Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL  NO. 3008-3009 OF 2010

PUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & ANR.... APPELLANT  (S)

VERSUS

KAUSARBAG COOP. HOUSING SOCIETY... RESPONDENT (S) LTD. & ANR.

WITH

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4580 OF 2010

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. The controversy 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-

1

Page 2

2.4  framed  under  the  Maharashtra  Regional  and  Town  

Planning  Act,  1966  (for  short  “the  MRTP Act”).   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 consideration, on the ground  

that  the  land  in  question  was  not  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 no legal basis.   There are additional grounds for  

the rejection, details whereof will be, noticed in the course of  

the narration to be made hereinafter.  The land in question  

measured about 3.5 acres and was covered by Survey No.12  

(Part)  located at Kohdhava Khurd,  Pune.   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.  

2. The  core  fact  that  emerges  from the  multitude  of  

collaterals 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  

2

Page 3

Municipal Corporation, as reserved for 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  completed  in  the  year  1987  whereafter  

possession of the land was taken over on 19.02.1987.  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.  The  close  

proximity of  time between the two parallel  process is  too  

significant  to  be  overlooked.  While  according  to  the  

respondent-writ petitioner the stage and the manner of the  

inclusion  of  the  land  in  the  development  plan  is  of  no  

consequence to the issue arising i.e. entitlement to TDR, the  

State  contends  that  the  land  was  acquired  under  a  non-

development  plan  proposal  which  would  not  attract  the  

provisions of the MRTP Act.

3. 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  

3

Page 4

Government or a part of the development plan submitted by  

the petitioner in which the land in question was shown as a  

garden”.  Laying  emphasis  on  the  relevant  DCR  i.e.  

N-2.4.17(ii),  the  High  Court  took  the  view  that  no  such  

distinction is disclosed therein and going by the language of  

the  DCR  the  respondent  Society  was  entitled  to  TDR  as  

compensation for the land was not received by it. The High  

Court also noticed the various communications brought on  

record  by  the  respondent-writ  petitioner  to  show  that,  at  

different stages, the authorities of the Municipal Corporation  

as  well  as  those  of  the  State  of  Maharashtra  had  

unequivocally indicated the entitlement of the respondent-

writ  petitioner  to  Transferable  Development  Rights.   The  

High  Court  also  held  that  the  directions  contained  in  

Government Order dated 03.02.2007 to be contrary to DCR  

N-.2.4.17  which  is  an  instance  of  exercise  of  statutory  

powers under the MRTP Act.  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.

4

Page 5

4. We  have  heard  Shri  V.A.  Mohta,  learned  senior  

counsel  and  Shri  Aniruddha  P.  Mayee,  learned  counsel  

appearing for the appellants and Shri Vinod Bobde and Shri  

Shekhar  Naphade,  learned  senior  counsels  appearing  on  

behalf of the respondents.

5. Assailing the order of the High Court, it is contended  

on behalf  of  the appellants that under Section 126 of the  

MRTP Act grant of TDR against land acquired under the Land  

Acquisition  Act  is  not  contemplated  and  grant  of  TDR  is  

permissible only  when the land is  acquired by agreement  

and it is further agreed that in lieu of compensation, TDR will  

be granted and accepted.  It is argued that grant of TDR is a  

matter  of  agreement between the acquiring authority and  

the land owner and the authority cannot be directed to grant  

TDR if it is not so willing asmuch as a land owner cannot be  

compelled  to  accept  TDR in  the  event  he  opts  to  accept  

compensation for  the land acquired.   The concept of TDR  

was brought in by an amendment to the MRTP Act in the  

year 1993 whereas the award for acquisition of the land of  

the  respondent  society  was passed in  the  year  1987 and  

5

Page 6

possession  thereof  was  taken  over  on  21.2.1987.   It  is  

contended  that  the  respondent  society  whose  land  was  

acquired  under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  is  entitled  to  

compensation calculated on the market value of the land as  

on the date of the Notification under Section 4 of the Land  

Acquisition Act which was published in the year 1982.  The  

value of the benefit, if TDR is to be granted at the present  

stage, would be grossly disproportionate.  Pointing out the  

provisions  of  the  Development  Control  Regulations  

governing grant of TDR, it is contended that DCR N-.2.4.1(A)  

and 2.4.17 are required to be read harmoniously and not in  

isolation as has been done by the High Court.  Before DCR  

N-.2.4.17 can be made applicable, the conditions spelt out  

under DCR N-. 2.4.1(A) has to be satisfied, namely, that the  

land  should  have  been  shown  as  reserved  for  a  public  

purpose in the development plan.  It is pointed out that in  

the present case it  was not so done and the land was, in  

fact,  shown  as  an  existing  garden.   Therefore,  DCR  

N-.2.4.1(A)  is  not  applicable  thereby  ruling  out  the  

application of DCR No.2.4.17.  It is also pointed out that the  

6

Page 7

land  was  acquired  under  the  provisions  of  the  Land  

Acquisition Act under a non-development plan proposal  to  

which acquisition the provisions of Section 126 of the MRTP  

Act  will  have no application.   In  so far  as the G.O.  dated  

03.02.2007 under Section 154 of the MRTP Act is concerned,  

the appellants contend that the said G.O. dated 03.02.2007  

is no way amends DCR No.2.4.17 as held by the High Court;  

rather the said directions are merely clarificatory and were  

issued due to large scale deviations that have taken place in  

the matter of grant of TDR.

6. Opposing  the  aforesaid  contentions  advanced  on  

behalf of the appellants, Shri Vinod Bobde and Shri Shekhar  

Naphade, learned senior counsels appearing on behalf of the  

respondent - cooperative housing society in the two separate  

appeals have submitted that the object of the amendment  

made in the year 1993 (14.10.1993) introducing the concept  

of TDR was to lessen the financial burden of the State facing  

the  prospect  of  making  payment  of  huge  compensation  

money  for  acquisition  of  land  in  connection  with  the  

Development Plan.  Learned counsels have pointed out that  

7

Page 8

in the present case the land was eventually included in the  

development plan prepared and approved under the MRTP  

Act. The manner of inclusion in the development plan i.e. as  

an existing garden or as reserved for a garden would not  

make any difference to the claim of TDR.  It is argued that,  

though  offered,  the  respondent  had  not  accepted  any  

compensation  and,  in  fact,  had  agitated  for  higher  

compensation under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act.  

While the matter was so pending the concept of TDR came  

to  be  introduced  in  the  Act  and  in  the  year  1997  

(05.06.1997) the modified DCR N-2.4 was introduced.  The  

respondent society abandoned the reference made by it for  

higher compensation and initiated proceedings challenging  

the acquisition.  After  the said challenge was negatived, the  

respondent  society,  in  the  year  2003,  lodged  a  claim for  

grant of TDR under DCR N-2.4.17 (ii) which though initially  

was  responded  favourably  was  eventually  rejected  by  

placing reliance on the Government Order dated 03.02.2007.  

It is further contended that DCR      N-.2.4.17 is a stand alone  

provision  and  under  clause  (ii)  of  the  said  DCR  the  

8

Page 9

respondent society is entitled to its claim of TDR under the  

MRTP Act  though the land had been acquired under Land  

Acquisition  Act.   In  this  regard,  it  has  been  specifically  

pointed out that possession of the land was taken from the  

society in the year 1987 which is within 12 years prior to 30 th  

September,  1993  as  contemplated  in  DCR  N-2.4.17  (ii).  

Admittedly, no compensation has been received.  It is further  

submitted  that  the  Government  Order  dated  03.02.2007  

purports to amend the DCR which cannot be so done without  

following the procedure prescribed under Section 37 of the  

MRTP Act.  The fact that in similar circumstances TDR had  

been granted to other land owners has also been pointed out  

by  the  learned  counsels  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  

respondent housing society.

7. In so far as the provisions of Section 126(1) (a) (b)  

and (c)  of  the  MRTP Act  is  concerned,  Shri  Vinod  Bobde,  

learned counsel appearing for the respondent society in C.A.  

No.3008-3009 of 2010 has submitted that the availability of  

TDR to cases of land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act  

after  invoking  the  provisions  of  Section  126(1)  (c)  of  the  

9

Page 10

MRTP Act will not be open to be raised either by the State or  

the Municipal Corporation once the DCR, particularly DCR N-

2.4.17  (ii),  had  been  enacted  and  brought  into  force  to  

confer Transferrable Development Rights for land acquired  

under the provisions of the aforesaid Section 126(1) (c) of  

the  Act  by  following  the  process  laid  down  in  the  Land  

Acquisition  Act.   Shri  Bobde  has  pointed  out  that  once  

Regulations have been framed contemplating grant of TDR  

to such land subjected to acquisition under Section 126 (1)

(c),  the Government cannot turn around and refuse to be  

bound by its own norms much less challenge the same.  It is  

further pointed out by Shri Bobde that any such plea on the  

part  of  the  State  is  not  competent  in  law  and  the  State  

cannot seek a decision on the validity of its self professed  

norms of governance.  So long as the DCR remains its full  

legal effect must be given effect to.

8. As  the  issues  raised  before  us  will  have  to  be  

answered on the basis of the true and correct purport and  

effect of the relevant provisions of the MRTP Act; those of  

the Development Control Regulation i.e. DCR N-2.4.1(A) and  

10

Page 11

2.4.17;  and the  Government  Order  dated 03.02.2007,  the  

same may be extracted at the first instance.  

Relevant provisions of the MRTP Act  

“22. Contents of Development Plan -

A Development plan shall  generally indicate  the manner in which the use of land in the area of  the Planning Authority shall be regulated, and also  indicate the manner in which the development of  land therein shall  be carried out.  In particular,  it  shall provide so far as may be necessary for all or  any of the following matters, that is to say,-

(a)………….. (b)……….... (c)…………. (d)…………… (e)…………… (f)…………….. (g)…………….. (h)…………….. (i)……………. (j)……………… (k)………………. (l)………………….

(m) - provisions for permission to be granted  for  controlling  and  regulating  the  use  and  development of land within the jurisdiction of  a local authority including imposition of fees,  charges and premium, at such rate as may  be  fixed  by  the  State  Government  or  the  Planning  Authority,  from  time  to  time,  for  grant of an additional Floor Space Index or for  the  special  permissions  or  for  the  use  of  discretionary  powers  under  the  relevant  

11

Page 12

Development  Control  Regulations,  and  also  for imposition of conditions and restrictions in  regard to the open space to be maintained  about  buildings,  the  percentage  of  building  area  for  a  plot,  the  location,  number,  size,  height,  number  of  storeys  and character  of  buildings and density of population allowed in  a  specified  area,  the  use  and  purposes  to  which  buildings  or  specified  areas  of  land  may  or  may  not  be  appropriated,  the  sub- division  of  plots  the  discontinuance  of  objectionable  users  of  land  in  any  area  in  reasonable  periods,  parking  space  and  loading and unloading space for any building  and  the  sizes  of  projections  and  advertisement signs and boardings and other  matters as may be considered necessary for  carrying out the objects of this Act.”

“Section 126. Acquisition of land required for  public  purposes specified in plans (1)  When  after  the  publication  of  a  draft  Regional  Plan,  a  Development or any other plan or town planning  scheme, any land is required or reserved for any  of  the  public  purposes  specified  in  any  plan  or  scheme under this Act at any time the Planning  Authority, Development authority, or as the case  may be,/ any appropriate authority may, except as  otherwise provided in Section 113-A,/ acquire the  land –  

(a) by  an  agreement  by  paying  an  amount  agreed to or,

(b) in lieu of any such amount, by granting the  land-owner or the leasee, subject, however, to the  lessee  paying  the  lessor  or  depositing  with  the  Planning  Authority,  Development  Authority  or  

12

Page 13

Appropriate  Authority,  as  the  case  may  be,  for  payment to  the lessor,  an amount equivalent  to  the value of the lessor’s interest to be determined  by any of the said Authorities concerned on the  basis  of  the  principles  laid  down  in  the  Land  Acquisition Act,  1894, Floor Space Index (FSI)  or  Transferable  Development  Rights  (TDR)  against  the area of land surrendered free of cost and free  from all encumbrances, and also further additional  Floor  Space  Index  or  Transferable  Development  Rights against the development or construction of  the amenity on the surrendered land at this cost,  as  the  Final  Development  Control  Regulations  prepared in this behalf provide, or  

(c) by  making  an  application  to  the  State  Government  for  acquiring  such  land  under  the  Land Acquisition Act, 1894.

And the land (together with the amenity, if any, so  developed  or  constructed)  so  acquired  by  agreement  or  by  grant  of  Floor  Space  Index  or  Additional  Floor  Space  or  Transferable  Development Rights  under this  Section or  under  the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, as the case may  be,  shall  vest  in  the  Planning  Authority,  Development  Authority,  or  as  the  case  may  be,  any Appellate Authority.”

Government Order dated 03.02.2007

“Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966

Directive under Section 154 About TDR.

GOVERNMENT OF MAHARASHTGRA URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

MANTRALAYA, MUMBAI – 400 032.

13

Page 14

DATED 3rd FEBRUARY, 2007.

ORDER

No.  TPS/Sankirna-06/CR-527/06/UD-13:-  Whereas  the  provision  of  Transferable  Development  Rights  (hereinafter referred to as “the said TDR”) has been  incorporated  in  the  sanctioned  Development  Control Regulations (hereinafter referred to as “the  said  DCR”)  with  a  view  to  reduce  the  financial  burden of  acquisition of  lands reserved for  public  purposes  in  the  Development  Plan  and  for  early  possession of these lands:

And whereas, sanctioned Development Control  Regulations of some Municipal Corporations contain  the provision of rules regarding the said TDR;

And whereas, sanctioned the said DCR of some  Municipal Corporations also have provision to grant  the said  TDR for  the  lands acquired either  under  Maharashtra  Regional&  Town  Planning  Act,  1966  (hereinafter referred to as “the said Act”), Bombay  Provincial  Municipal  Corporation  Act,  Private  Negotiation  or  any  other  Act  and  possession  of  which has already been delivered to the Municipal  Corporation;

And  whereas,  it  has  come  to  the  notice  of  Government  that  the  rule  regarding  the  grant  of  TDR such acquired lands have been misinterpreted  and misused;

And whereas, once the possession is delivered  after  acquisition  the  rights  of  the  owner  are  transferred  to  the  Planning  Authority  and  the  application  by  the  land  owner  demanding  TDR  thereafter can be said to be made without having  any rights in the land;

14

Page 15

After considering the facts and circumstances  referred  to  above,  in  exercise  of  the  powers  conferred  under  Section  154  of  the  said  Act,  Government is pleased to issue directives to all the  Municipal Corporations as follows:

DIRECTIONS All the Municipal Corporations which have the  

provisions  regarding  grant  of  Transferable  Development Rights (TDR) for the lands which are  acquired  under  either  the  MRTP  Act,  BPMC  Act,  Private Negotiation or  any  other  Act  shall  initiate  modification proposal after following procedure laid  down  under  Section  37  of  the  said  Act  so  as  to  replace the provisions of this regard by new rules as  follows:

NEW RULES:

1) Transferable  Development  Rights  (TDR)  shall  not  be  permissible  once  an  award  has  been  declared under the acquisition process and or the  possession  has  already  been  delivered  to  the  Municipal Corporation under any Act.

2) Municipal  Corporation  shall  punish  a  notice  inviting suggestions and or objections regarding the  modification within sixty days from the date of issue  of this order.

3) After  completing  the  procedure  laid  down  under  Section  37(1)  of  the  said  Act  Municipal  Corporation  shall  submit  the  said  modification  proposal to the Government for final sanction.

4) Pending  the  approval  to  the  aforesaid  modification the new rule  mentioned hereinabove  shall come into force with effect from the date of  issue of this notification.

15

Page 16

By order and in the name of  Governor of Maharashtra.

Sd/- (Nandkishor Patil)

Under Secretary to Government”

Development Control Regulation  “N.2.4.1  (A). The owner  (or  lessee)  of  a  plot  of  land which is reserved for a public purpose, or road  construction or road widening in the development  plan  and  for  additional  amenities  deemed  to  be  reservations  provided  in  accordance  with  these  Regulations, excepting in the case of an existing or  retention  user  or  to  any  required  compulsory  or  recreational  open  space,  shall  be  eligible  for  the  word of transferable Development Rights (TDRs) in  the form of Floor Space Index (FSI)  to the extent  and on the condition set out below.  Such award will  entitle the owner of the land, to FSI in the form of a  Development  Right  Certificate  (DRC)  which  be  (sic. he) may use for himself or transfer to any other  person.

N-2.4.17.  Grant of TDR in cases where lands are  under acquisition:

(i)  Where Land Acquisition has been declared but  request  was  made  for  TDR  to  the  Special  Land  Acquisition  Officer  after  30th September  1993  i.e.  the date of publication of these draft Development  Control Regulation containing TDR concept.

(ii) Possession  of  the  land  has  been  delivered  without having received part or full  compensation  under  either  the  Maharashtra  and  Town Planning  Act,  Bombay Provincial  Municipal  Corporation Act,  private negotiation or under any Act for  the time  

16

Page 17

being  in  force  within  12  years  prior  to  30th  September 1993.”

9. Though there is some controversy on the basic facts,  

there is also unanimity to show that the acquisition of the  

land belonging to the respondent  society  was initiated by  

notification dated 28.01.1982 issued under Section 4 of the  

Land  Acquisition  Act,  1894.   It  is  also  clear  that  on  

completion  of  enquiry  under  Section  5-A  of  the  Land  

Acquisition Act,  declaration under Section 6 was published  

on 2.1.1985.  Some further facts on which there is no dispute  

and therefore would require to be taken note of, are that the  

draft  revised  development  plan  which  was  published  on  

18.9.1982 showed the land as an existing garden and in the  

final development plan which was sanctioned on 5.1.1987,  

the  land  was  again  shown  as  “existing  garden  as  per  

approved layout”.  The respondent-writ petitioner, however,  

contends  that  the  description  of  the  land  as  an  existing  

garden is wrong and what should have been mentioned in  

the development plan is that the land was proposed for a  

garden  as  possession  of  the  same  was  still  with  the  

17

Page 18

respondent-society  on  the  date  of  publication  of  the  final  

development plan i.e. 5.1.1987. Possession of the land, as  

noticed,  was taken over  on 18.2.1987 whereas the award  

under the Land Acquisition Act was made on 22.01.1987.

10. Having considered the matter we are of the view that it  

will  not  be  necessary  for  us  to  consider  the  aforesaid  

perspective  highlighted  by  the  respondent  society  as  the  

controversy over the entitlement to TDR under the relevant  

DCR is capable of being resolved on a wholly different basis  

to which aspect of the matter we may now turn.

11. The concept of TDR was introduced for the first time in  

the MRTP Act in the year 1993 by an amendment of Section  

126(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the MRTP Act.  The modalities for  

grant  of  TDR  were  brought  into  force  by  the  amended  

Development Control Regulation (for short ‘DCR’) N-2.4 with  

effect from 5.6.1997.  In its simplest form, the concept of  

TDR  involves  the  surrender  of  land  reserved  for  various  

public purposes in the development plan free of cost and in  

exchange thereof grant of TDR entitling the holder thereof to  

18

Page 19

construct a built up area equivalent to the permissible FSI of  

the land handed over by him on one or more plots in the  

zone specified.   Such  rights  are  transferable.   The object  

behind  introduction  of  TDR,  as  admitted  by  the  Pune  

Municipal  Corporation  in  its  various  publications,  was  to  

meet the situation faced by the Corporation on being called  

upon to make payment of over Rs.1500 crores to take over  

different  sites  measuring  about  600  hectares  which  had  

been  reserved  for  different  public  purposes  in  the  

development plan.

12. Strictly construed it is the provisions of the Section 126  

(1)(a) read with (b) of the MRTP Act, extracted earlier, which  

contemplate  grant  of  TDR and that  too  only  against  land  

acquired by agreement as distinguished from land which is  

acquired  under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  in  exercise  of  

powers under Section 126(1)(c). The latter kind of acquisition  

i.e.   under  the  Land  Acquisition  Act  by  invoking  Section  

126(1)(c) of the MRTP Act however stands on a footing that  

is different and distinguishable from the normal process of  

acquisition under the same Act i.e. the Land Acquisition Act.  

19

Page 20

This is because in an acquisition under the Land Acquisition  

Act made in exercise of power under section 126(1)(c) of the  

MRTP Act, the provisions of Section 4 and Section 5A of the  

L.A.  Act  are dispensed with and straightway a notification  

under Section 6 is to be issued.  The market value of the  

land,  though  sought  to  be  acquired  under  the  Land  

Acquisition Act, is pegged to the date of publication of the  

interim or draft development plan, as may be, and not to the  

date of publication of the notification under Section 4 of the  

Land  Acquisition  Act.   The  above  is  a  subtle  but  vital  

difference  between  the  ordinary  and  ‘normal’  process  of  

acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act and the process of  

acquisition under the same Act  but  in  exercise of  powers  

under Section 126(1)(c) of the MRTP Act that needs to be  

kept in mind.

13. DCR N-2.4.1(A) gives effect to the provisions of Section  

126(1)(a) and (b) brought in by the amendment to the MRTP  

Act in 1993.  It entitles the owner or a lessee of a plot of  

land,  which  is  reserved  for  a  public  purpose  in  the  

20

Page 21

development  plan,  to  the  award  of  TDR  in  lieu  of  

compensation upon surrender of the land free of cost.  If,  

DCR No.N-2.4 had not contemplated any further situations  

for grant of TDR the argument advanced on behalf  of the  

appellants  would  have  merited  serious  consideration.  

However, DCR N-2.4.17, extracted above, contemplates two  

other situations for grant of TDR. Under DCR N-2.4.17(ii) in  

situations  where  possession  of  land  had  been  delivered  

without receipt of part or full compensation payable under  

the MRTP Act, Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act,  

private negotiations  or under any Act and such event had  

occurred  within  12  years  prior  to  30.9.1993  (date  of  

publication  of  the  draft  DCR containing  the  TDR concept)  

claims for grant of TDR are required to be entertained.  DCR  

N-2.4.17 extends the frontiers outlined under Section 126(1)

(a)  and (c)  and makes  the grant  of  TDR applicable  to  an  

extended class of cases wherein acquisition of land is made  

not  only  under  the  MRTP  Act  but  also  under  other  

enactments  including  the  L.A.  Act.   Such  an  extension  

appears  to  be  in  consonance  with  the  object  behind  the  

21

Page 22

introduction of the concept of TDR by the amendment of the  

MRTP Act  of  1993.   Having  regard  to  the  clear  language  

contained in DCR N-2.4.17(ii)  and the object sought to be  

achieved by the introduction of TDR, we do not see as to  

how grant of  TDR can be confined only to  cases of  lands  

which have been reserved in the development plan and not  

to lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act which land  

eventually  becomes  a  part  of  the  finally  approved  and  

sanctioned development plan.  The above would also lead to  

the  conclusion  that  DCR  N-2.4.17  is  capable  of  operating  

independently and is not contingent on the existence of the  

conditions mentioned in DRC N-2.4.1(A).

14. The  matter  needs  to  be  viewed  from  another  

perspective.  The difference between acquisition under the  

L.A. Act by resort to the provisions of Section 126(1)(c) of  

the MRTP Act and acquisition dehors the said provision of the  

MRTP Act has already been noted.  If under DCR N-2.4.17,  

TDR can be granted in cases of acquisition under the MRTP  

Act obviously acquisition under the LA Act upon invocation of  

Section 126(1)(c)  would be included.   In  such a situation,  

22

Page 23

reference to any other Act in DCR N-2.4.17 would include the  

L.A. Act so as to bring land covered by the normal process of  

acquisitions  under  the  L.A.  Act  within  the  fold  of  DCR N-

2.4.17.  The  acquisition  of  the  land  belonging  to  the  

respondent society would, therefore, be clearly covered by  

the provisions of DCR N-2.4.17.

15. “Making of DCR or amendments thereof are legislative  

functions.”1 The Government Order dated 3.2.2007, though  

claimed to be clarificatory by the appellants, really, seeks to  

prohibit the grant of DCR under DCR N-2.4.17 so far as lands  

in respect  of  which Award under the Land Acquisition Act  

had  been  passed  or  possession  of  which  has  been  taken  

over.   This  is  contrary  to  the  clear  intent  behind  DCR N-

2.4.17.  The  Government  Order  itself  acknowledges  the  

necessity of following the procedure prescribed by Section  

37 of the MRTP Act before the aforesaid modification could  

become effective.  Yet, surprisingly the Government Order  

goes on to state that,  “Pending approval  of  the aforesaid  

modification the new rule mentioned hereinabove shall come  1  Pune Municipal Corporation and Anr. Vs. Promoters and Builders Association and Anr. [(2004) 10 SCC  796]

23

Page 24

into  force  with  effect  from  the  date  of  issue  of  this  

notification”.   The  Government  Order  in  question,  having  

been issued under Section 154 of the MRTP Act, therefore,  

cannot override the DCR N-2.4.17 as the directions under  

Section  154  of  the  MRTP  Act  would  be  in  the  nature  of  

administrative  instructions  (Laxminarayan  R.  Bhattad  

and Others  Vs.  State of Maharashtra and Another2).  

Admittedly,  at  the  relevant  point  of  time,  the  requisite  

process  under  Section  37  of  the  MRTP  Act  had  not  been  

completed.   

16. Underlying the arguments advanced on behalf  of  the  

appellants is a fundamental issue that would require a brief  

mention.  The present case discloses a somewhat disturbing  

course of action adopted by the State in seeking to disown  

and challenge its own professed standards laid down in the  

form of a DCR by tangentially contending the same to be  

incompetent in law.  Such a course of action by the State  

seeking to  depart  from its  self-professed norms is  neither  

permissible  nor  would  the  Court  require  to  consider  the  

2 (2003) 5 SCC 413

24

Page 25

same.   The DCR governing the grant of  TDR though may  

have gone beyond what  is  contemplated under  the  MRTP  

Act,  the  State  and  its  authorities  cannot  be  permitted  to  

request the Court to collaterally adjudge the validity of the  

said norms laid down by the State itself.  It is for the State to  

effect  necessary  corrections  as  deemed  proper  and  not  

search for an escape valve through a judicial verdict.  Such a  

course of action is jurisprudentially impermissible.  So long  

as  the  DCR holds  the  field  all  executive  actions  must  be  

within  the  four  corners  thereof.  We  can  usefully  remind  

ourselves  of  the  observations  of  Justice  Frankfurter  in  

Viteralli  Vs.  Seaton3 approved  in  R.D.  Shetty  Vs.  

International Airport Authority4 :

“An executive agency must be rigorously held to  the standards by which it professes its action to be  judged.   ..Accordingly,  if  dismissal  from  employment  is  based  on  a  defined  procedure,  even though generous beyond the  requirements  that  bind  the  agency,  that  procedure  must  be  scrupulously observed…This judicially evolved rule  of  administrative  law  is  now  firmly  established  and, if I  may add, rightly so.  He that takes the  procedural sword shall perish with the sword.”

3 3.L Ed.2d. 1012 4 (1979) 3 SCC 489

25

Page 26

17. For the above-stated reasons, the conclusion is obvious.  

The rejection of the claim of the respondent Society to TDR  

under  the  MRTP  Act  read  with  DCR  N-2.4.17  is  seriously  

flawed. We, therefore, set aside the same; affirm the order  

dated  15.9.2009  of  the  Bombay  High  Court  in  the  writ  

petition filed by the respondent  Society  and consequently  

dismiss the appeals filed by the Pune Municipal Corporation  

and the State of Maharashtra.    

 ……………………………J.    [RANJAN GOGOI]

..………………..………..J.    [M.Y.EQBAL]

New Delhi; October 09, 2014.   

26