The court established that retrospective application of government directives curtailing vested rights is impermissible unless expressly stated, reinforcing the doctrine of promissory estoppel.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

The petitioners have challenged the order dated 17^th October 2017 passed by the respondent no.5 (Deputy Director of Town Planning, Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation), whereby the petitioners’ entitlement to the Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in respect of their surrendered land has been curtailed for the extent of 50% of TDR.

2. The petitioners state that on 30^th September 1999, the Development Plan was sanctioned under the MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT , 1966 (“MRTP Act”). In the said plan, Reservation No. 361 (Garden) and an 18-metre-wide D.P. Road (“the reservation”) was imposed on the petitioners’ land admeasuring approximately 7000 sq. metres. The petitioners initially had development rights in the property and in the year 2013 they became owners of the land. From 31^st January 2013 to 27^th January 2016 the petitioners issued five notices under Section 127 of the MRTP Act calling upon the respondents to acquire the reserved land upon expiry of 10 years from the sanction of the Development Plan. Although the initial demand was for compensation, on 20^th April 2016, the petitioners addressed a letter to respondent no. 5 seeking TDR in lieu of compensation for surrender of the said land.

3. On 13^th July 2016, respondent no. 5 prepared a report proposing grant of TDR to the extent of 12,696.48 sq. metres to the petitioners in accordance with the notification dated 28^th January 2016. The following day, the respondent no.5 issued a public notice inviting objections to the proposed grant of TDR. On 7^th October 2016, the TDR Committee of the respondent no.3 approved the proposal, subject to the condition that the petitioners shall pay the Nazarana to the State Government for non-agricultural use of the land, with the permission of the Collector.

4. The petitioners surrendered 5949.88 sq. metres of land acting on the directions of respondent no. 5 and the recommendations of the TDR Committee. The surrender was effected by executing and registering a possession receipt on 14^th October 2016, confirming transfer of possession of the land to the respondent no.3. On 27^th July 2017, the petitioners paid Nazarana of Rs. 1,70,88,055/- by bank transfer. Following the payment, the Additional Collector, Pune, by order dated 1^st August 2017, granted permission for surrender of the land in favour of respondent no. 3 with certain conditions.

5. Mr. Godbole, the learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in terms of the notification dated 28^th January 2016 issued under Section 37(1)(AA) of the MRTP Act, the petitioners were entitled to TDR equivalent to twice the area of the surrendered land. Thus the petitioners are entitled to the normal TDR quantum of 12,696.48 sq. metres. He submitted that the petitioners have paid the requisite Nazarana as demanded, surrendered the land in question to respondent no.3 on 14^th October 2016, and altered their position by acting on the representations and assurances extended by the respondents. According to him, although the entire land has been surrendered, respondent no. 3–Corporation has granted only 50% of the TDR entitlement of the surrendered land. He relied upon the doctrine of promissory estoppel, contending that had the petitioners been informed that they would not receive their entitlement of two times the TDR, they would not have surrendered the land. It is submitted that thereafter the land has been developed by the respondent no.3 and a garden has been constructed thereon, and therefore the respondents, having taken the benefit of the surrender, are estopped from denying the promised balance TDR benefits to the petitioners. He submitted