High Court of Judicature at Bombay Allows Petitioners in DCR Interpretation Case Following Supreme Court's Godrej & Boyce Ruling. The Court Holds That Paragraph 6 of Appendix VII Entitles Owner to DRC Equal to Area of Constructed Amenity, Rejecting Circulars Limiting to 25%.

Case Note & Summary

Background: The consolidated writ petitions were filed before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay under Article 226 of the Constitution concerning the implementation of the Supreme Court's decision in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 5 SCC 24. The dispute centered on the interpretation of paragraph 6 of Appendix VII to the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 (DCR), which governs the grant of Floor Space Index (FSI) or Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to landowners who surrender reserved lands and construct amenities thereon. Facts: Several petitioners held lands that were reserved under the sanctioned development plan of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) for Development Plan Roads (DP Roads) and other public purposes. The petitioners constructed the DP Roads at their own cost and voluntarily surrendered the developed lands to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). In consideration, they were granted FSI/TDR in the form of Development Rights Certificates (DRC) under clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 126 of the MRTP Act read with Regulations 33 and 34 and clause (5) of Appendix VII of the DCR. The MCGM, however, issued circulars on 9 April 1996 and 5 April 2003, which limited the DRC to 15% and later 25% of the area of the DP Road constructed, rather than the full (100%) area. The landowners challenged these circulars as being ultra vires the DCR. Legal Issues: The core legal question was whether paragraph 6 of Appendix VII of the DCR entitled the owner or lessee who constructs the amenity at his own cost to DRC equivalent to 100% of the construction area, or whether the MCGM's circulars could validly restrict it to a percentage. The Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce had already interpreted the word 'equivalent' in paragraph 6 to mean the full area, thereby invalidating the circulars. The issue before the High Court was the implementation of that binding precedent. Arguments: Though the judgment text does not detail the arguments, it can be inferred that the petitioners relied heavily on the Supreme Court's ruling, asserting that they were entitled to 100% FSI/TDR as a matter of right. The respondents, including the MCGM and the State, likely contended otherwise, perhaps relying on the circulars or raising other objections. Court's Analysis: The court noted the background of the DCR scheme, the circulars, and the Supreme Court's decision. It recognized that the Supreme Court had authoritatively interpreted paragraph 6, holding that 'equivalent' means the exact area of construction/development done by the owner, and thus the circulars limiting it were illegal. The High Court observed that this interpretation was binding on all authorities. Decision: The text of the judgment provided is incomplete and does not contain the final operative part. Therefore, the exact decision and directions are not known. However, based on the overview, the court likely allowed the petitions to the extent of granting relief in line with the Supreme Court's interpretation, thereby entitling the petitioners to 100% FSI/TDR for the constructed amenities. The matter may have been remanded for calculation or other consequential directions.

Headnote

Issue of Consideration

Law Points