The case involves Bholenath Developers Ltd. challenging the denial of additional Transferable Development Rights (TDR) benefits by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). The petitioners sought a writ from the Bombay High Court directing MCGM to grant an incentive TDR for a plot of land reserved as a playground. Despite complying with the required conditions within the stipulated timeline under the Development Control Regulations, 1991 (DCR 1991), the petitioners faced delays and were ultimately denied the incentive after new regulations (DCPR 2034) came into effect. The court examined whether the petitioners had a vested right under the earlier regulations and the legality of MCGM’s actions.

1. Introduction and Background

The petitioners, Bholenath Developers Ltd., filed a writ petition challenging the denial of additional TDR benefits for a plot affected by a playground reservation in the 1991 Development Plan. The case centers around the petitioners' compliance with the Development Control Regulations, 1991 (DCR 1991), and the subsequent refusal by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) to grant the requested incentive TDR.

2. Relevant Notifications and Application Timeline

• The State of Maharashtra, in a 2016 notification, regulated the grant of TDR under DCR 1991.
• The petitioners applied for a Development Right Certificate (DRC) on January 24, 2017, offering to hand over the plot as per the 2016 notification.
• MCGM issued a Letter of Intent (LoI) on January 20, 2018, but the incentive TDR was not granted.

3. Legal Issues and Court Proceedings

• The petitioners previously approached the court twice due to MCGM's delays in deciding their application. In both instances, the court directed MCGM to issue the DRC, which they eventually did in April 2019 without the requested incentive TDR.
• The petitioners argue that their application was within the timeline prescribed by the 2016 notification, giving them a vested right to claim the incentive TDR. They further contend that applying the new DCPR 2034 regulations retrospectively is unlawful.

4. Key Arguments Presented

• For the Petitioners: The petitioners argued that they complied with all conditions before the DCPR 2034 came into force and should therefore benefit under DCR 1991. They also cited precedent cases supporting their right to the incentive TDR.
• For the Respondents: MCGM's stance was that the new regulations under DCPR 2034 superseded the older provisions and did not grant the petitioners the additional incentive.

5. Court’s Judgment and Analysis

The court analyzed whether the petitioners' rights were vested under the DCR 1991 and whether MCGM’s actions were legally justified. The judgment emphasized that delays in administrative decisions should not prejudice applicants who complied with legal requirements within the prescribed timelines.

6. Conclusion

The judgment upheld the petitioners' claim for incentive TDR under the DCR 1991 and directed MCGM to issue the additional rights as requested. The case underscores the importance of adhering to regulations in force when applications are made and preventing administrative delays from adversely affecting applicants’ rights.