The Supreme Court has rejected the claim of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited for additional transfer of development rights (TDR) for a recreation ground in Vikhroli. In its order, the apex court observed that no amenity was developed as required by law to be entitled to additional TDR.
In July 1994 through its architects Worthy Enterprises, Godrej & Boyce made an application to surrender 31,057.5 sq metres (7.7 acres, across two plots) which was reserved under the 1991 DP for recreation ground.
The Development Control Regulation 26 allowed TDR as compensation for land acquisition and additional TDR for development or construction of amenity on the surrendered land at the cost of the owner.
The possession of the land after laying storm water drains, and granting access to local residents was handed over to the BMC in December 1995. In 1996 the BMC issued a circular restricting the additional TDR to a maximum of 15% of the built-up area of the plot. This circular was challenged by Godrej & Boyce and six others and it was set aside.
In the meantime, while the circular was under challenge, the company applied for TDR for the two plots, claiming it had completed the development of the amenity. At the time, the claim was rejected by the BMC as the circular was under challenge before the courts. After receiving the court order in its favour, it once again applied for additional TDR, which was rejected by the BMC in 2009.
The BMC’s decision was challenged before the Bombay high court, which upheld the civic body’s decision on the grounds that between 1994 and 1998 the company did not disclose that it intended to avail of additional TDR; that they accepted the development rights certificate in 1996 without protest and failed to establish that it had carried out any development.
The high court observed that while surrendering the land and claiming TDR, the owners were called upon to inform whether the reservation is proposed to be built as per the plans approved by the authority concerned. To this, the company responded with: “The question does not arise as the reservation was for recreation ground.”
Subsequently the company challenged the order in the Supreme Court which while rejecting the appeal in its order stated, “We could have simply affixed our seal of approval to the finding of fact recorded by the high court of Bombay in this regard, as the said finding does not appear to be perverse. But instead of taking such a short-cut route we have gone into greater detail so that the valuable rights guaranteed under Article 300A (fair compensation if government acquires private property) are not defeated.”
