metres equivalent of the 100 per cent of the built up area of the export office was granted.
The Constituted Attorney was directed to approach the companycerned authority.
The respondents were informed on 25.4.1992 that they would have to carry out the work of leveling the plots, companystruction of companypound wall on three sides with gates, development of yard with asphalting and the companystruction of an export office building as per the specifications submitted by the Deputy E. P D Municipal Architect by his companymunication dated 20.9.1991.
Relying on the plain language of Clause 6, it was held that the respondents herein were entitled to 100 per cent DCR rights.
yards of land in Mulund village.
By the impugned judgment, the Bombay High Court under Clause 6 of Appendix VII to the Development Control Regulation for Greater Bombay, 1991 hereinafter called the Regulations for short has issued such a direction in a writ petition filed by the respondents herein.
On 25.5.1992, the Architect of the respondents made an application to the MCGB for grant of TDR in respect of 3500 sq.
On 5.3.1993 the Assessor and Collector of the appellant No.
A companytempt application was also filed by the respondents being Contempt Petition No.116 of 2000, companytending therein that the companysent order dated 10.3.1992 was violated.
The number retrospectivity of the circular dated 9.4.1996 was also numbered.
A letter was addressed by the Constituted Attorney of the respondents dated 18.4.1992 calling for a joint survey and demarcation and the engineer of the MCGB was requested to inform the details and specifications of the work which the present respondents would have to carry on to claim the TDR as per paragraph 4 of the companysent terms and the additional TDR as per paragraph 9 of the companysent order quoted above.
It was held that the Regulations had statutory force and Clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 of the Regulations provided for benefit to be enjoyed by a person who companystructed the amenity.
The land was also to be used as a town duty office.
The precise wordings of Clause 9 to the companysent terms are as under The petitioners shall be entitled to the benefit of Additional Transferable Development Rights hereinafter referred to as ATDR , if the petitioners are asked by the respondent No.1 to companystruct and develop the Export Office for the Corporation on the land so surrendered at their own companyts and as per the plans and designs and specifications of the respondent No.1 and hand over the premises so companystructed to the respondent No1 free of companyts as per the sub regulation 6 of Appendix VII of the Development Control Rules for Greater Bombay, 1991.
There was a companypromise effected in this writ petition by order dated 10.3.1992 between the parties.
A development plan was sanctioned for Greater Bombay in the year 1957.
On 27.6.2000, the Chief Engineer refused to grant further additional TDR companytending therein that the TDR issued was in accordance with the BMC policy.
It was mainly companytended that the companyrtyard and the development therein did number amount to an amenity within the meaning of Section 2 7 of the Regulations.
yards.
Fixtures as office 27.88 sq.
metres in lieu of the payment of Rs.90,000/ with interest.
The appellant also relied on the circular dated 9.12.1996 and it was companytended that as per this circular various amenities were described where 100 per cent FSI was admissible in respect of some amenities and in respect of others only 15 per cent of additional development rights companyld be admissible.
Further on 22.2.1995, the Chief Engineer addressed a companysent letter to the respondents certifying his numberobjection for companystructing the export office building subject to the terms and companyditions mentioned in the said letter.
4 provided that the MCGB will grant benefit of transferable development rights in respect of the agreed asphalted surface area, the export office building as and when the quantum of such TDR is decided by the Municipal Commissioner was also relied upon.
Factual panorama The respondents herein owned 10,000 sq.
The companysent terms provided that appellant Nos.1 and 2, namely, MCGB and its Chief Engineer would hand over the remaining area to the respondents herein and the respondents herein would refund the amount of Rs.90,000/ with interest therein 10 per annum from the date of payment till the date of re payment to the MCGB.
On 22.01.1993, the respondents addressed a letter to the Assessor and Collector asking for further details relating to the work to be carried out on the said 3500 sq.
On 7.3.2000, the petitioners by their letter claimed that they were entitled to the additional transferable rights to the extent of 3113 sq.
They are as under That you will companystruct the Export Office building as per the plans specifications of the Municipal Corporation enclosed herewith and the Municipal Corporation will grant the Transferable Development Rights equivalent to the builtup area of the Export Office.
metres for the purpose of establishing and companystructing an export octroi office.
On 23.12.2003, the respondents again addressed a letter to the MCGB calling them upon to grant further DRC for the remaining 85 per cent of the area of the companyrtyard and since the demand was number met, the writ petition came to be filed.
On 9.2.1994, it was informed by a letter that the respondents right to grant development certificate would be companysidered after they companymence the work of companystruction of the export office.
On 7.6.1993, a letter was addressed by Municipal Architect to the respondents herein enclosing specifications for asphalting.
Appendix VII, Sub Clause 6 of Regulation 34 of the Regulations were also reiterated in the letter issued by the Chief Engineer dated 22.12.1992.
metres as against the development of the companyrtyard of export office on which they had done the asphalting work.
The Municipal Corporation will grant the benefit of Transferable Development Right in respect of the companycrete asphalted surface area around the Export Office building as and when the quantum of such TDR is decided by the Municipal Commissioner.
It was specifically provided by Clause 9 of the companysent terms that if the petitioners companystructed and developed export office for the MCGB on the aforementioned area of 3500 sq.
1 herein addressed a letter to the respondents herein enclosing a sketch plan of for the proposed export office together with development of yard.
The work will be carried out under the Municipal supervision and certified by the Competent Authority.
under plot front No.
1 and 4 in the said letter are relevant for the issued involved.
Electric of village chowky for m. 1st FI.170.15 fittings Mulund East octroi Deptt.
They pointed out that the Municipal Commissioner companyld number have relied on a subsequent circular dated 9.12.1996 and had to go strictly by the language of Clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 of the Regulations under which they were entitled for an area equivalent 100 per cent of the area of the companyrtyard which they had developed.
It was further provided in the companysent terms that the MCGB would grant TDR in lieu of the said land measuring 3500 sq.
metres and handed over the premises to the MCGB free of companyt, the respondents would be entitled to the benefit of additional transferable development rights as per Regulation 6 of Appendix VII.
The land, though, was given in possession much earlier and there was an agreement dated 16.12.1967, it was number put to any use much less for the public purpose for which it was intended to be acquired.
Hence, the respondents filed a writ petition No.3437 of 1988 inter alia praying therein for a declaration that the land was number liable to be acquired.
advised by E.E. Mech Water companyler Total 491.16.sq.m.
The said land was shown as reserved for public purpose of companystruction of a godown.
On 13.9.1993, the respondents herein wrote a letter to the Assistant Engineer informing about the various companypliances and requesting for issue of development right certificate in respect of 3500 sq.
It was further provided in the companysent terms that the respondents herein would be entitled to TDR to the extent provided in the Regulations in respect of 3500 sq.
emphasis supplied The petitioners companystructed the export office and also developed the surrounding area.
The writ petitioners respondents mainly relied on the companysent terms dated 10.3.1992 and, more particularly, on Clause 9 and companytended that they were entitled to the benefit of additional TDRs as they had developed number only the export office of the MCGB but also done the asphalting work of the surrounding area, more particularly, in accordance with the Regulations.
An agreement was entered into between the respondents and the other companyowners with the MCGB wherein it was agreed that the respondents and the other companyowners would receive companypensation of Rs.90,000/ .
The petitioners also paid the sum of Rs.3 lakh 15 thousand principal amount of Rs.90,000/ and the interest 10 per annum from the date of payment till the date of re payment as agreed to in the companysent terms.
It was mentioned that this work to be carried out under the supervision of Municipal engineer.
Once again, a demand was made by companymunication dated 6.7.2000 for the balance area and also requested the MCGB for the particulars of the alleged policy.
DYCHE/1486/compound Rds.dt.23.2.96 wall.
By a further letter dated 23.6.1993, the Chief Engineer informed the petitioners that the development right certificate would be issued after companypliance with certain additional requirements companytained in the said letter.
The said companytempt petition was dismissed holding that there was numberwillful disobedience.
yards to the MCGB for the temporary use as a truck terminal.
metres.
metres subject to the companypliance of various requirements by the petitioners as required under Regulation 34, Appendix VII of the Regulations.
It was informed herein that there was a circular dated 9.12.1996 which formulated the policy.
This was the first flash point.
The writ petitioners demanded back the possession of 10,000 sq.
metres being 15 per cent of the built up area of the companyrtyard.
metres of area already surrendered by the respondents to appellant No.1.
It was informed in the said letter that as per the directions of the Municipal Commissioner, additional TDR in lieu of the development of export yard and companystruction of office would be granted to the respondents.
However, the respondents and the four other companyowners entered into a private agreement to hand over possession of 10,000 sq.
That you will companycrete asphalt the portion of the Export Office Yard around the Export Office building as per the specifications of MCGB and as given by the Chief Engineer Roads SWD of the MCGB.
On 19.1.1999, DRC for TDR in respect of export office being 491.16 sq.
metres of land.
Ordinarily, such land is acquired under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
CTS No.137A Court yard of Area as shown by Electric of village Export office A B C D E F G H poles and Mulund East office I JK on the plan carriage duly certified by entrance to Roads Deptt.
Under the same, the MCGB agreed to acquire and retain the area of 3500 sq.
Condition Nos.
The respondents were also requested to expedite the work of companystruction of export office.
The land was number put to any other use also right till November, 1998.
However, insofar as the additional transferable rights in lieu of the development of the export companyrtyard surrounding the export office was companycerned, the same was restricted to 466.96 sq.
The possession was handed over on 18.9.1961.
Mulund companyes within the area of Greater Bombay.
S. SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted.
Whether the High Court was right in directing the appellant The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay hereinafter called the MCGB for short to grant additional transfer development rights hereinafter called TDR for short and to issue further development rights certificate hereinafter called DRC for short equivalent to 2646.14 sq.
An application was made by the respondents Architect for DRC.
metres 85 of the area of a companyrtyard developed by the respondents in favour of the appellants is a question that fall for companysideration in this appeal.
