Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Raj Realtors, a partnership firm, constructed ten buildings comprising 446 residential and 20 commercial units on land at Mouje Pashane, Taluka Karjat, District Raigad, under the project name Tulsi Vivaan. The land admeasuring 7 Hectares, 90.2 Ares, was originally agricultural. On March 7, 2014, the Gram Panchayat issued a No-Objection Certificate. On December 19, 2016, the petitioner applied to the Collector for permission to classify the land as non-agricultural and for development permission. On April 4, 2017, the Collector granted both permissions after considering reports from various authorities. On April 5, 2017, the Draft Regional Plan (DRP) for Thane-Palghar-Raigad regions was published in the Official Gazette. The DRP was sanctioned on January 6, 2018, and came into force on March 6, 2018. On April 21, 2018, the Collector granted revised development permission. The petitioner completed construction and sold 381 residential and 20 commercial units. On May 10, 2023, the petitioner applied for an Occupation Certificate (OC). The Tahsildar sought an opinion from the Divisional Office regarding applicability of Regulation 5.1.3 of the Unified Development Control and Promotional Regulations (UDCPR), and on October 18, 2023, disposed of the application without issuing the OC, citing no opinion received. The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking a declaration that the refusal was illegal and a direction to issue the OC. The court examined Section 18 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act), which restricts change of use and development after publication of the DRP. Since the permission was granted on April 4, 2017, one day before the DRP publication, the court held that the restriction under Section 18 had not yet commenced. The court also considered Regulation 5.1.3 of the UDCPR, which protects 'committed development' for which valid permissions existed prior to the Regional Plan. The court found that the development was a committed development and that the OC could not be withheld merely because the Regional Plan later earmarked the land for agriculture. The court allowed the petition, quashed the communication refusing the OC, and directed the respondents to issue the OC within four weeks, subject to compliance with other statutory requirements.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Occupation Certificate - Committed Development - Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 18; Unified Development Control and Promotional Regulations, Regulation 5.1.3 - The petitioner obtained development permission and change of land use from the Collector one day before the publication of the Draft Regional Plan. The court held that the development was a 'committed development' under Regulation 5.1.3 of the UDCPR, as the permissions were validly granted prior to the DRP. The refusal to issue the Occupation Certificate on the ground that the land was earmarked for agriculture in the Regional Plan was illegal. The court directed the respondents to issue the Occupation Certificate within four weeks. (Paras 1-16) B) Town Planning - Restriction on Change of Use - Section 18 MRTP Act - The restriction under Section 18 commences only upon publication of the notice of the Draft Regional Plan. Since the permission was granted before such publication, the development was not in violation of Section 18. (Paras 8-12) C) Town Planning - Unified Development Control and Promotional Regulations - Regulation 5.1.3 - Committed Development - Regulation 5.1.3 protects developments for which valid permissions were granted prior to the coming into force of the Regional Plan. The court held that the petitioner's development fell within this saving clause, and the Occupation Certificate could not be withheld. (Paras 13-16)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the refusal to issue an Occupation Certificate for buildings constructed pursuant to valid development permissions granted before the publication of the Draft Regional Plan is illegal, and whether Regulation 5.1.3 of the UDCPR applies to such development as 'committed development'.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition, quashed the communication dated October 18, 2023 refusing the Occupation Certificate, and directed the respondents to issue the Occupation Certificate within four weeks from the date of the order, subject to compliance with all other statutory requirements.
Law Points
- Occupation Certificate
- Committed Development
- Regional Plan
- MRTP Act Section 18
- UDCPR Regulation 5.1.3
- Development Permission
- Change of Land Use
