Summary
The appellants surrendered about 66,000 sq m at Parvati, Pune, reserved for a park, to the Pune Municipal Corporation for Transferable Development Rights. Acting on the Advocate General's opinion that unzoned reserved land takes the FSI of adjoining residential land, the State fixed TDR at 100% FSI, and the Corporation issued certificates and took possession in 2004. In 2007 the Chief Minister cut the TDR to 4% FSI, treating the land as hill top/hill slope, and the High Court upheld this. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. The State never explained rejecting its own Advocate General's opinion or sought a fresh one, and kept the land unused for 18 years. Instead of restoring the TDR, given strain on civic amenities, it directed return of the land for residential use with compensation of Rs. 1 crore a year.
Issues
- Whether the State could cancel TDR granted at 100% FSI for land surrendered under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act and reduce it to 4% FSI on the ground that the land was hill top/hill slope
- What relief should follow where the landowners were left without either land or compensation for 18 years
Provisions considered
- Section 126, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966The land, reserved under the Development Plan, was surrendered in return for TDR. Reneging on the grant left the owners without compensation and was set aside. (¶¶ 2, 21, 31)
- Rule N-2.4.5 and Rule M-8, Development Control Rules for Pune Municipal Corporation, 1982TDR follows the permissible FSI of the zone of origin. For unzoned reserved land the State had accepted the adjacent residential FSI, and the later reliance on the 4% hill-slope FSI was unexplained. (¶¶ 17, 22, 23, 27)
Held
- The State sought and accepted the Advocate General's opinion that unzoned reserved land should receive the FSI of adjoining residential land. It granted TDR at 100% FSI, issued certificates and took possession and payment for a boundary wall. When the TDR was cut later, no reason was given for discarding that opinion and no fresh opinion was sought on the alleged factual error. (¶¶ 23, 24, 25, 26)
- Residential construction was permissible to the north and west of the land, and the hill top/hill slope lands had never been zoned for any use. The appellants could not be made to wait indefinitely, and slashing the TDR to 4% caused gross injustice. (¶ 27)
- Despite repeated opportunities, the State and the Corporation shifted blame to each other and kept the land unused for 18 years, leaving the appellants with neither land nor compensation. (¶¶ 26, 28, 30, 31)
- Ordinarily the 2004 TDR would be restored. Given the Corporation's concern that over seven lakh sq ft of additional construction would strain civic amenities, the land was instead to be returned for residential use, with compensation for the deprivation since 2004. (¶ 31)
Result
Appeal allowed; the High Court's judgment was set aside, the Corporation was directed to return the land within four weeks for residential use, and the respondents to compensate the appellants at Rs. 1 crore per year since 2004, all within three months.