Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. and another, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus directing the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and its officers to grant a Development Rights Certificate (DRC) for a total area of 31057.30 sq. meters. The petitioners owned land in Ghatkopar, Mumbai, which was reserved in the Development Plan for a public amenity, namely a Recreation Ground (RG). Under Regulation 34 read with Appendix VII of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, owners of land reserved for public purposes are eligible for Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in the form of Floor Space Index (FSI). The petitioners surrendered the land to the Corporation and received TDR for the land area in 1996. They subsequently developed the amenity at their own cost and applied for a DRC for the construction area, as per clause 6 of Appendix VII. The respondents failed to grant the DRC despite repeated applications dated 17.04.1998, 03.11.2009, and 23.07.2010. The court examined the provisions of Regulation 34 and Appendix VII, noting that the owner is entitled to TDR for the land area upon surrender and additional TDR for the construction area upon development and handing over of the amenity free of cost. The court found that the petitioners had complied with the conditions and were entitled to the DRC. The court directed the respondents to consider and grant the DRC in accordance with law, thereby allowing the petition.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Transferable Development Rights - Entitlement to DRC - Regulation 34 read with Appendix VII of Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 - Petitioners surrendered land reserved for Recreation Ground and were granted TDR for land area; they sought additional DRC for construction of amenity - Court held that upon compliance with conditions, including development and handing over of amenity free of cost, the owner is entitled to DRC for construction area - Respondents directed to process and grant DRC as per law (Paras 1-4).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a Development Rights Certificate (DRC) for the construction and development of a Recreation Ground amenity under Regulation 34 read with Appendix VII of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, and whether the respondents are obligated to grant the same.
Final Decision
The court allowed the petition and directed the respondents to consider and grant the Development Rights Certificate to the petitioners in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Transferable Development Rights
- Development Rights Certificate
- Regulation 34
- Appendix VII
- Development Control Regulations
- 1991
- Recreation Ground reservation
- Mandamus
- Article 226
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (08) 49
Writ Petition No.2058 of 2010
D.K. Deshmukh, R.G. Ketkar
Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Senior Advocate with Mr. Milind Sathe, Senior Advocate & Mr. A.A. Joshi i/by Mr. Nivit Srivastava for the petitioners. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate with Mr. K.K. Singhvi, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Preeti Purandare & Ms. V.S. Gharpure for the Respondents.
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. & Anr.
The Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 seeking mandamus for grant of Development Rights Certificate.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents to grant Development Rights Certificate for 31057.30 sq. meters for construction of Recreation Ground amenity.
Filing Reason
Respondents failed to grant DRC despite petitioners surrendering land and developing amenity as per Regulation 34.
Previous Decisions
Petitioners were granted TDR for land area in 1996; applications for DRC dated 17.04.1998, 03.11.2009, and 23.07.2010 were not acted upon.
Issues
Whether petitioners are entitled to DRC for construction of Recreation Ground amenity under Regulation 34 read with Appendix VII of DCR 1991.
Whether respondents are obligated to grant DRC upon compliance with conditions.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they surrendered land and developed amenity at their own cost, thus entitled to DRC as per clause 6 of Appendix VII.
Respondents' arguments not detailed in the provided text.
Ratio Decidendi
Under Regulation 34 read with Appendix VII of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991, an owner who surrenders land reserved for public amenity and develops the amenity at his own cost is entitled to Transferable Development Rights for both the land area and the construction area. The respondents are obligated to grant the Development Rights Certificate upon compliance with the conditions.
Judgment Excerpts
By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioners have prayed for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to forthwith grant to the petitioners Development Rights Certificate (for short D.R.C.) of total area of 31057.30 sq.meters for the construction and development of the amenity viz. Recreation Ground (for short R.G.) as set out in the petitioners applications dated 17.04.1998 (Exhibit ‘K’), 03.11.2009 (Exhibit ‘O’) and 23.07.2010 (Exhibit ‘Q’).
Procedural History
Petitioners filed Writ Petition No.2058 of 2010 before the Bombay High Court under Article 226 seeking mandamus for grant of DRC. The petition was heard by a Division Bench comprising D.K. Deshmukh and R.G. Ketkar, JJ., and judgment was delivered on 8th August 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991: Regulation 34, Appendix VII
- Constitution of India: Article 226
