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
| 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
Development permissions obtained before the implementation of new regulations remain valid; non-issuance of an occupation certificate violates legal entitlements established by prior approvals.
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 relevant cut-off date in the impugned M-3 Modification regarding committed development is the date of passing of the resolution in the 7th Meeting convened on 28.03.2017 granting approval for pub....
Point of law : Right of a person to construct residential houses in the residential area is a valuable right. The said right can only be regulated in terms of a regulatory statute but unless there ex....
The impugned notification did not apply to the entire area mentioned in the sanctioned layout, and subsequent applications for further development were governed by the provisions at the time of appli....
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 th....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reservation of land under the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act can lapse if the acquiring authority fails to take steps for acquisit....
Entitlement to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) arises only upon land surrender, not application submission, as per the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act.
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.