GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED THROUGH ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY & ANR. versus THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS

Citation: [2023] 6 S.C.R. 56 · Decided: 08-05-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
56
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
LIMITED THROUGH ITS CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY & ANR.
v.
THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI &
ORS.
(Civil Appeal No. 9021 of 2014)
MAY 08, 2023
[V. RAMASUBRAMANIAN AND PANKAJ MITHAL, JJ.]
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 : s. 126
– Acquisition of land required for public purposes specified in the
plan – Appellant was the owner of the plot in second Development
Plan for Greater Mumbai, reserved for the purpose of ‘Recreation
Ground’– Application by the appellant no. 1 to surrender land
reserved for recreation purpose and for the grant of Development
Rights Certificate-DRC – Intention to develop the land sought to be
surrendered expressed – Proposal accepted, appellant undertook
the development work and handed over the possession of the land
– DRC issued to appellant no. 1, however, no additional TDR issued
– Claim for the grant of Additional TDR by the appellant, rejected
by corporation on the basis of circular dated 09/04/1996 which
restricted the grant of additional TDR in certain circumstances –
Since the circular was under challenge before this Court, appellant
no. 1 awaited the outcome – Later on, the said circular set aside by
this Court in 2009 in Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company
Limited’s case, case of the appellant no. 1 but in respect of some
other property – Another request made for grant of Additional TDR
in Nov 2009, which was declined in Aug 2010 – Writ petition
thereagainst, dismissed by the High Court, on the ground that there
was abandonment of claim by the appellants – On appeal, held:
Law of abandonment was based upon the maxim invito beneficium
non datur which meant that the law conferred upon a man no rights
or benefits which he does not desire – However, during the period
from 1996 to 2009, the right to claim additional TDR was in
suspended form making the appellant to necessarily wait till it was
decided – It is clearly unjustified and unacceptable to say that the
wait of the appellants during this period could tantamount to
abandonment – As regards, the grant of Additional TDR, all activities
[2023] 6 S.C.R. 56
56
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
57
undertaken by appellant No.1 through their Architects till the handing
over of possession of the land were not towards the development of
amenity and for the grant of Additional TDR – All those works were
undertaken as part of the effort to make the Corporation accept
the surrender of land and to grant TDR – Thus, the High Court was
right in recording a finding of fact that the appellants did not develop
the amenity so as to be entitled to additional TDR – Finding of fact
made by the High Court in this regard is upheld – Development
Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 – Reg. 34.
Words and Phrases: “Amenity” and “development” – Meaning
of, in the context of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning
Act, 1966.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The law of abandonment is based upon the
maxim invito beneficium non datur. It means that the law confers
upon a man no rights or benefits which he does not desire. [Para
15][69-B]
1.2 What was cited by the Municipal Corporation in their
order of rejection dated 27.11.1998 as an impediment for the grant
of additional TDR was the subject matter of challenge in the first
round. It was made by the very appellant No.1, though in respect
of another property. If the said decision in the first round had
gone against appellant No.1, the rejection of the claim of the
appellants for additional TDR on the basis of “prevailing policy”
would have become final and unquestionable. [Para 17][69-F-G]
1.3 During the period from 1996 to 2009, the right to claim
additional TDR was in suspended animation. Thus, the appellants
had to necessarily wait till the cloud over their right got cleared.
To say that the wait of the appellants during the period of this
cloudy weather, tantamount to abandonment, is clearly unjustified
and unacceptable. Therefore, the finding recorded by the High
Court that there was abandonment of claim by the appellants, is
not in tune with the law or the facts of the instant case and thus,
is answered in favour of the appellants. [Para 18][69-G-H; 70-A-
B]
GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. THR. ITS
CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY v. THE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF
GREATER MUMBAI
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
58
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 6 S.C.R.
2.1 The word “amenity” as defined in s. 2(2) means several

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.