GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO.LTD. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 1 S.C.R. 1016 · Decided: 06-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MARKANDEY KATJU · Disposal: Case Allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 1 S.C.R. 1016 
A 
GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO.LTD. 
"' 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No.17 46 of 2007) 
B 
FEBRUARY 6, 2009 
[MARKANDEY KATJU AND AFTAB ALAM, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 19661 
Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991: 
c 
Sections 2, 22A, 29, 31, 37, 126, 15413, 32, 34, 35, 62, 
Paragraph 6 of Appendix VII - Voluntary surrender of lands 
- Roads constructed by the owners before surrendering the 
lands -
Claim for Floor Space Index or Transferable 
D Development Rights for the whole of the surface area of the 
roads - Municipal Corporation limiting it to 15% of the area 
relying on a circular - Held: Such changes could be made 
only by making suitable amendments in the law and not by 
an executive circular - It is highly debatable if certain public 
E utilities can be introduced through a circular within the 
meaning of the Act or the Regulations - Surrender of the 
lands in terms of clause (b) of section 126(1) of the Act cannot 
be subjected to any further conditions than those provided for 
in the statutory provisions - It is open to the Legislature to add 
to the conditions provided for in the statute - But not to be 
~ . 
F left in the hands of the executive to impose conditions. 
' 
The appellants and the writ petitioners had their plots 
of land shown in the Development Plan as reserved for 
roads. They voluntarily surrendered their lands. In 
G addition, they constructed on their respective pieces of 
land the Development Plan roads at their own cost and 
as per the specifications stipulated in the relevant rules. 
There is no dispute between the parties in regard to the 
Floor Space Index or Transferable Development Rights 
H 
1016 
GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO.LTD. v. 
1017 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS. 
granted to them for the surrendered pieces of land. But A 
the parties are in serious controversy over the extent of 
Floor Space Index or Transferable Development Rights 
for the roads constructed on the surrendered lands at the 
owners' cost. The landowners claim that for constructing 
the roads they are entitled to Floor Space Index or 
B 
Transferable Development Rights for the whole of the 
surface area of the roads. The municipal authorities 
would, however, grant them additional Transferable 
. Development Rights only to the extent of 15% of the road 
area. The stand of the municipal authorities is based on c 
a circular dated April 9, 1996 issued by the Muni<:ipal 
Commissioner, Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay. 
The circular envisages a graded scheme for grant of 
Additional Development Rights for construction of 
amenities by the landowner, e.g., in case of amenities like D 
"' 
general hospital, municipal primary school etc. it allows 
FSI equal to the built up area of the structure but in case 
of DP road only 15% of the area of the road surface. 
On behalf of the landowners it is argued that the 
contents of the circular are no more than executive 
E 
instructions and can not supersede or override the 
provisions of the Regulations which are legislative in 
nature; in any event the circular would only operate 
,__).. 
prospectively and have no bearing on the cases in hand 
since it was issued after the appellants and the petitioners 
F 
had surrendered their plots of lands after constructing 
roads on those lands as required by the authorities. On 
behalf of the State and the municipal authorities, it is 
contended that the law provides for grant of additional 
Floor Space Index or Transferable Development Rights 
G 
commensurate to the value of the amenity constructed 
--.It 
by the landowner and the meaning of paragraph 6 of 
Appendix VII to the Regulations will be clear by reading 
it along with the other provisions of the Regulations and 
the parent Act; and that the circular dated April 9, 1996 
H 
1018 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 1 S.C.R. 
A would appear to be merely clarificatory and fully apply to 
the claims of the appellants and the petitioners. 
Allowing the appeals and the writ petitions, the Court 
HELD:1.1. The regulation fixes the measure of 
B equivalence by using the words "equivalent to the area 
of construction/development done on the surrendered 
land". 'Area' of construction/development having being 
fixed as the measure of equivalence it is no longer open 
to contend that any other basis such as value may be 
C used for determining equivalence. [Para 43) [1041-H] 
1.2. The ration

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