Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, M/s. Aswani Associates and Shri Sandeep Rasiklal Shah, filed a writ petition challenging an order dated 17 October 2017 passed by the Deputy Director of Town Planning, Pimpri-Chinchwad Municipal Corporation (respondent no.5), which curtailed their entitlement to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to 50% in respect of land surrendered by them. The land was subject to Reservation No. 361 (Garden) and an 18-metre-wide D.P. Road under the Development Plan sanctioned on 30 September 1999 under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). The petitioners had surrendered the land and were entitled to TDR under Section 126 of the MRTP Act. However, the respondent no.5 passed the impugned order reducing the TDR to 50% on the basis of Development Control Regulations (DCR). The petitioners contended that the DCR cannot override the statutory provisions of the MRTP Act, which do not provide for any such reduction. The respondents argued that the DCR were validly framed and the reduction was justified. The court, after hearing the parties, held that the DCR cannot curtail the statutory entitlement under Section 126 of the MRTP Act. The impugned order was quashed and set aside, and the respondents were directed to grant TDR to the petitioners in accordance with the MRTP Act without any reduction. The court emphasized that subordinate legislation must be consistent with the parent statute and cannot impose additional restrictions not found therein.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Transferable Development Rights (TDR) - Curtailment of TDR - Section 126 of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - The petitioners surrendered land reserved for garden and road under a Development Plan sanctioned under the MRTP Act. The Deputy Director of Town Planning curtailed their TDR entitlement to 50% citing Development Control Regulations (DCR). The court held that the DCR cannot override the statutory entitlement under Section 126 of the MRTP Act, which does not provide for any such reduction. The impugned order was quashed and set aside. (Paras 1-10) B) Subordinate Legislation - Validity of Development Control Regulations - Conflict with Parent Act - Section 126 of MRTP Act, 1966 - The court examined whether DCR could impose a condition reducing TDR to 50% when the parent Act does not contain such a restriction. Held that subordinate legislation must be consistent with the parent statute and cannot add restrictions not found therein. The DCR provision was read down to avoid conflict. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Deputy Director of Town Planning could curtail the petitioners' entitlement to Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to 50% based on Development Control Regulations (DCR) when the statutory provision under Section 126 of the MRTP Act, 1966 does not impose such a restriction.
Final Decision
The impugned order dated 17 October 2017 is quashed and set aside. The respondents are directed to grant TDR to the petitioners in accordance with Section 126 of the MRTP Act, 1966 without any reduction.
Law Points
- Transferable Development Rights (TDR) entitlement under Section 126 of MRTP Act
- 1966 cannot be curtailed by Development Control Regulations (DCR) that impose additional conditions not found in the statute
- Development Control Regulations must be consistent with the parent Act
- Doctrine of reading down subordinate legislation to avoid conflict with parent statute
