LexKUKREJA CONSTRUCTION COMPANY & OTHERS versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 830 : 2024 INSC 692 Kukreja Construction Company & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others (Civil Appeal No. 9702 of 2024) 13 September 2024 [B.V. Nagarathna* and Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was right in declining to grant relief to the writ petitioners-appellants herein on the ground of delay and laches; whether the appeals filed by the respondent-Mumbai Municipal Corporation would call for any interference; what order to be passed. Headnotes† Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 – s.126(1)(b) – Acquisition of land required for public purposes specified in plans – Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 – Regulations 33; 34 r/w Para 6 of Appendix-VII – Determination of compensation in form of Floor Space Index (FSI) and/or Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) – Claim for additional FSI/TDR against the development/ construction of the amenity on the surrendered land at owner or lessee’s cost – Inapplicability of doctrine of delay and laches – Appellants-land owners held plots reserved in the sanctioned development plan for Development Plan Road (DP Road) – Appellants had constructed DP Road at their own cost and voluntarily surrendered the reserved lands to the respondent-Corporation, were granted 25% TDR for the construction of said amenity at their cost – Later, after the judgment of Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. State of Maharashtra reported as [2009] 1 SCR 1016 (Godrej & Boyce I) holding that the owner or lessee would be entitled to FSI or TDR equivalent to 100% of the area of the road constructed by them, the appellants * Author [2024] 9 S.C.R. 831 Kukreja Construction Company & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others claimed additional FSI/TDR – Rejected by High Court on the ground of delay and laches – Correctness: Held: Not correct – Question of delay and laches would not arise in present cases – Once the compensation is determined in the form of FSI/TDR, the same is payable even without any representation or request being made, as otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution – Respondent did not establish that owing to a short delay even if it had occurred in any of these cases owing to uncertainty in law, it was prejudiced by the same or that third-party rights were created which could not be disturbed owing to delay or laches – Neither the doctrine of delay and laches nor the principle of abandonment of claim or waiver would apply in these cases – Rather, the delay occurred on the part of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in complying with the Regulations insofar as the appellants are concerned – High Court not right in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches, impugned order set aside to that extent – However, reasoning of the High Court holding that the 2016 notification amending Regulation 34 of the 1991 DCR would not apply retrospectively or retroactively to a land reserved under the development plan which is surrendered and amenity is developed on the said land by the owner or lessee thereof at his own cost prior to the amendment, not interfered on merits – Respondent to consider the case of writ petitioners-appellants herein in light of Godrej & Boyce I case and release the balance FSI/TDR to the appellants however, in the case of appellant – Kukreja Construction company and others, the respondent to consider the nature of the amenities constructed and thereafter consider their case for additional FSI/TDR. [Paras 4.8, 18, 20] Case Law Cited Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. State of Maharashtra [2009] 1 SCR 1016 : (2009) 5 SCC 24; Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Natwar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal No. 1748 of 2015; Noida Entrepreneur Association v. NOIDA [2011] 8 SCR 25 : (2011) 6 SCC 508; Sukh Dutt Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2022] 2 SCR 1041 : (2022) SCC OnLine SC 410; Lalaram v. Jaipur Development Authority [2015] 14 SCR 403 : (2016) 11 SCC 31; Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher, 832 [2024] 9 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports President, Industrial Court, Bombay, AIR 1967 SC 1450; M/s Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited v. District Board, Bhojpur, [1992] 2 SCR 155 : (1992) 2 SCC 598; Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Dolly Das (1999) 4 SCC 450; Mohar Singh (Dead) Thr. Lrs. v. State of UP Collect
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.