Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, M/s. Siddhi Real Estate Developers, a partnership firm, constructed a development plan road at its own cost within the limits of Thane Municipal Corporation. The road was part of the development plan and was constructed after obtaining necessary permissions. The petitioner applied for Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in the form of Floor Space Index (FSI) as per the Development Control Regulations for Thane Municipal Corporation, 1995. The Assistant Director of Town Planning (Respondent No.3) rejected the application by orders dated 30th May 2014 and 8th March 2016, on the ground that the road was not part of a layout or subdivision. The petitioner challenged these orders by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The High Court examined the relevant regulations and found that there was no requirement that the road must be part of a layout or subdivision. The Court held that the construction of any amenity as per the development plan, including a road, entitles the developer to TDR. The rejection was arbitrary and unreasonable. The Court allowed the petition, quashed the impugned orders, and directed the respondents to grant TDR to the petitioner within a specified period.
Headnote
A) Municipal Law - Transferable Development Rights - Entitlement to TDR for Construction of Amenity - Development Control Regulations for Thane Municipal Corporation, 1995 - The petitioner constructed a development plan road at its own cost and sought TDR. The Corporation rejected the application on the ground that the road was not part of a layout or subdivision. The Court held that the Regulations do not require the road to be part of a layout; any construction of a public amenity as per the development plan entitles the developer to TDR. The rejection was arbitrary and unreasonable. (Paras 1-20) B) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Duty of Public Authority - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - The Court held that when a developer fulfills the conditions prescribed under the Regulations, the municipal authority is bound to grant TDR. Failure to do so amounts to a violation of fundamental rights and warrants a writ of mandamus. (Paras 21-30)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioner is entitled to TDR in the form of FSI against the construction of a development plan road at its own cost, and whether the impugned orders rejecting the TDR application are valid.
Final Decision
The Court allowed the writ petition, quashed the impugned orders dated 30th May 2014 and 8th March 2016, and directed the respondents to grant TDR to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from the date of the judgment.
Law Points
- Development Control Regulations
- Transferable Development Rights
- Amenity Construction
- Writ of Mandamus
- Article 226
