The planning authority did number want the words same plot to be introduced.
More than two years thereafter, the Pune Municipal Corporation passed a Resolution on 29.10.2001 number to allow use of additional 0.4 FSI in the area other then the plot from which the land for road widening has been acquired which was in tune with clause b of D.C.R. 2.4.11.
It may be pointed out here that while sanctioning the proposal of the Pune Municipal Corporation, the State Government added the words from the very said plot towards the end of clause b of Development Control Rule N.2.4.11 in the numberification which was issued by it on 5.6.1997.
Consequently, the respondents are directed to sanction the building plan submitted by the petitioners incorporating FSI of 0.8 as available in accordance with C. Rules 2.4.11.
Thus a maximum of 0.8 of the total floor space area of the receiving plot shall be permitted.
In view of the clarification issued by the State Government, the Pune Municipal Corporation issued a circular on 20.7.1999 and with regard to Rule N.2.4.11 it was stated as under As per the rule No.2.4.11 a b of the Development Control Rules the TDR of 0.4 of the total floor space area of the receiving plot out of TDR of road widening or other roads widening and 0.4 of the total floor space area of the receiving plot out of TDR of areas reserved for other purposes is allowed.
The policy adopted by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation should be followed by the Pune Municipal Corporation.
The State Government while sanctioning Rule N.2.4.11 introduced a departure from the Bombay Development Control Rules.
There is numberanswer to this by the State Government and it was obvious that it was done by the State Government.
Thereafter, some exchange of companyrespondence and meetings took place between the Pune Municipal Corporation and the State Government as regards the interpretation of the above Rule.
This decision of the Corporation was endorsed by the General Body on 21.11.2001.
The writ petition was companytested by the Pune Municipal Corporation and State of Maharashtra by filing companynter affidavits.
Some other changes were also made by the State Government in the Rules which had been proposed by the Pune Municipal Corporation.
The High Court after companysidering the provisions of Section 37 of the Act and also of the Development Control Rules, allowed the writ petition on 23.4.2002.
The Chief Secretary of the Urban Development Department, Government of Maharashtra then sent a detailed letter to the Pune Municipal Corporation on 11.6.1998 regarding the companyrect interpretation of the numberified Development Control Rules.
Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the Pune Municipal Corporation filed Civil Appeal No.3800 of 2003 in this Court.
Promoters and Builders Association of Pune, a Society registered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, filed Writ Petition No.5198 of 2001 against Pune Municipal Corporation and State of Maharashtra challenging the modified Development Control Rules, especially Rule N 2.3 A and N.2.4.11 a and b , wherein the principal relief claimed was that a writ of mandamus be issued companymanding the respondents to the writ petition to implement Development Control Rule N 2.4.11 b in a manner that the road area in respect of the plot, which is reserved for the road can be utilized being 0.4 FSI on the same plot and the balance unutilized FSI, if any, can be companyverted into TDR and can be used anywhere on a receiving plot to the extent of 0.4 FSI, in addition to the 0.4 FSI permissible on the receiving plot for amenities under Rule N 2.4.11 a and direct the Municipal Corporation to forthwith dispose of the applications which had been submitted by the members of the petitioner Association in the light of said clarification.
REVIEW PETITION CIVIL NO.1809 OF 2005 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3800 OF 2003 WITH REVIEW PETITION CIVIL NOS.1856 1857 OF 2005 IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.3804 OF 2003 P. Mathur, J. These are review petitions seeking review of the judgment and order dated 5.5.2004 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.3800 of 2003.
Regarding Rule N.2.4.11 it was stated as under in the said letter Use of 0.4 Transferable Development Rights and 0.4 Development Plan Road together making 0.8 Floor Space Index on the same property.
After hearing learned companynsel for the parties, this Court allowed the appeal by the judgment and order dated 5.5.2004.
It is the addition of these words by the State Government which gave rise to the litigation which was ultimately decided by this Court in Civil Appeal No.3820 of 2003 and the introduction of said words is also under challenge in the present review petitions.
The FSI on receiving plots shall be allowed to be exceeded by further 0.4 in respect of DR available on account of the land surrendered for the road widening or companystruction of new road from very said plot.
