Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from the cancellation of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) granted to the appellants by the State of Maharashtra. The appellants had surrendered a parcel of land for public use, expecting to receive TDR at 100% Floor Space Index (FSI). However, the Chief Minister later reduced the TDR to 4% FSI, leading to litigation. The appellants contended that the land was not zoned as 'Hill Top/Hill Slope' and should be compensated based on the residential zoning of adjacent lands. The respondents argued that the appellants could not benefit from errors made in earlier communications regarding zoning. The Supreme Court found that the appellants had been unjustly deprived of their rights and directed the restoration of the land along with compensation for the loss incurred since 2004. The court emphasized the need for a practical resolution to the prolonged litigation and ordered the return of the land and compensation to the appellants (Paras 1-32).
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Transferable Development Rights - Entitlement to TDR - Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1996, Section 126 - The appellants surrendered land for public purpose expecting TDR at 100% FSI, which was later reduced to 4% FSI. The court held that the appellants were entitled to TDR at 100% FSI based on the surrounding zoning and previous assurances from the authorities (Paras 27-31).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants are entitled to grant of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) at 100% Floor Space Index (FSI) or at 4% FSI.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court quashed the High Court's judgment, restored the TDR at 100% FSI, and directed the return of the land to the appellants along with compensation of ₹1 crore per year for the loss incurred since 2004, to be completed within three months.
Law Points
- Transferable Development Rights
- Floor Space Index
- Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act
- 1996
- Town Planning Act
- Development Control Regulations
- Promissory Estoppel
- Legitimate Expectation
Case Details
2022 LawText (SC) (08) 210
Civil Appeal No.4639 of 2012
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Shyam Divan, Sachin Patil, Madhavi Divan, Bharti Tyagi, Venkita Subramoniam T.R.
Rajhan Narendra Rout and Others
The State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Urban Development Department and Others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against the cancellation of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) granted for land surrendered for public use.
Remedy Sought
Restoration of TDR at 100% FSI and compensation for loss incurred.
Filing Reason
Cancellation of TDR by the Chief Minister reducing it from 100% FSI to 4% FSI.
Previous Decisions
High Court dismissed the challenge to the Chief Minister's order, leading to the appeal.
Issues
Entitlement to TDR at 100% FSI versus 4% FSI
Legality of the Chief Minister's cancellation of TDR
Submissions/Arguments
Appellants argued for entitlement to TDR at 100% FSI based on surrounding zoning and previous assurances.
Respondents contended that the appellants could not benefit from earlier erroneous decisions.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the appellants were entitled to TDR at 100% FSI based on the surrounding zoning and previous assurances from the authorities, emphasizing the principle of legitimate expectation.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellants surrendered land for public purpose expecting TDR at 100% FSI, which was later reduced to 4% FSI.
The court held that gross injustice has been caused to the appellants who had offered their land to the respondent No.3/Corporation on the basis of a Scheme floated by it proposing to acquire land for public purpose and grant TDR to the land owners in lieu of the land.
Procedural History
The appellants challenged the Chief Minister's order in the High Court, which was dismissed. The Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, leading to further litigation before the High Court and ultimately the Supreme Court.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1996: Section 126
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013:
