2003 (4) TMI 579 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Entitlement to additional Floor Space Index (FSI) and Transferable Development Rights (TDR) under the 1991 Regulations.
2. Legality of the Corporation's refusal to grant additional FSI and TDR.
3. Applicability of the 1991 Regulations to the sanctioned Town Planning Scheme.
4. Vesting of original plot No. 433 in the State and the final plots in the appellants.
5. Impact of the State Government's directives on the sanctioned Scheme.

Summary:

1. Entitlement to Additional FSI and TDR:
The appellants claimed an indefeasible right to additional FSI and TDR under the 1991 Regulations for final plot Nos. 694 and 713. However, the Supreme Court held that the appellants were not entitled to additional FSI under Rule 10(2) of the Development Control Rules, 1967, as the original plot or any part thereof did not form part of the final plots allotted to them. The 1991 Regulations, although superseding the 1967 Rules, contained a proviso in Sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 1 stating that in case of conflict, the Scheme Regulations would prevail.

2. Legality of the Corporation's Refusal:
The Corporation's refusal to grant additional FSI and TDR was based on three grounds: (a) the sanctioned Town Planning Scheme did not grant additional FSI under D.C. Rule No. 10(2); (b) no provision existed in the Town Planning Regulations for granting TDR on plots falling in the Scheme; and (c) compensation had already been awarded for the area going under the road and affected structures. The Supreme Court upheld these reasons, stating that the Scheme Regulations prevailed over the 1991 Regulations.

3. Applicability of the 1991 Regulations:
The Supreme Court noted that the 1991 Regulations could not affect the draft Scheme, save for matters provided therein. Special Regulation No. 8 of the Town Planning Scheme explicitly stated that no FSI benefits (TDR) would be given for areas of original plots affected by the Scheme. The Court emphasized that the Scheme Regulations, as finalized by the Arbitrator's award, were binding and could not be overridden by the 1991 Regulations.

4. Vesting of Original Plot No. 433:
The original plot No. 433 vested in the State, and the final plots Nos. 694 and 713 vested in the appellants upon the sanctioning of the Scheme. The Supreme Court clarified that the statutory vesting took place only upon the sanctioning of the Scheme in terms of Section 88 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and not prior thereto.

5. Impact of State Government's Directives:
The State Government's directives under Section 154 of the Act, which aimed to apply the 1991 Regulations to areas with finally sanctioned Town Planning Schemes, were not applicable in this case. The Supreme Court held that the directives could not supersede the statutory provisions of the Act or the Scheme Regulations. The Scheme, once sanctioned, became part of the Act, and any policy decision by the Corporation or the State could not override it.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellants were not entitled to additional FSI or TDR under the 1991 Regulations due to the prevailing Scheme Regulations. The Court emphasized that statutory provisions and the final Scheme took precedence over any conflicting regulations or directives.