Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, GAUTAM A.ANKHAD
Pawan Rajaramrao Kadam – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Thru Department of Urban Development – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background to impugned tdr premium notification process (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. notification ultra vires, arbitrary, dilutes tdr value (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 3. due process followed; addresses tdr supply imbalance (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 4. no locus; incorrect compulsory acquisition premise (Para 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 5. mrtp section 37(1aa) procedural compliance affirmed (Para 30 , 31 , 32 , 33) |
| 6. section 126 tdr surrender voluntary; temporary measure (Para 34 , 35 , 36) |
| 7. delegated legislation valid unless manifestly arbitrary (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41) |
| 8. petitions dismissed; notification upheld valid (Para 42) |
JUDGMENT :
GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.
The principal challenge in all these writ petitions is to the Notification dated 7th October 2024 issued under section 37(1AA)(c) of the MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT , 1966 (in short, “impugned Notification” and “MRTP Act”) and the insertion of clause 10.16 in the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations (in short, “UDCPR”), which reads as under:
“10.16 Area within Panvel Municipal Corporation-
In area of Panvel Municipal Corporation, 75% of
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....
Entitlement to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) arises only upon land surrender, not application submission, as per the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the notice under section 51 of the MRTP Act was without jurisdiction, and the UDCPR provisions pressed in service were not applicable to affec....
The court established that retrospective application of government directives curtailing vested rights is impermissible unless expressly stated, reinforcing the doctrine of promissory estoppel.
Development permissions obtained before the implementation of new regulations remain valid; non-issuance of an occupation certificate violates legal entitlements established by prior approvals.
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.
Land Acquisition and Requisition - Powers of Planning Authority to acquire land compulsorily - Transferable Development Rights - Planning Authority has taken steps to commence acquisition of reserved....
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
