner completed construction of the ten buildings. It is the Petitioner’s case that 381 residential units and 20 commercial units have been sold, and that the purchasers have availed of loans from various financial institutions to finance their purchase of such units;

l) On May 10, 2023, the Petitioner applied to the Collector for grant of the OC;

m) On August 21, 2023, the Collector sought an opinion from the Divisional Office as to whether the UDCPR, in particular, Regulation 5.1.3 would enable issuance of the OC; and

n) On October 18, 2023, the Tahsildar communicated to the Petitioner that the application for the OC has been disposed of without issuing it since no op

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top