LAXMINARAYAN R. BHATTAD AND ORS. versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 409 · Decided: 04-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BRIJESH KUMAR · Disposal: Dismissed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

LAXMINARAYAN R. BHATTAD AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ANR. 
APRIL 4, 2003 
[BRIJESH KUMAR AND S. B. SINHA, JJ. ] 
B 
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 I Development 
Control Rules, 1967 I Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 
1991-Sections 2(9A), 72, 73(2), 79, 86, 88, 126 and 154 I Rule 10(2) I C 
Regulation I (2) proviso thereto, and Regulations 33 and 34-Acquisition of 
land for Town Planning Sche111e-ln lieu of acquired original plot monetary 
co111pensation and two final plots granted by Arbitrator to the claimant-Pal'/ 
of the original plot affected by the Scheme-Final plots not forming part of 
original plot-1967 Rules and final scheme regulations providing/or grant of 
additional Floor Space Index (FSI) and additional Transferable Develop111ent D 
Rights (TDR) only when final plotfor111s part of original plot-1991 Regulations 
superseding 1967 Rules and providing for granting FSI and TDR even when 
final plot not part of original plot-Claim for FSJ and TDR under 1991 
Regulations-Denial of by Alllhorities and High Court-On appeal, held : 
Appellants not entitled to grant of FSI and TDR-Once the draft Scheme E 
became final, the provisions thereof shall prevail over the provisions of the 
Regulations in terms of the proviso appended to Regulation I (2) of 1991 
Regulations-A legal right to have an additional FS/ or TDR can be claimed 
only in terms of a statute or slatuto1:v regulations and not otherwise-Once a 
Scheme is approved, no deviation therefi·om can be made for purposes other 
than referred to in the Scheme itself unless the same is amended or modified F 
by the State Governme/1/ in accordance with law-Applicability of 1967 Rules 
and Town Planning Scheme Regulations lo 1991 Regulations by reference has 
no relevance, as the 1991 Regulations themselves are not applicable. 
Administrative Law: 
Right created under order of statutmJ' authoril)~Enforceabilil)~To 
make such right enforceable ii mus/ be com11111nicated. 
Statu101y Law-Proviso to a Provision-Purpose of-Discussed. 
409 
G 
H 
410 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2003] 3 S.C.R. 
A 
legislation-Incorporation of statute by reference an_d Referential 
legislation-Distinction between. 
law and Equity-Preferential applicability of-Held: In case of conflict 
between the two, law will prevail over equity. 
B 
Doctrines-Doctrine of 'Relating back '-Applicability of 
The land of the appellant got affected by a Town Planning Scheme. 
Arbitrator, by his award, allotted two final plots and additional monetary 
compensation to the appellant in lieu of the original plot. The final plots 
did not form part of the original plot. Under Rule I 0(2) of Development 
C Control Rules, 1967 additional Floor Space Index (FSI) could be granted 
only when the final plot formed part of original plot. An appeal was filed 
against the award questioning the quantum of compensation and the same 
was dismissed. In 1985 a Policy Resolution had been passed by the 
Corporation granting benefit of additional FSI in lieu of compensation in 
D respect of the plots covered by the Scheme, sanctioned prior to the 
Development Control Rules, 1967 came into force. Appellants did not agree 
for additional FSI because the Corporation had asked the appellants to 
bear the betterment charges. Thereafter Development Control Regulations 
for Greater Bombay, 1991 came into force replacing 1967 Rules, which 
provided grant of FSI and additional Transferable Development Rights 
E (TDR) in lieu of compensation. Under the regulations there was no such 
condition that for grant of additional FSI new plot should form part of 
original plot. State Government by its letter dated 2.3.1993 issued 
instructions to the Corporation to make 1991 regulations applicable. 
Appellants made a claim for TDR under 1991 Regulations in 1994. Even 
F before any decision by the authority, appellant filed writ petition. 
Subsequent to filing of writ petition the Town Planning Scheme was 
finalized by State Notification dated 26.7.1995 whereby FSI could be 
granted only when the final plot formed part of the original plot. High 
Court directed the authority to decide the claim of TDR of the appellant. 
Concerned authority rejected the claim of the appellant on the grounds 
G that benefit of additional FSI under Rule No. 10(2) of 1967 Rules was ~ot 
granted; there was no provision in Town Planning Regulations for 
granting TDR on plots falling in Town Planning Scheme; and because 
com

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