2007 (5) TMI 601 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the State Government can make any changes of its own in the modifications submitted by Planning Authority or not? Whether the constructions mentioned in categories 1 to 4 will not be treated to be in violation of clause (b) of D.C.R.-2.4.11?

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the addition of the words "from the very said plot" in clause (b) of DCR-2.4.11 by the State Government.
2. Application of the principle of promissory estoppel.
3. Validity of the construction activities sanctioned by the Pune Municipal Corporation between 20.7.1999 and 21.11.2001.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Addition of the Words "from the very said plot" in Clause (b) of DCR-2.4.11 by the State Government
The core issue pertains to the State Government's authority to modify the Development Control Rules (DCR) proposed by the Pune Municipal Corporation by adding the words "from the very said plot" to clause (b) of DCR-2.4.11. The petitioners argued that the State Government could not make such modifications without following the procedure outlined in Section 37(1) of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, which requires public notice and an opportunity for objections.

However, the Supreme Court, referencing its earlier judgment dated 5.5.2004, upheld the State Government's authority under Section 37(2) of the Act to "sanction the modification with or without such changes, and subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, or refuse to accord sanction." The Court emphasized that the language of Section 37(2) is clear and unambiguous, granting the State Government the power to make necessary modifications without needing to invite further objections or provide additional hearings. This interpretation aligns with the legislative intent and the statutory framework, reinforcing that the State Government's actions were within its legal authority.

2. Application of the Principle of Promissory Estoppel
The High Court had previously accepted the petitioners' argument based on promissory estoppel, suggesting that the Pune Municipal Corporation could not insist on the additional 0.4 FSI being used on the same plot. The Supreme Court, however, rejected this application of promissory estoppel, citing that Development Control Rules, framed under Section 158 of the Act, have the same force as a statute. It reiterated the settled legal principle that there can be no estoppel against a statute, thus invalidating the High Court's reliance on promissory estoppel to allow the petition.

3. Validity of the Construction Activities Sanctioned by the Pune Municipal Corporation Between 20.7.1999 and 21.11.2001
The review petitioners highlighted the practical difficulties faced due to the Pune Municipal Corporation's change in stance after 21.11.2001, which affected constructions sanctioned under the previous interpretation allowing 0.8 FSI. The Court acknowledged the genuine concerns raised by the petitioners, noting that many constructions were sanctioned and completed based on the earlier interpretation.

During the hearing, the Pune Municipal Corporation, through its counsel, conceded that constructions falling under four specific categories, which were sanctioned and in some cases completed, would not be treated as violations of clause (b) of DCR-2.4.11. These categories included:
1. Constructions with final completion certificates granted after 21.11.2001.
2. Constructions with part completion certificates granted after 21.11.2001.
3. Constructions with completion certificates granted between 20.7.1999 and 21.11.2001.
4. Constructions without completion certificates but sanctioned in excess of 0.4 TDR.

The Court recorded this concession, providing relief to the affected constructions, thereby addressing the practical implications of the Corporation's earlier stance.

Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the review petitions, affirming the State Government's authority to modify the DCR as per Section 37(2) of the Act and rejecting the application of promissory estoppel. The Court also provided relief to certain constructions sanctioned under the previous interpretation, ensuring that these would not be deemed in violation of the modified DCR.

← Previous Next →