RAJHAN NARENDRA ROUT AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS

Citation: [2022] 10 S.C.R. 263 · Decided: 25-08-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.V. RAMANA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
263
RAJHAN NARENDRA ROUT AND OTHERS
v.
THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY,
URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 4639 of 2012)
AUGUST 25, 2022
[N. V. RAMANA, CJI AND HIMA KOHLI, JJ.]
Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966: s.126 –
Acquisition of land reserved under the Development Plan for public
purposes – Issuance of Transferable Development Rights Certificate
against the area of land acquired or surrendered by the land owners
– On facts, appellants-land owners agreed to surrender the subject
land to the respondent No.3-Corporation and opted for grant of
TDR – Said land was reserved for the purpose of a park in the
development plan, however appellant’s case that the subject land
was shown as Hill Top/Hill Slope zone in the development plan –
Respondent no. 3 completed the acquisition process and agreed to
grant TDR @ 100% Floor Space Index-FSI – Complaints regarding
grant of excessive TDR – The then Chief Minister of the State
cancelled the grant of TDR @ 100% FSI and reduced it to 4% FSI
– Writ petition by the appellant – Dismissed by the High Court – On
appeal, held: Gross injustice caused to the appellants who had
offered their land to the respondent No.3/Corporation on the basis
of a Scheme floated by it proposing to acquire land for public
purpose and grant TDR to the land owners in lieu of the land –
Having decided to award TDR @ 100% FSI to the appellants, later
on the respondents reneged from their decision and slashed the
offered TDR to 4% FSI on the premise that the appellants could not
compare their land with the adjoining lands for claiming residential
use since the said land is also in the nature of ‘Hill Top/Hill Slope’
– When to the north and the west of the subject land, residential
construction was permissible and till date, the lands falling in ‘Hill
Top/Hill Slope’ zone have not been zoned for being put to any use,
the appellants cannot be expected to wait – Matter has been lingering
in courts for over eighteen years and there have been several rounds
of litigation – Land remained in the possession of the respondent
[2022] 10 S.C.R. 263
263
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
264
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 10 S.C.R.
No.3/Corporation all along, thereby not only depriving the
appellants of its use but also depriving them of the compensation to
which they were entitled as long back as in the year 2004 – In
ordinary course, this court would have been inclined to restore the
TDR granted to the appellants – However, keeping in mind that
extensive construction has mushroomed in Pune over the past two
decades and additional construction of over seven lakhs sq. feet, if
permitted, would cause a severe strain on the civic amenities
available in the city – Respondent Nos.3 and 4/Corporation directed
to return the land to the appellants and compensate them @ Rs.1
crore per year for the loss caused by surrendering per 66,000 sq.
mts. of land way back in the year 2004 – Development Control
Regulations – Regn N-2.4.5.
Friends Colony Development Committee v. State of
Orissa and Others (2004) 8 SCC 733 : [2004] 5 Suppl.
SCR 818 – referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2004] 5 Suppl. SCR 818
referred to
Para 19
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4639
of 2012.
From the Judgment and Order dated 13/14.03.2012 of the High
Court of Judicature at Bombay in Writ Petition No.1790 of 2008.
Neeraj Kishan Kaul, Sr. Adv., Ms. Shyel Trehan, Hitesh Jain,
Pranaya Goyal, Dharav Shah, Rohan Poddar, Ms. Namisha Chadha,
Dhawal Desai, Ms. Pritha Suri, Vikas Mehta, Advs. for the Appellants.
Ms. Madhavi Divan, ASG, Shyam Divan, Sr. Adv., Sachin Patil,
Rahul Chitnis, Shreeyash Lalit, Aaditya A. Pande, Geo Joseph,
Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Makarand D. Adkar, Vijay Kumar, Shantanu M.
Adkar, Ms. Bharti Tyagi, Venkita Subramoniam T. R., Rahat Bansal,
Likhi Chand Bonsle, Advs. for the Respondents.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
265
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
HIMA KOHLI, J.
1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 13/14th
March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Bombay, dismissing the
challenge laid by them to the order dated 27th December, 2007 passed
by the then Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra, cancelling the
Transferable Development Rights1 Certificate earlier granted in favour
of the appellants @ 100% Floor Space Index2 and upholding the decision
to reduce the TDR granted to the appellants from 100% FSI to 4% FSI.
2. The subject matter of the dispute in the present appeal is in
resp
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.