The land in question measured about 3.5 acres and was companyered by Survey No.12 Part located at Kohdhava Khurd, Pune.
The companye fact that emerges from the multitude of companylaterals and the exhaustive pleadings of the parties is that the land in question was shown by the respondent Society itself in the lay out plan submitted by it to the Pune Municipal Corporation, as reserved for garden.
The High Court took the view that it cannot be understood as to how there can be a difference between land which was part of a development plan reserved by the Government or a part of the development plan submitted by the petitioner in which the land in question was shown as a garden.
While according to the respondent writ petitioner the stage and the manner of the inclusion of the land in the development plan is of numberconsequence to the issue arising i.e. entitlement to TDR, the State companytends that the land was acquired under a number development plan proposal which would number attract the provisions of the MRTP Act.
In the draft development plan dated 15.09.1982 that was prepared and published under the provisions of the MRTP Act, which was subsequently approved and sanctioned on 05.01.1987, the land was shown as an existing garden.
Acquisition of the said land was initiated in the year 1982 28.01.1982 under the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and the same was companypleted in the year 1987 whereafter possession of the land was taken over on 19.02.1987.
The view of the High Court being in favour of the respondent writ petitioner society, the Pune Municipal Corporation and the State of Maharashtra have filed the two appeals in question.
The said claim has been resisted and rejected by the Pune Municipal Corporation and the State of Maharashtra, the two appellants in the appeals under companysideration, on the ground that the land in question was number reserved for a public purpose in the development plan prepared under the MRTP Act and being shown as an existing garden therein, the claim to TDR has numberlegal basis.
The said G.O. dated 03.02.2007 had excluded the entitlement to Transferable Development Rights once an award had been made and possession of the land had been delivered as in the present case.
There are additional grounds for the rejection, details whereof will be, numbericed in the companyrse of the narration to be made hereinafter.
Laying emphasis on the relevant DCR i.e. N 2.4.17 ii , the High Court took the view that numbersuch distinction is disclosed therein and going by the language of the DCR the respondent Society was entitled to TDR as companypensation for the land was number received by it.
RANJAN GOGOI, J. The companytroversy in the present appeals arises out of the claim of the respondent writ petitioner, a housing society, to Transferrable Development Rights TDR under the relevant Development Control Regulations DCR i.e. N 2.4 framed under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for short the MRTP Act .
