JAYANT ACHYUT SATHE versus JOSEPH BAIN DSOUZA AND ORS.

Citation: [2008] 13 S.C.R. 31 · Decided: 04-09-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: ARIJIT PASAYAT · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2008] 13 S.C.R. 31 
JAYANT ACHYUT SATHE 
A 
v. 
JOSEPH BAIN D'SOUZA AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal_ No. 2970 of 2006) 
SEPTEMBER 4, 2008 
B 
-~ 
[DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND P. SATHASIVAM, JJ.] 
Town Planning: 
Development Control Regulations, 1991 - Regulation 
33(7) (as amended) - Regulations notified for greater Mumbai c 
- Writ petition alleging gross misuse of Regulation 33(7) -
High Court upholding Regulation 33(7) and making it 
applicable only to dilapidated buildings off\' category which 
satisfy the requirement and those declared prior to monsoon 
of 1997 under 3rd proviso - It also held that buildings entitled D 
-i 
to extra "Floor Space Index" and certain side space to be 
provided - On appeal held: High Court not justified in reading 
additional requirements into Regulation 33(7) after holding it 
to be valid - In interpreting a statute, meaning of particular 
words is to be found not so much in a strict etymological E 
propriety of language, nor even in popular use, as in the 
subject or occasion on which they are used and object that is 
intended to be attained - Applying rules of grammar, the term 
"which attracts the provisions of MHADA Act, 1976" could only 
qualify the proximate substance "cessed building of A category F 
in Island city" and nothing more - Interpretation of statutes -
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 . 
Problems arose in the island city of Mumbai with 
regard to congestion of population. Various Acts were 
enacted and amended in respect of repair and G 
reconstruction of dilapidated buildings. The Development 
"' 
Control Regulations, 1991 were notified for greater 
' 
}-
Mumbai. Regulation 33(7) provided for reconstruction and 
development of cessed buildings in the island city of 
31 
H 
32 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2008] 13 S.C.R. 
1 
A cooperative housing societies or of old buildings 
belonging to the Corporation. It also provided for 
consumed FSI or FSI 2 whichever is higher. The 
Regulation was amended time and again. The petitioners 
filed writ petition on the ground that there was gross 
B misuse of the amended Regulation 33(7) when it applied 
to private buildings; that buildings which are otherwise 
in good condition have been pulled down merely 
because they were constructed prior to 1940; that there 
are no guidelines as to who are the tenants or occupiers 
c who are eligible to be protected under the Regulations. 
High Court while holding that Regulation 33(7) does not 
suffer from any illegality, held that the same applies only 
to dilapidated buildings of 'A' category which satisfy the 
requirement and those declared prior to the monsoon of 
D 1997 under 3rd proviso are covered under Regulation 
33(7) and are entitled to extra "Floor Space Index"; and 
that certain side space would be provided. Hence, the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
E 
HELD: 1.1 High Court was not justified in reading 
additional requirements into Regulation 33(7) after holding 
the same to be valid. [Para 43] [62-C-D] 
1.2 If different language is used in the same section 
F or in different sections, the legislative intent is that they 
are intended to lead to different results and there is a 
,. 
conscious intent. [Para 25] [57-G] 
Member Board of Revenue vs. Arthur Paul Benthall 1955 
(2) SCR 842, 845 846; Commissioner of Income Tax, New 
G Delhi now Rajasthan v. Mis East West Import and Export (P) 
Ltd; Asian Distributors Ltd.}, Jaipur 1989 (1) SCC 760 - relied 
on. 
,,. 
1.3 In the writ petitions filed there was no challenge 
_.. 
H to Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control 
JAYANT ACHYUT SATHE v. JOSEPH BAIN 
33 
' 
D'SOUZA & ORS. 
Regulations, 1991. Only incentive FSI was challenged. A 
So far as Regulation 33(7) is concerned, there will btf no 
acquisition in Chapter VIII. Stress is on spending money 
out of the funds and of acquisitions. Chapter VIII-A 
essentially deals with occupiers. Acquisition and the 
·~ 
Board's role is that of certification. Under Regulation 33(7) 
B 
the occupier and the landlord are involved. There is no 
acquisition and there is no government fund utilized. 
There is a Transferable Development Right (TOR) and the 
concept of incentive FSt [Para 26] [58-D-F] 
1.4 A survey conducted by the Corporation in 1980- c 
81 showed that 30,237 buildings would have crossed their 
life span by 1996. The Kerkar Committee report recorded 
that the vast majority of the buildings would have to be 
reconstructed. The report on the Development Pla
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.