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, addresses TDR shortage without compelling land surrender.

JUDGMENT :

GAUTAM A. ANKHAD, J.

The principal challenge in all these writ petitions is to the Notification dated 7^th 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 the total permissible TDR component as mentioned in column 5 of the Table-6G in the Regulation No.6.3, may be utilised on payment of premium at the rate of 60% land rate mentioned in the Annual Statement of Rates subject to following condition. Balance 25% to be utilised in the form of TDR only.

Condition:-This provision shall only be applicable till the sanction of the Development Plan of Panvel Municipal Corporation under section 31(1) of the MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT , 1966.”

2. As the issue involved in all these writ petitions is common, the petitions were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment.

Brief background leading to the passing of the impugned Notification

3. On 2^nd December 2020, the UDCPR was sanctioned for the State of Maharashtra. These regulations became the development control regulations for the areas of the respondent no.3- Panvel Municipal Corporation. On 28^th April 2023, a representation was made by the respondent no.5 to the Principal Secretary of the Urban Development Department-the respondent no.1 highlighting the difficulties faced on account of the non-availability of Transferable Development Rights (in short, “TDR”) in the CIDCO areas forming part of the respondent no.3. Pursuant thereto, the Urban Development Department called for a report from the respondent no.3. By its letter dated 5^th September 2023, the respondent no.3 inter alia opposed the introduction of a policy permitting consumption of the TDR component on payment of premium on several grounds. On 19^th January 2024, the Urban Development Department addressed a letter to the Director of Town Planning stating that representations were received for permitting usage of TDR on payment of premium and recommended that appropriate steps be taken to consider the said representations. It is in this backdrop that on 15^th March 2024, the respondent no.1 issued the notice (or draft notification) under Section 37(1)(AA) of the MRTP Act inviting suggestions and objections from the public at large in respect of the proposed impugned Notification. The proposed modification was to operate with immediate effect and was made applicable until the sanction of the development plan of the respondent no.3.

4. On 10^th April 2024, the respondent no.3 again filed its objections to the proposed amendment on several grounds. It is inter alia recorded that if the FSI is allowed to be utilized on the payment of premium instead of TDR, the demand for TDR will reduce and the respondent no.3 will not be in a position to the get the landowners to surrender their plots. This will also increase the financial burden on the respondent no.3. Around the same time, Writ Petition nos.6746 of 2024 and Writ Petition (St) No.17210 of 2024 were filed challenging the proposed a