PROMOTERS & BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF PUNE versus PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS.

Citation: [2007] 6 S.C.R. 459 · Decided: 11-05-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

").-
PROMOTERS & BUILDERS ASSOCIATION OF PUNE 
A 
V. 
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AND ORS. 
MAYll,2007 
[G.P. MA THUR AND RV. RA VEENDRAN, JJ.] 
B 
" 
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966-ss. 37 and 158-
-..(_ 
Development plan of Pune-Directive to Pune Municipal Corporation to 
amend Development Control Rules of Pune-Proposal for modification of c 
Rules-State Government sanctioned proposal of modification with certain 
changes-Power of State Government to amend Rules-Held : Language of 
s 37 (2) is very clear-It empowers State Government to sanction the proposal 
of Municipal Corporation regarding modification of Development Control 
Rules with or without any changes as it deem fit- Development Control Rules 
having same force as that of statute, as such promissory estoppel not D 
applicable-Thus, review of order of Supreme Court not sustainable-
·~ 
However, sanction given for construction in excess of 0.4 1VR will not be 
.., 
treated in violation of Clause (b) of DCR 24.1 I-Maharashtra Develpoment 
Control Rules, I967-Rule N 2.4.11 (a) and (b)-Constitution of India, 
1950- Article 137-Interpretation of statutes. 
E 
Constitution of India, 1950-Article 137-Review petition-When-
permissible-Stated. 
In the Regulations of Greater Bombay a concept of Transfer of 
Development Rights was introduced to facilitate acquisition of land for public F 
purposes. The State of Maharashtra issued a directive under Section 37 (1) 
-f 
of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act 1966 to the respondent Pune 
Municipal Corporation to amend Development Control Rules of Pune city on 
the same lines as applicable in Greater Bombay. The proposal for modifications 
in the Rule N.2.4.11 was that "FSI of receiving plot shall be allowed to be 
exceeded by not more than 0.4 in respect of D.R. available in respect of the G 
reserved plot and upto a further 0.4 in respect of D.R. available in respect of 
the lands surrendered for road widening or construction of new roads are 
prescribed. It was forwarded to the State Government. State Government while 
~ 
sanctioning made changes in Rule N.2.4.11 from the Bombay Development 
459 
H 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
460 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 6 S.C.R. 
Control Rules and notified the modified Development Control Rules of Pune 
Municipal Corporation. Rule N.2.411 reads as (a) FSI on receiving plots shall 
be allowed to be exceeded not more than 0.4 in respect of DR available for the 
reserved jJlots, (b) FSI on receiving plots shall be allowed to be exceeded by 
further 0.4 in respect of DR available on account to be exceeded by further 
0.4 in respect of DR available on account of the land surrendered for the road 
widening or construction of new road from very' said plot." Petitioners filed 
Writ Petition against Pune Municipal Corporation and State of Maharashtra 
challenging the modified Development Control Rules. High Court allowed the 
writ petition holding that it was net possible for the State to add the words 
'from the same plot' in the clause 2.4.11 as the same have been added without 
being publicized as required by the provision of section 37(1 ). Respondents 
filed appeal before this Court which was allowed and order of the High Court 
was set aside. Hence the present review petitions. 
Petitioner contended in the proposal sent by the respondents-
Corporation after allowing the procedure prescribed in sub-section (1) of s 
37, the words 'from the very said plot' towards the end of clause (b) in OCR-
2.4.11 were not there; that the State Government while sanctioning the 
proposal added the said words which in law it could not do; that the Municipal 
Corporation had submitted the proposal after inviting objections and after 
giving an opportunity of hearing and the proposal so made by the Municipal 
Corporation could not have been modified or altered by the State Government 
without inviting objections or giving an opportunity of hearing with regard to 
changes which it proposed to made and which were ultimately made in the 
notification issued by it. 
Dismissing the Review petitions, the Court 
HELD: 1. There is absolutely no ground for review of the judgment and 
Order of this Court. [Para 11) [471-A) 
2.1. The language of Sub-section (2) of Section 37 of the Maharashtra 
Regional Town Planning Act. 1966 uses the expression " sanction the 
G modification with or without such changes, and subject to such conditions as 
it may deem fit, or refuse to accord sanction". The langu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.