SURESH EST ATES PVT. LTD. & ORS. versus MUNICIPAL CORP. OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS.

Citation: [2007] 13 S.C.R. 882 · Decided: 14-12-2007 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Case Partly allowed
Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
SURESH EST ATES PVT. LTD. & ORS. 
, 
v. 
Mill>.1CIP AL CORP. OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS. 
DECEMBER 14, 2007 
--
B [K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, CJI, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANT A 
AND J.M. PANCHAL, JJ.) 
TOWN PLANNING: 
c 
ENVIRONMENT (PROTECTION) ACT, I 986: 
ss. 3(1) and 3(2)(v)-Coastal Regulation Zone Notification dated 
19. 2.1991-Regulating building activities in Coastal Zones within 
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai as per norms 'existing' on 
D date of Notification-Application by owners to develop their land 
falling under CRZ JI as per the Notification, by constructing a luxury 
hotel thereon in terms of Development Control Rules, 1967-HELD: 
On 19. 2.1991, the date of issuance of CRZ Notification, DC Rules, 
1967 were the 'existing' norms and as such the plan prepared 
E thereunder would govern the case-Draft Development Rules, 1989 
which were notified on 20.2.1991 and came into force w.e.f 25.3.1991 
in the form o/Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 
1991 were not the existing law in force and prevalent on 19. 2.1991-
Norm set out regarding Floor Space Index (FSI) in DC Rules, 1967 
; ·-
F would be construed to mean the norm of FSI which can be granted by 
i 
Government exceeding the norm of permissible FSI, in exercise of 
discretion under r.10(2) of the DC Rules, 1967. 
s. 3---0rder/Notification issued under-HELD: Will prevail over 
provisions of 'any other law' including MRTP Act, 1966-Thus s.46 
G of MRTP Act would not apply to facts of instant case-Maharashtra 
Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966-s. 46. 
ADMINISTRATIVE LAW: 
H 
882 
SURESHESTATESPVT.LTD. v. MUNICIPAL CORP. OF 
883 
GREATERMUMBAI 
Statutory authority-Taking of decision and exercise of discretion A 
by_:__Application by owners of plot for permission to develop it by 
constructing a luxury hotel thereon and to allow additional FSI in 
terms of r.10(2) of D. C. Rules, 1967-Not decided within stipulated 
time-Writ petition by land owners seeking a declaration that 
application be deemed to have been allowed-HELD: Applicants are B 
not entitled to such a declaration as grant of permission was under 
"' 
active consideration of different authorities-Further, Court cannot 
direct the competent authority to exercise discretion in a particular 
tnanner-Court can always direct competent authority to exercise 
discretion in accordance with law-The discretion has to be exercised c 
judiciously in consonance with the principles incorporated in Article 
14 of the Constitution-State Government directed to take a decision 
as early as possible on application of land owners on the basis of DC 
Rules, 1967 and to exercise discretion to allow additional FSI as 
available under r. I 0(2)-Development Control Rules, 1967-r. l 0(2) D 
-Constitution of India, 1950-Articles 14, 226and136. 
MAHARASHTRA REGIONAL AND TOWN PLANNING ACT, 
1966: 
s.127-Land reserved for school and road-Land owner causing E 
notice served on competent authority to purchase the land-Decision 
taken not to purchase the land-Held: Reservation lapsed in terms of 
provisions of s.127. 
WORDS AND PHRASES: 
Expression 'any other law' as occurring ins. 3 of the Environment 
(Protec:tion) Act, 1986-Connotation of 
'Existing' as occurring in CRZ Notification dated 19. 2.1991 issued 
under s.3 of Environment Protection Act, 1986-Connolation of 
A plot admeasuring 8983 sq. mtr. belonging to the appellant-
Companies and fallingwithin the local limits ofMunicipal Corporation 
F 
G 
of Greater Mumbai, was reserved for playground of Municipal 
School and for a road. According to the appellants, in order to 
regulate building activities in Coastal Zone, Government of H 
884 SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2007] 13 (Add!.) S.C.R. 
A Maharashtra issued Notification dated 19.2.1991 u/ss 3(1) and 
3(2)(v) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 and r.5(3)(d) of 
Environment Protection Rules, declaring coastal stretches as 
Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ), and as per the Notification their 
plot fell within CRZ II. The appellants claimed to have served a 
B purchase notice on the respondent-Municipal authorities, and since 
the latter declined to purchase the said land, reservation of the same 
. was stated to have lapsed. Thereafter the appellants, on 26.12.2005, 
submitted an application with the plan in terms of the Development 
Control Rules, 1967 to develop the said land by constructing a luxury 
C hotel thereon, and claimed additional FSI of3.73 times the FSI in 
addition to 1.33 FSI allowable on the
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.