PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. versus KAUSARBAG COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ANR.

Citation: [2014] 10 S.C.R. 843 · Decided: 09-10-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

[2014] 10 S.C.R. 843 
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR. 
v. 
KAUSARBAG COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY LTD. & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos. 3008-3009 of 2010 ETC.) 
OCTOBER 09, 2014 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND M.Y.EQBAL, JJ.] 
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: 
A 
B 
Transferable Development Rights (TDR) under c 
Development Control Regulations (DCR) N-24 - Land-shown 
by Housing Society as 'reserved for garden' in lay out plan 
submitted by it - Land acquired under Land Acquisition Act 
- Municipal Corporation resisting the claim stating that the 
land was not reserved for public purpose - Grant of TDR 
0 
cannot be .confined only to lands which have been reserved 
in the development plan and not to lands acquired under 
Land Acquisition Act which land eventually becomes a part 
of the finally approved and sanctioned development plan -
Rejection of the claim of respondent Society to TDR under 
MRTP Act read with DCR N-2.4. 17 is seriously flawed - The 
E 
same is, therefore, set aside - Land Acquisition Act, 1894: 
Administrative Law: 
Subordinate Legislation -
Development Control 
F 
Regulations or amendment thereof are legislative functions 
- G. 0. dated 3. 2. 2007 issued u/s 154 is contrary to clear intent 
behind DCR N-2.4. 17 and, as such, cannot override DCR N-
2. 4. 17 -
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 
- s.154. 
The instant appeals arose out of the jµdgment and 
order of the High Court allowing the claim of the 
respondent writ-petitioner Society to Transferable 
843 
G 
H 
• 
844 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 10 S.C.R. 
A Development Rights (TOR) under Development Control 
Regulations, i.e. DCRN-24 in respect of the subject land. 
Dismissing the appeals, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. The concept of TOR involves the 
B surrender of land reserved for various public purposes 
in the development plan free of cost and in exchange 
thereof grant of TOR entitling the holder thereof to 
construct a built up area equivalent to the permissible FSI 
of the land handed over by him on one or more plots in 
C the zone specified. [para 11] [859-8-C] 
1.2. OCR N-2.4.1 (A) gives effect to the provisions of 
s.126(1)(a) and (b) brought in by the amendment to the 
MRTP Act in 1993. It entitles the owner or a lessee of a 
0 plot of land, which is reserved for a public purpose in the 
development plan, to the award of TOR in lieu of 
compensation upon surrender of the land free of cost. 
OCR N-2.4.17 contemplates two other situations for grant 
of TOR. Under DCR N-2.4.17(ii) in situations where 
possession of land had been delivered without receipt of 
E part or full compensation payable under the MRTP Act, 
Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act, private 
negotiations or under any Act and such event had 
occurred within 12 years prior to 30.9.1993 (date of 
publication of the draft OCR containing the TOR concept) 
F claims for grant of TOR are required to be entertained. 
OCR N-2.4.17 extends the frontiers outlined u/s 126(1)(a) 
and (c) and makes the grant of TOR applicable to an 
extended class of cases wherein acquisition of land is 
made not only under the MRTP Act but also under other 
G enactments including the L.A. Act. Such an extension 
appears to be in consonance with the object behind the 
introduction of the concept of TOR by the amendment of 
the MRTP Act of 1993. [para 13] [860-C-G] 
H 
1.3. Having regard to the clear language contained 
PUNE MUNICIPAL CORP. v. KAUSARBAG COOP. 
845 
HOUSING SOCIETY. LTD. 
in OCR N-2.4.17(ii) and the object sought to be achieved 
A 
by the introduction of TOR, grant of TOR cannot be 
confined only to cases of lands which have been 
reserved in the development plan and not to lands 
acquired under the Land Acquisition Act which land 
eventually becomes a part of the finally approved and 
B 
sanctioned development plan. The above would also lead 
to the conclusion that OCR N-2.4.17 is capable of 
operating independently and is not contingent on the 
existence of the conditions mentioned in ORC N-2.4.1 (A). 
[para 13] [860-G, H] 
c 
1.4. If under OCR N-2.4.17, TOR. can be granted in 
cases of acquisition under the MRTP Act obviously 
acquisition under the LA Act upon invocation of 
s.126(1 )(c) would be included. In such a situation, 
reference to any other Act in OCR N-2.4.17 would include 
D 
the L.A. Act so as to bring land covered by the normal 
process of acquisitions under the L.A. Act within the fold 
of OCR N-2.4.17. The acquisition of the land belonging to 
the respo
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.