Petitioners challenged the denial of Transferable Development Rights, arguing the Arbitrator could not determine compensation via TDR. The court held TDR grants contravene the Act's scheme when compensation is already finalized.
The petition seeking direction to grant transferable development rights is rejected.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.2264 OF 2007
1.Smt.Yamunabai Narayan Tamhane
and others.
...Petitioners.
vs.
1.Pune Municipal Corporation
and another.
...Respondents.
Mr.N.V.Walawalkar, Sr.Advocate with Mr.G.H.Keluskar,
for Petitioners.
Mr.R.G.Ketkar, for Respondent no.1.
Mr.Arun Palekar, AGP for Respondent no.2.
CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH &
V.M.KANADE, JJ.
DATED: 20th NOVEMBER,2007.
P.C .:-
1.The learned Counsel appearing for
petitioners, at the outset, stated that he
restricts the petition to the relief claimed by
prayer clause (d). By prayer clause (d), the
2
petitioners are seeking direction to the
respondentno.1togranttransferable
development rights to them. The defence of the
respondent no.1-Corporation is that regulation in
relation to Transferable Development Rights were
not applicable when the land was acquired under
the Town Planning Scheme. In so far as the
petitioners are concerned, the scheme was made
final in the year 1989. The compensation was
fixed by the Arbitrator in the year 1969. The
Award of the Arbitrator has become final. Perusal
of various provisions of the Act in particular
the provisions of Section 64, 65 and 68 of
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act shows
that grant of Transferable Development rights
under the Regulation will be against the very
scheme of the Act. Perusal of Section 72 of the
Act shows that the Arbitrator has to estimate the
compensation payable for the loss of area to the
original owner. Therefore, what should be the
amount of compensation payable for the loss of
area is within the jurisdiction of the
Arbitrator. In exercise of that jurisdiction the
3
Arbitrator has made the Award. That Award has
become final and therefore, now the petitioners
cannot ask the Corporation to grant Transferable
Development rights in lieu of compensation.
There is no substance in the petition, hence, it
is rejected.
(D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)
(V.M.KANADE,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether Transferable Development Rights can be granted in lieu of compensation fixed by Arbitrator under the Town Planning Scheme.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Smt. Yamunabai Narayan Tamhane and others
Pune Municipal Corporation
D.K.Deshmukh
V.M.Kanade
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court