Dedicated locality research platform
Dedicated locality research platform
Enter your email address and you will receive
a link to reset your password
The Supreme Court has dismissed the claim made by Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited for additional transfer of development rights (TDR) for a recreation ground in Vikhroli. The apex court's decision was based on the observation that no amenity had been developed as required by law in order to be eligible for additional TDR.
The entire issue dates back to July 1994 when Godrej & Boyce, through their architects Worthy Enterprises, submitted an application to surrender a total of 31,057.5 square meters (equivalent to 7.7 acres) of land, which had been reserved for a recreation ground under the 1991 Development Plan (DP).
According to Development Control Regulation 26, TDR could be granted as compensation for land acquisition, with the provision of additional TDR for the development or construction of amenities on the surrendered land, at the owner's expense.
In December 1995, after laying stormwater drains and providing access to local residents, the possession of the land was handed over to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC). However, in 1996, the BMC issued a circular that restricted the additional TDR to a maximum of 15% of the built-up area of the plot. Godrej & Boyce, along with six others, challenged this circular, leading to its eventual cancellation.
During the period when the circular was being challenged, the company applied for TDR for the two plots, claiming that it had completed the development of the required amenities. However, the BMC rejected the claim at that time, citing the ongoing legal challenge. After receiving a court order in their favour, Godrej & Boyce reapplied for additional TDR in 2009, only to have their application rejected once again by the BMC.
The company then challenged the BMC's decision in the Bombay High Court, which upheld the civic body's stance. The court noted that between 1994 and 1998, the company did not disclose its intention to avail of additional TDR and had accepted the development rights certificate in 1996 without objection. Furthermore, the company failed to provide evidence of any development carried out on the surrendered land.
The high court highlighted that during the process of surrendering the land and claiming TDR, the owners were required to inform the authority whether the reservation would be built according to approved plans. In response to this, Godrej & Boyce simply stated that the question was irrelevant as the reservation was for a recreation ground.
Subsequently, the company appealed the high court's decision to the Supreme Court. While rejecting the appeal, the apex court acknowledged that it could have simply accepted the high court's findings, as they did not appear to be flawed. However, the Supreme Court decided to delve into greater detail to ensure that the fundamental rights guaranteed under Article 300A, which ensures fair compensation when the government acquires private property, were not compromised.
In summary, the Supreme Court's ruling denies Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited the additional TDR it sought for the recreation ground in Vikhroli. The court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal requirements for the development of amenities and expressed its commitment to upholding constitutional rights related to fair compensation in property acquisition cases.
Propscience is India’s dedicated property news portal. We cover the latest events, news, trends, deals, new launches and more.
All our services and tools are completely free of cost and available 24X7!
