Facts:

• The appellants constructed DP Roads at their own expense on land reserved for public purposes under the sanctioned development plan and surrendered the land to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
• In exchange for the surrendered land, they were entitled to Floor Space Index (FSI) and/or Transferable Development Rights (TDR) under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966.
• The dispute arose regarding the extent of TDR granted to the appellants for constructing public amenities (like roads) on the surrendered land.
• The appellants argued for 100% additional TDR based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra (2009), while the Municipal Corporation resisted, stating TDR should be restricted to 25% based on amendments to the Development Control Regulations (DCR) in 2016.

Legal Issues:

1. Interpretation of Regulation 34 and Appendix-VII of the DCR (1991): Whether the appellants are entitled to 100% additional TDR for the construction of roads and amenities before the 2016 amendment.
2. Retrospective or Prospective Application of 2016 Amendment to DCR: Whether the amendment applied to actions undertaken before 2016.
3. Delay and Laches: Whether the appellants could claim the additional TDR after a significant time lapse.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act):

   • Section 126: Acquisition of land for public purposes and compensation via FSI or TDR.

2. Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991:

   • Regulation 34, Appendix-VII: Governs the grant of TDR for surrendered land and construction of amenities.

3. Supreme Court's Decision in Godrej & Boyce (2009): Established the entitlement to 100% TDR for constructing public amenities.

Ratio Decidendi (Reasoning):

• Supreme Court’s Stand: The Court upheld the principle that landowners are entitled to additional TDR for constructing public amenities based on the unamended DCR (1991) and the Godrej & Boyce (2009) ruling. The 2016 DCR amendment, restricting the TDR to 25%, was prospective, meaning it could not apply to projects completed before its enactment.

• Delay and Laches: The Court also evaluated whether claims for additional TDR were made within a reasonable time. In some instances, the Court denied relief due to delays by the appellants in asserting their claims, but allowed claims where delays were justified or inconsequential.

Judgment Outcome:

• The Court directed that the 2016 amendment to DCR would not apply retrospectively, thereby entitling the appellants to 100% TDR for projects completed before the amendment.
• Several writ petitions were allowed or partly allowed, granting the appellants their claims for additional TDR, while others were rejected due to delay and laches.

Subjects:

• Land Acquisition
• TDR
• Development Control Regulations
• Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act
• Delay and Laches
• Public Amenities