9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Maharashtra town planning law regarding Transferable Development Rights (TDR) and Floor Space Index (FSI). 2. Validity and applicability of the Municipal Commissioner's circulars in determining TDR/FSI. 3. Entitlement of landowners to TDR/FSI for constructing roads on surrendered land. 4. Statutory provisions versus executive instructions. Detailed Analysis: 1. Interpretation of Maharashtra town planning law regarding Transferable Development Rights (TDR) and Floor Space Index (FSI): The judgment discusses the evolution of the Maharashtra town planning law aimed at promoting planned development and decongesting highly congested areas. The law allows for the development potential of a plot of land to be separable from the land itself and transferable by the landowner. This is particularly useful for plots reserved for public purposes, prohibiting other developments. Landowners can surrender their plots free of cost to municipal authorities and receive TDR or FSI in return. Section 126(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, and the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991, are central to this case. These provisions stipulate that landowners are entitled to TDR/FSI for surrendered land and additional TDR/FSI for constructing amenities on the surrendered land at their own cost. 2. Validity and applicability of the Municipal Commissioner's circulars in determining TDR/FSI: The municipal authorities issued a circular on April 9, 1996, which introduced a graded scheme for granting additional TDR for constructing amenities, allowing only 15% of the road area for DP roads. This circular was later amended on April 5, 2003, to increase the TDR to 25% for road areas. The appellants argued that the circulars were merely executive instructions and could not override the statutory provisions of the Regulations, which are legislative in nature. The court agreed with this argument, stating that the statutory provisions could not be superseded by executive instructions. 3. Entitlement of landowners to TDR/FSI for constructing roads on surrendered land: The appellants claimed that they were entitled to TDR/FSI equivalent to the entire surface area of the roads they constructed on the surrendered land, as per paragraph 6 of Appendix VII to the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991. The municipal authorities, however, granted only 15% (later increased to 25%) of the road area based on the circular. The court examined the statutory provisions and concluded that the law clearly envisaged granting TDR/FSI under two separate heads: one for the land and the other for the construction of the amenity. The court found that paragraph 6 of Appendix VII used the words "equivalent to the area of the construction/development," which meant that the additional TDR should be the same in area as the amenity constructed on the surrendered land. 4. Statutory provisions versus executive instructions: The court emphasized that the statutory provisions of the Act and the Regulations had to be followed, and executive instructions in the form of circulars could not override these provisions. The court noted that the municipal authorities were aware of this legal position and had requested the State Government to modify paragraph 6 of Appendix VII. The court also highlighted that the circular dated April 9, 1996, was issued after the appellants had surrendered their land and constructed the roads, and thus, it would not affect their rights retrospectively. Conclusion: The court set aside the judgment and order of the Bombay High Court, which had upheld the municipal authorities' stand. The court allowed the appeals and writ petitions of the appellants, granting them TDR/FSI equivalent to the area of the roads constructed on the surrendered land, as per the statutory provisions. The court emphasized that any changes to the basis for granting TDR/FSI should be made through amendments to the law, not through executive circulars.
|
