- Case
- SARANGA ANIL KUMAR AGGARWAL v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (Bombay High Court, 02-01-2025)
- Law
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, Constitution of India.
Facts: A developer, acting as the Constituted Attorney for a textile processing corporation, undertook a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme (SR Scheme) on land in the Oshiwara District Centre. The scheme involved constructing tenements for Project Affected Persons (PAPs) under a Tripartite Agreement with MMRDA and the State Government. The agreement stipulated the grant of Development Rights Certificates (DRCs) in return for surrendering land for the project. During implementation, the developer acquired additional land, revising the scheme. Subsequently, the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 (DCPR 2034) were notified, offering potentially greater benefits than the existing Development Control Regulations (DCR) 1991 under which the project was initiated. The developer sought additional Transferable Development Rights (TDR) under DCPR 2034, claiming entitlement based on the Tripartite Agreements.
Procedural Posture: The developer filed a Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in the Bombay High Court, seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the respondents (State of Maharashtra, MMRDA) to grant additional TDR under DCPR 2034. An earlier order in favor of the petitioner was set aside by the Supreme Court, and the matter was remanded for reconsideration.
Issue: Is the developer entitled to additional TDR under DCPR 2034 for a Slum Rehabilitation Scheme initiated under DCR 1991, based on the terms of the Tripartite Agreement, without fully converting the scheme to DCPR 2034?
Holding: No, the developer is not entitled to additional TDR under DCPR 2034 without fully or partially converting the scheme to DCPR 2034. The Writ Petition is dismissed.
Reasoning: The Court held that Clause 32 of the Tripartite Agreement explicitly states that the terms and conditions of the DCR, prevailing government guidelines, policy decisions, and practices followed by the Slum Rehabilitation Authority (SRA) shall prevail over the provisions of the Agreement. The Court interpreted Regulations 33(10) and 9(6) of DCPR 2034 to mean that the benefits of DCPR 2034 are only available if the scheme is fully or partially converted for the balance development. Since the developer neither converted the scheme nor sought to apply DCPR 2034 provisions for the balance development, they cannot claim benefits under DCPR 2034 merely because the Letter of Intent (LOI) was granted before DCPR 2034 came into force. The Court also relied on the principle that a writ cannot be issued to create or establish a legal right but only to enforce an already established one, citing Rajasthan State Industrial Development and Investment Corporation V/s. Diamond and Gem Development Corporation Limited [(2013) 5 SCC 470]. The Court found the developer's entitlement to TDR under DCPR 2034 was not crystallized.
