Court’s Decision:
The Supreme Court of India addressed multiple civil appeals, including those filed by Kukreja Construction Company, affirming their entitlement to 100% Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for developing public amenities, such as roads, based on the Godrej & Boyce ruling and the unamended Development Control Regulations (DCR). However, the court also clarified that amendments made to the DCR in 2010 and 2016 limit future claims to 25% TDR, applicable prospectively. Certain claims were dismissed on the grounds of delay and laches, but others were allowed, instructing the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to process valid claims accordingly.
Facts of the Case:
The appellants, including Kukreja Construction Company, had surrendered land reserved for public infrastructure projects, such as Development Plan (DP) roads, to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. In return, they sought compensation in the form of Floor Space Index (FSI) or TDR under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act and the DCR for Greater Mumbai.
Issues:
Whether the appellants were entitled to 100% additional TDR/FSI for the construction of public amenities, particularly roads, as per Section 126 of the MRTP Act.
Whether the amendments to the DCR in 2010 and 2016 altered the entitlement to compensation for previously surrendered land.
Whether the claims were barred by delay and laches, considering the time taken by the appellants to pursue their rights after the Godrej & Boyce judgment.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
The appellants argued that under Section 126 of the MRTP Act and Paragraph 6 of Appendix-VII of the DCR, they were entitled to 100% additional TDR for developing amenities like roads at their own cost. They relied on the Supreme Court’s 2009 judgment in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. State of Maharashtra, which established that the grant of TDR should be based on the entire area developed, not limited by circulars restricting TDR to a smaller percentage.
Respondent’s Arguments:
The Mumbai Municipal Corporation argued that the appellants had already received compensation in the form of FSI/TDR and that their claims for additional compensation were unjustified. They also contended that the 2010 and 2016 amendments limited the grant of TDR to 25%, and these limits applied to ongoing claims as well.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Supreme Court reiterated the Godrej & Boyce ruling, affirming that landowners were entitled to 100% TDR for the development of public amenities. However, the court clarified that the 2010 and 2016 amendments limited future claims to 25% TDR and applied prospectively. The court also upheld the dismissal of some claims due to delay, reinforcing the need for timely applications.
Conclusion:
The Supreme Court directed the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to process valid claims for 100% TDR based on pre-2010 regulations but limited post-amendment claims to 25%. Claims delayed without valid reason were dismissed.
