Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose out of a writ petition filed by a co-operative housing society before the Nagpur Bench of the Bombay High Court, challenging the rejection of its claim for Transferable Development Rights (TDR) by the Nagpur Municipal Corporation. The petitioner society claimed ownership of land in Mouza Zingabai Takli, Nagpur, comprising survey numbers 276, 277, 277/2, 277/3, 279/1, 279/2, 279/3, 278, 280/1, 280/2 and City Survey No.1298, admeasuring about 5.04 H.R. The corporation's Development Plan for Nagpur city included a 24-meter Development Plan road under the Integrated Rural Development Program scheme from Awasthi Nagar Chowk to Borgaon Chowk, impacting approximately 5200 square meters of the petitioner's land. By communication dated 02/08/2001, the corporation assured the petitioner that, in lieu of compensation, TDR would be conferred for surrender of the land for road construction. No monetary compensation was offered. Subsequently, the corporation issued development rights certificates in favour of the petitioner society and its members in 2017, 2018, and 2020. However, by communication dated 05/12/2024, the corporation rejected the petitioner's request for TDR, prompting the writ petition. The petitioner sought quashing of that communication, a declaration of entitlement to TDR for the surrendered land, a declaration of entitlement under UDCPR Regulations 11.2.2(i) and 11.2.4(e), and a direction to issue the TDR certificate. The core legal issues were whether the petitioner was entitled to TDR under Section 126(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2020; whether the corporation could retract from its 2001 assurance and the issuance of certificates; and whether denial of TDR violated Article 300-A of the Constitution. The petitioner argued that the corporation had an express assurance to confer 100% TDR, that Section 126(1)(b) obligates the planning authority to compensate owners by granting FSI or TDR against surrendered land, and that Clause 11.2.4(e) of UDCPR requires compliance with past TDR commitments. The petitioner relied on Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 5 SCC 24, particularly paragraphs 51 and 52, where the Supreme Court considered the meaning of "against" in Section 126(1)(b) as providing recompense proportionate to the value of development or construction. The petitioner also emphasized the constitutional right to property under Article 300-A. The court recorded the undisputed facts, including ownership, acquisition for the DP road, the 2001 assurance, and issuance of TDR certificates. It noted the arguments and the relevant statutory provisions. The available text of the judgment ends before the final operative order; therefore, the final decision and ratio decidendi are not discernible from the extracted material. The matter was heard on 23/06/2025, with Rule issued and made returnable forthwith, and service waived by the respondents.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Right to Property - Compensation for acquisition of land - Constitution of India, 1950, Article 300-A - Petitioner society contended that use of its land for a 24-meter DP road without compensation violated Article 300-A; court noted the constitutional obligation to compensate owners when land is acquired. No final holding is recorded in the extracted text (Paras 6-9). B) Town Planning - Transferable Development Rights - Grant of TDR in lieu of compensation - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 126(1)(b) - Section 126(1)(b) provides that planning authority may acquire land by granting FSI or TDR against area surrendered free of cost; communication dated 02/08/2001 assured TDR and certificates were issued in 2017, 2018, 2020; rejection dated 05/12/2024 was challenged as retraction from assurance. Reliance placed on Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 5 SCC 24 (Paras 7-8). C) Town Planning - Development Control Regulations - Compliance with past TDR commitments - Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Maharashtra State, 2020, Regulations 11.2.2(i) and 11.2.4(e) - Petitioner claimed entitlement under UDCPR due to commitment of grant of TDR/DRC in past and on ground of parity; court considered Clause 11.2.4(e) which ensures compliance of commitment of granting TDR/DRC in past (Paras 4, 9). D) Administrative Law - Promissory Estoppel/Assurance - Retraction from assurance after issuance of TDR certificates - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Corporation having issued TDR certificates in 2017, 2018, 2020 after assurance dated 02/08/2001 could not retract; petitioner argued it was not open to Corporation to reject TDR application on unsustainable grounds; final decision not available in extracted text (Paras 4-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether petitioner society is entitled to grant of Transferable Development Rights under Section 126(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and UDCPR Regulations 11.2.2(i) and 11.2.4(e) for land surrendered for a 24-meter DP Road; whether Nagpur Municipal Corporation can retract from assurance dated 02/08/2001 after issuing TDR certificates in 2017, 2018, and 2020; whether denial of TDR violates Article 300-A of the Constitution and statutory obligations under MRTP Act.
Final Decision
Not mentioned - the provided judgment text does not include the final operative decision.
Law Points
- Section 126(1)(b) MRTP Act allows grant of TDR in lieu of compensation
- Article 300-A protects right to property
- UDCPR Regulation 11.2.4(e) requires compliance with past TDR commitments
- planning authority cannot retract from assurance after issuing TDR certificates
