Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking TDR for Land Acquired Under MRTP Act — Transferable Development Rights Claim Barred by Limitation as Application Filed Beyond Reasonable Period After Possession. The court held that a claim for TDR under Section 126(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 must be made within a reasonable period, and a delay of seven years from the date of possession disentitles the claimant.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 17
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, M/s. Karan Developers, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the Pune Municipal Corporation to grant Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for an area of 3094.78 sq. mtrs. in lieu of lands from final plot Nos.405, 406 and 407 of TPS III (Final), Pune, acquired under an agreement dated 24 May 2000 under Section 126(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The background facts are that on 17 September 1982, the Government of Maharashtra approved the draft development plan for Pune city, and the land in dispute was shown for road widening. On 5 October 1982, a layout was sanctioned by the Pune Municipal Corporation at the behest of the Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation Limited (the Fifth Respondent), which was the owner of the land. On 5 January 1987, the revised development plan was sanctioned. On 24 May 2000, an agreement was entered into under Section 126(1)(b) between the First Respondent (Municipal Corporation) and the Fifth Respondent, stipulating that the lands would be handed over for road widening and that the Fifth Respondent would be entitled to TDR in accordance with the Development Control Regulations. Possession of the land was taken by the Municipal Corporation on the same day. On 7 November 2006, the State Government permitted the Fifth Respondent to transfer its right to receive TDR by auction. On 11 January 2007, the petitioner entered into an agreement with the Fifth Respondent and acquired the entitlement to receive TDR. The petitioner then applied to the Municipal Corporation for TDR, but the application was not processed. The petitioner filed the writ petition seeking a direction to grant TDR. The court considered the issue of whether the petitioner was entitled to TDR given the delay in making the application. The court noted that the possession was taken on 24 May 2000, and the application for TDR was made only in 2007, a delay of nearly seven years. The court held that the claim for TDR must be made within a reasonable period, and a delay of seven years is fatal to the claim. The court observed that the Development Control Regulations require the submission of a proposal for TDR within a specified time, and the delay would upset the finality of town planning schemes and the rights of third parties. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner was not entitled to TDR due to the delay.

Headnote

A) Town Planning - Transferable Development Rights - Limitation - Claim for TDR under Section 126(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - The petitioner purchased the right to receive TDR from the original landowner, but the application for TDR was made nearly seven years after possession was taken by the Municipal Corporation - Held that the claim for TDR must be made within a reasonable period, and a delay of seven years is fatal to the claim, as it would upset the finality of town planning schemes and the rights of third parties (Paras 5-8).

B) Town Planning - Acquisition of Land - Agreement under Section 126(1)(b) - The agreement dated 24 May 2000 between the Municipal Corporation and the original landowner stipulated that TDR would be granted in accordance with the Development Control Regulations - The right to TDR is not an absolute right but is subject to the regulations and the timely submission of a proposal - Held that the delay in making the application disentitles the claimant to TDR (Paras 4-6).

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner is entitled to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in respect of land acquired under Section 126(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, when the application for TDR was made after a delay of several years from the date of possession.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The petition is dismissed. The court held that the claim for TDR must be made within a reasonable period, and a delay of seven years from the date of possession is fatal to the claim. No order as to costs.

Law Points

  • Transferable Development Rights
  • Limitation for claiming TDR
  • Section 126 MRTP Act
  • Development Control Regulations
  • Acquisition of land for road widening
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2012 LawText (BOM) (09) 37

WRIT PETITION NO.1685 OF 2011 WITH CIVIL APPLICATION NO.1772 OF 2012

2012-09-10

DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, A.A.SAYED

Mr. Y.S. Jahagirdar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Girish Godbole and Mr. Drupad S. Patil for the Petitioner; Mr. Rajdeep S. Khadapkar for Respondents 1 and 2; Mr. C.R. Sonawane, AGP for Respondents 3 and 4; Mr. Vishwajeet V. Mohite for Respondent No.5

M/s. Karan Developers

The Municipal Corporation of the City of Pune and others

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking direction to grant Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for land acquired for road widening.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought direction to Pune Municipal Corporation to grant TDR for an area of 3094.78 sq. mtrs. in lieu of lands acquired under an agreement dated 24 May 2000.

Filing Reason

The Municipal Corporation did not process the petitioner's application for TDR after the petitioner acquired the right to receive TDR from the original landowner.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in respect of land acquired under Section 126(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, when the application for TDR was made after a delay of several years from the date of possession.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that it had acquired the right to receive TDR from the original landowner and was entitled to TDR as per the agreement and regulations. Respondents contended that the claim for TDR was barred by delay and laches, as the application was made nearly seven years after possession was taken.

Ratio Decidendi

A claim for Transferable Development Rights under Section 126(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 must be made within a reasonable period from the date of possession of the land. A delay of seven years disentitles the claimant to TDR, as it would upset the finality of town planning schemes and the rights of third parties.

Judgment Excerpts

The claim for TDR must be made within a reasonable period. A delay of seven years from the date of possession is fatal to the claim. The right to TDR is not an absolute right but is subject to the regulations and the timely submission of a proposal.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to grant TDR. The petition was heard and disposed of by the High Court on 10 September 2012.

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: 126(1)(b)
  • Constitution of India: 226
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Petition Seeking TDR for Land Acquired Under MRTP Act — Transferable Development Rights Claim Barred by Limitation as Application Filed Beyond Reasonable Period After Possession. The court held that a claim for TDR under...
Related Judgement
Supreme Court Supreme Court Allows Appeal Against High Court Order Setting Aside Auction Sale Under SARFAESI Act — Auction Purchaser's Rights Upheld as Sale Was Completed and No Material Irregularity Found. The Court held that once a sale certificate is issued a...