Case Note & Summary
The judgment concerns two writ petitions filed by D B Realty Limited and Salim Balwa (WP No.366 of 2014) and Savita Homemakers LLP and Akkshay Jain (WP No.4445 of 2014) against the State of Maharashtra, the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai, the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board, the Navi Mumbai Municipal Corporation, and other authorities. The petitioners challenged the actions of the State Government in modifying Development Control Regulations (DCRs) without following the statutory procedure under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The petitioners were developers/landowners who had obtained approvals for construction based on the existing DCRs. The State, through executive orders, sought to impose additional restrictions or modify the DCRs, which adversely affected the petitioners' projects. The court examined the nature of DCRs, holding that they are statutory instruments having the force of law. The State cannot unilaterally modify them without following the procedure of public notice and hearing as required under the Act. The court also held that land acquisition and development permissions must comply with the DCRs in force at the time of approval. The writ petitions were held maintainable as the State's action was ultra vires. The court allowed the petitions, quashing the impugned executive orders and directing the respondents to process the petitioners' applications in accordance with the DCRs as they stood prior to the illegal modifications.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Development Control Regulations - Statutory Nature - Development Control Regulations (DCRs) framed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 are statutory in nature and have the force of law - The State Government cannot modify or relax DCRs without following the procedure prescribed under the Act, including public notice and hearing - Held that any modification without due process is ultra vires (Paras 10-15). B) Land Acquisition - Compliance with DCRs - Land acquisition proceedings must be in conformity with the applicable DCRs - If the DCRs permit certain development, the acquiring authority cannot deny the same based on executive instructions - Held that the petitioners' rights under the DCRs cannot be defeated by executive fiat (Paras 16-20). C) Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - A writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is maintainable against the State and its instrumentalities for violation of statutory regulations - The court can examine the validity of executive actions that are contrary to law - Held that the petitioners have a right to challenge the State's action (Paras 21-25).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the State Government can unilaterally modify Development Control Regulations (DCRs) without following the statutory procedure under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and whether such modification affects the rights of landowners/developers.
Final Decision
The court allowed the writ petitions, quashed the impugned executive orders modifying the DCRs, and directed the respondents to process the petitioners' applications in accordance with the DCRs as they stood prior to the illegal modifications.
Law Points
- Development Control Regulations are statutory instruments
- State cannot modify DCRs without following prescribed procedure
- Land acquisition must comply with DCRs
- Writ petition maintainable against State action violating DCRs
