RAJHAN NARENDRA ROUT AND OTHERS versus THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT AND OTHERS on 25 August 2022

1. The appellants are aggrieved by the judgment dated 13/14[th]March, 2012 passed by the High Court of Bombay, dismissing thechallenge laid by them to the order dated 27[th] December, 2007 passedby the then Chief Minister of the State of Maharashtra, cancelling theTransferable Development Rights[1] Certificate earlier granted in favourof the appellants @ 100% Floor Space Index[2] and upholding the decisionto reduce the TDR granted to the appellants from 100% FSI to 4% FSI.

2. The subject matter of the dispute in the present appeal is inrespect of a parcel of land, situated in plot No.517 (part) and plot No.523(part) at Parvati, Pune, measuring 66372.82 sq. mts. In the DevelopmentPlan of Pune City, 1987[3], the said land was reserved for the purpose ofa park. The stand of the appellants is that the subject land was shown inthe ‘Hill Top/Hill Slope’ zone in the Development Plan under theMaharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1996[4]. Respondent No.3/Pune Municipal Corporation[5] invoked Section 126 of the Town PlanningAct that permits acquisition of land which is reserved under theDevelopment Plan, for public purposes and contemplates issuance ofTDR against the area of land acquired or surrendered by the land ownersfree of cost. In terms of the aforesaid provision, the appellants agreed tosurrender the subject land to the respondent No.3/Corporation and optedfor grant of TDR. The respondent No.3/Corporation completed theacquisition process in respect of the said land and agreed to grant TDRto the appellants in terms of the Development Control Regulations[6] framedunder the Town Planning Act, in particular Regulation N -2.4.5.

3. Respondent No.4/Commissioner of the Corporation addresseda letter dated 22[nd] February, 2001 to the respondent No.2/Secretary,Urban Development Department[7] of the respondent No.1/State ofMaharashtra seeking a clarification as to the rate at which TDR was tobe granted in respect of the subject land.

1 for short ‘TDR’

2 for short ‘FSI’

3 for short ‘Development Plan’

4 for short ‘Town Planning Act’

5 for short ‘Corporation’

6 for short ‘DC Regulations’

7 for short ‘UD Department’

A

B

CDE

F

G

H

A4. The Principal Secretary, UD Department wrote to the AdvocateGeneral of the State on 3[rd] September, 2003 for obtaining legal advice onthe above aspect. The said letter highlighted inter-alia the fact that theparcel of land in question had not been zoned for ‘Hill Top/Hill Slope’and for purposes of deciding the value of TDR for a reserved site whichdoes not bear any zoning, zoning of the adjoining land is taken intoBconsideration by the respondent No.3/ Corporation. The AdvocateGeneral forwarded his opinion on 22[nd] September, 2003, stating that ifthe plots adjacent to the acquired/surrendered land were in a residentialzone, then TDR for the said land was to be awarded at the rate of FSIavailable to the residential plots. On the basis of the said legal opinion,Cvide letter dated 9[th] October, 2003, the Under Secretary, UD Departmentinformed the respondent No.4/Commissioner of the Corporation thatsince the zoning line was not shown in the Development Plan, theapplicable TDR for the subject plot shall be @ 100% FSI, as that wasthe rate appliable to the surrounding land.D5. On 20[th] October, 2003, Director, Town Planning, Pune requestedthe State Government to reconsider its decision of awarding TDR @100% FSI to the appellants and to pass a revised order awarding TDR@ 4% FSI. Respondent No.2/State responded vide letter dated12[th] March, 2004, stating that unlike the Development Plan of Mumbai,the Development Plan of Pune does not contain zones and/or zoningElines and as per the Town Planning Scheme of Pune, the subject landwas to be kept open. The letter further clarified that while granting TDRfor any land under reservation, TDR is granted as per the permissibleFSI, irrespective of non-buildable nature of land due to shape andaccessibility. Reliance was placed on the remarks made by the AdvocateFGeneral in the opinion given on 22[nd] September, 2003 and a copy thereofwas enclosed with the reply.

6. The chronology of events reveals further that on 26[th] May,2004, the appellants deposited a sum of ¹ 50,12,516/- (Rupees fifty lakhs,twelve thousand, five hundred and sixteen) with the respondent No.3/GCorporation towards the expenses to be incurred for construction of acompound wall to protect the subject land. On 28[th] May, 2004, respondentNo.3/Corporation issued Development Right Certificates[8] in favour ofthe appellants in lieu whereof, the appellants handed over possession ofthe subject land to the respondent No.3/Corporation.

H8 for short ‘DRC’

7. In the meantime, on receiving some complaints regarding grantof excessive TDR to the appellants, the then Chief Minister of therespondent No.1/State of Maharashtra issued an order dated 19[th] April,2004, staying the operation of the letter dated 9[th] October, 2003.Aggrieved by the same, the appellants submitted a representation to theChief Minister on 24[th] October, 2005, requesting that the stay order bevacated, which was rejected on 22[nd] November, 2005. The aforesaidrejection order was challenged by the appellants before the BombayHigh Court by filing a writ petition registered as WP No.5989/2006. Thesaid petition was disposed of vide order dated 15[th] January, 2007 with adirection to the appellants to submit a representation before therespondent No.2/Secretary, UD Department, to enable him to passappropriate orders in a time bound manner.

8. In compliance of the aforesaid order, a representation wassubmitted by the appellants to the respondents No.1 and 2/State. Afterhearing the parties, an order was passed by the then Chief Minister on27[th] December, 2007, cancelling the TDR granted @ 100% FSI for thesubject land and directing that new TDR @ 4% FSI shall be granted.

9. Passing of the aforesaid order led to a second round of litigationbetween the parties. The appellants filed WP No.1790/2008 before theHigh Court of Bombay praying inter-alia for quashing and setting asidethe order dated 27[th] December, 2007. Vide order dated 11[th] December,2008, the said writ petition was dismissed by the High Court by observingthat the subject land surrendered by the appellants was classified as‘Hill Top/Hill Slope’ and there was no reason to interfere with the orderdated 27[th] December, 2007, granting TDR @ 4% FSI to the appellantinstead of 100%.

10. Aggrieved by the order dated 11[th] December, 2008, theappellants filed a Special Leave Petition before this Court registered asSLP(C) No.6476/2009. Vide order dated 15[th] September, 2010, theaforesaid order passed by the Bombay High Court was set aside andthe matter was remanded back for fresh consideration with liberty grantedto the parties to file fresh affidavits and additional documents. Till then,the interim order passed by the Bombay High Court was extended.

11. It is a matter of record that the appellants did file an additionalaffidavit along with additional documents before the Bombay High Courtin opposition whereto, counter affidavits were filed by the respondents.

ABCD

E

F

G

H

AAfter hearing the parties, vide judgment dated 13/14 March, 2012, theHigh Court once again dismissed the writ petition. It is this order thathas brought the appellants back before this Court.

12. Appearing for the appellants, Mr. Neeraj Kishan Kaul, learnedSenior Advocate has contended that the respondents have committed aBgross illegality by arbitrarily cancelling the TDR originally granted @100% FSI, thereby making the appellants run from pillar to post forrelief. The entire litigation has spread over eighteen years during whichperiod, the appellants have not only been deprived of the use of the land,but also from receiving any compensation in lieu of surrendering theland to the respondent No.3/Corporation. Referring to theCcorrespondence exchanged between the UD Department of therespondent No.1/State and the learned Advocate General of the Stateas also between the respondent No.1/State and the Director, TownPlanning, Pune, it has been argued that the appellants are legally entitledto receive TDR @100% FSI more so when as per the respondents,DTDR is granted as per the permissible FSI, irrespective of the non-buildable nature of the land due to the shape and accessibility. Statingthat the subject land was not demarcated in the Development Plan asfalling in the ‘Hill Top/Hill Slope’ zone but was reserved as a park, it hasbeen asserted that the appellants are entitled to grant of TDR @100%FSI.E

13. Laying emphasis on the fact that since there is no zoning ofthe subject property, it has been canvassed that the appellants are entitledto grant of TDR as would be allottable to the adjacent residential landi.e. @100% FSI. Invoking the doctrine of promissory estoppel andlegitimate expectation, it was asserted that the respondents are estoppedFfrom cancelling the TDR granted to the appellants more so when theyhave already acted on the representation of the respondents and havesurrendered the subject land to the respondent No.3/Corporation as longback as in the year 2004, on an assurance that TDR @ 100% FSI wouldbe allotted to them.G14. As for the observations made in the impugned judgment to theeffect that the appellants had themselves admitted that the subject landis situated in a ‘Hill Top/Hill Slope’ zone and therefore, maximum FSI of4% would be permissible in terms of Rule M-8 of the DevelopmentControl Rules for the Pune Municipal Corporation, Pune, 1982[9], it wasH9 for short ‘DC Rules’

argued on behalf of the appellants that an isolated averment made in thewrit petition cannot be read out of context and the High Court wasrequired to take a holistic view of the averments made in the writ petitioncoupled with those made in the additional affidavit and the additionaldocuments filed subsequently by the appellants after the matter wasremanded back by the Supreme Court for reconsideration. Had thatbeen done, the High Court would not have arrived at an erroneousconclusion that the appellants have conceded that the subject property issituated in ‘Hill Top/Hill Slope’ zone for which TDR of only 4% FSIwould be permissible.

15. Concluding his arguments, Mr. Kaul, learned Senior Advocatesubmitted that even under the Town Planning Act, Section 50(3) andSection 127 state that for determination of the purpose for which a parcelof land can be used when it is de-reserved or when the acquisition haslapsed is the purpose, for which the adjacent land can be used and in theinstant case, the subject land is bounded on two sides by residentialareas and therefore, if the respondent No.3/Corporation is not inclinedto retain the land, then it ought to be returned to the appellants for beingput to use at par with the adjacent land, along with compensation forhaving deprived the appellants of the land and its benefits for the pastover eighteen years.

16. The aforesaid arguments have been vehemently contested byMr. Shyam Divan, learned Senior Advocate appearing with Mr. SachinPatil, Advocate-on-Record for the respondent No.1/State of Maharashtra,Ms. Madhavi Divan, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing withMs. Bharti Tyagi, Advocate-on-Record for the respondent No.2/Secretary, UD Department of the Government of Maharashtra andMr. Venkita Subramoniam T.R., Advocate-on-Record, appearing for therespondent No.3/Corporation and respondent No.4/Commissioner forthe Corporation. The stand of all the respondents is common. They havesought to repel the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants thatthe respondents cannot be permitted to retract from their earlier decision,holding that the appellants are legally entitled to receive TDR @ 100%FSI particularly, when the said decision was based on an opinion givenby the learned Advocate General of the State of Maharashtra, bycontending that the appellants cannot be permitted to take undueadvantage of factual errors made by the then Secretary, State ofMaharashtra in the letter dated 3[rd] September, 2003 that forms the basis A

B

C

D

EF

G

H

Aof the opinion given by the learned Advocate General on 22[nd] September,2003. It was urged that the Secretary, UD Department, Government ofMaharashtra committed an error in noting the boundary zones of thesubject land and observing that it is ‘Hill Top/Hill Slope’ zone towardsthree sides and a residential zone on the fourth side, whereas theresidential zone is situated at a far distance from the subject land and isBneither adjacent nor contiguous thereto.

17. For making the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for therespondents alluded to the Development Plan of Pune that defines ‘HillTop/Hill Slope’ zones, Rule N-2.4.5 of the DC Rules that provides thatan owner would be entitled to FSI credit in the form of DRC as perCpermissible FSI of the zone from where the TDI has originated and Rule14.2 that provides for zonal FSI as per Appendix-M. Arguing that RuleM-8 of the DC Rules specifically deals with ‘Hill Top/Hill Slope’ zoneand provides for a maximum FSI of 4% for such a zone, it was submittedthat there was no logic in granting FSI of the adjacent land to theDappellants, when there is a specific provision in the DC Rules and theDevelopment Plan relating to ‘Hill Top/Hill Slope’ zones. It was thusstated that a factual inaccuracy in the letter soliciting an opinion fromthe learned Advocate General resulted in a legally incorrect opinion andthis fact was highlighted by the Director, Town Planning in his letterdated 20[th] October, 2003, which ultimately led to cancellation of theETDR granted @ 100% to the appellants in respect of the subject landand reducing it to the 4% FSI.

18. The respondents have also sought to repel the submissionsmade on behalf of the appellants that though the State of Maharashtrahas implemented the Unified Development Control and PromotionFRegulations from 2[nd] December, 2020, it has deliberately not incorporatedthe concept of ‘Hill Top/Hill Slope’ zone, which has been kept inabeyance. It was submitted that the issue of ‘Hill Top/Hill Slope’ zonehas been kept in abeyance in the new Regulations only to enable theState to examine the said issue at greater length.G

19. On his part, learned counsel for the respondents No.3/Corporation and 4/Commissioner to the Corporation added that if thesubject land is granted TDR @100% FSI, it would translate intoconstruction of 7,14,422 sq. feet area and in that event, the Corporationwill have to grant 100% TDR for all the proposed acquisitions, whichHwould result in construction of over two crores sq. feet area. He sought to explain that in such an event, the respondent No.3/Corporation willnot be in a position to provide civic amenities like water, sewage etc.when the city is already facing acute problems regarding availability ofsuch facilities. In support of his submission that Development Plan ofcity is extremely important and ought to be regulated in line with TownPlanning principles, reliance has been placed on Friends Colony10Development Committee v. State of Orissa and Others.

20. We have carefully considered the arguments advanced bylearned counsel for the parties, perused the impugned judgment and thedocuments placed on record. The facts of the case are not in dispute.The core issue that requires to be answered in the instant case is whetherthe subject land surrendered by the appellants to the respondent No.3/Corporation would entitle them to grant of TDR @ 100% FSI or @ 4%FSI.

21. It is not in dispute that under the Scheme floated by therespondent No.3/Corporation, wherever land was to be acquired fordevelopment schemes in Pune, land owners could opt for the Schemeand in lieu of the surrendered land, they would be entitled to grant ofTDR as compensation. Admittedly, the appellants had surrendered thesubject land to the respondent No.3/Corporation in expectation of grantof TDR. Since there was some confusion within the department withregard to the rate at which the TDR was to be granted in respect of thesubject land, a clarification was sought by the respondent No.4/Commissioner of the Corporation from the Principal Secretary, TownPlanning Department, Government of Maharashtra. The letter dated14th May, 2003 addressed by the respondent No.4 refers to boundationof the subject land and their zoning as below :

“But, according to Pune Municipal Corporation sanctionedDevelopment plan in the year I957 the Final Plot No. 523 (Part)and 517 (Part) was bounded and their zone was as follows :

On or Towards:By Survey No, 121,1,22 (Canal'Northand PMC waterworks, PSP andresidential Zone)On or Towards:By Survey No, 103, 104 (Hilltop A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

ASouth

Hill Slope and PSP Zone and

residential Zone at certain distance.)By Survey No, 96, 97 (Hill top Hill On or Towards:EastOn or Towards:

slope and PSP Zone)

B

By Survey No. 106 (Hill top Hillslope Zone)

West

Therefore in the proposal under subject with how muchFSI Index TDR shall be paid, in respect suspicion has been raised.Hence it is requested to issue order of Government in this respect.”

C

22. For issuing necessary clarification, the UD Department of therespondent No.1/State wrote a letter to the Advocate General of theState seeking an opinion as to the value of the TDR to be granted to theappellants in lieu of their land. In the said letter, it was clarified that RuleN-2.4.5 of the DC Rules prescribes that the built-up area for the purposeDof FSI credit in the form of TDR shall be equal to the gross area of thereserved plot that is surrendered to the Corporation and that it will beproportionately increased or decreased, according to the permissible FSIof the zone wherefrom the TDR has originated. The letter further clarifiedthat the expression “according to the permissible FSI of the zone”Eappearing in Regulation N-2.4.5 of the DC Regulations, is significantand that the said Rule has been lifted from the Development ControlRegulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991. But unlike Mumbai, where eachand every parcel of land has sites reserved for public purpose, that is notthe case in respect of the city of Pune, where the sites reserved forpublic purpose are not included in any planning zone and it is in thisFbackground that the issue of awarding FSI credit requires to be decided.The relevant para of the letter dated 03.09.2003 issued by the PrincipalSecretary, UD Department is extracted as under :- “03. ……In such a situation, in the absence of any zoning beingassigned to reserved sites, the meaning of expression permissibleGFSI of the zone where the TDR has originated “cannot be preciselyapplied in case of Pune Development Plan, unlike in the casesfrom Development Plan of Mumbai.

04. While deciding the value of TDR for reserved sites (which donot bear any zoning), the Pune Municipal Corporation takes into H

consideration the zoning of the adjoining land in the vicinity ofreserved sites and accordingly the Corporation awards TDR. Thus,for a site reserved for “Park” and surrounded by Residential/Commercial Zone, Pune Municipal Corporation grants TDR tothe FSI value admissible for Residential/Commercial zone.However, in the instant case, the land under reference is surroundedby following planning zones:

To North-Residential Zone

Public-Semi Public Zone. (In which buildingscan be constructed with FSI that is availablein Residential Zone)

To South-Municipal Corporation limit beyond which isPachgaon Kurar Park To East-P.S.P. Zone & Hill Top Hill Slope Zone.

To West-Hill Top Hill Slope Zone. (HT /HS)

Canal and further to which Residential/Publicutility development (FSI 1.00)”

23. We may next extract below the opinion given by the learnedAdvocate General of the respondent No.1/State of Maharashtra :

“This refers to your letter dated 3rd September, 2003 onthe above subject. Interestingly, the expression “zone” is not usedin Section 14 which deals with the contents of a Regional Plan, orin Section 22 which deals with the contents of a DevelopmentPlan. It however finds inclusion in Section 22 (A) which wasbrought in by the Maharashtra Act, 39 of 1994. The expression“zone” apparently came to be used for the first time in theDevelopment Control Regulations from Mumbai in 1991.

However the spirit of the Act is very clear. For instance, inSection 50 which deals with deletion of reservation of designatedland, sub-Section 3 provides that such designated land whenreleased from such designation or reservation shall become availableto the owner for the purposes of development as is otherwisepermissible in the case of adjacent land in the relevant plan.Obviously, Rule N-.2.45 has to be read on a similar basis. Theidea of giving TDR or a Development Rights certificate, is to A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Acompensate the owner for the deprivation of his property by givinghim development rights in respect of the plot which can be usedelsewhere. It would have to be on the basis that the plot wouldotherwise have been developable having regard to the user of theadjacent plots. The adjacent plots are in the residential zone andtherefore the approach in paragraph 5 of your letter is correctBand normal FSI available for the residential zone could be madeavailable.”

A

24. What has been sought to be urged by learned counsel for therespondents is that the aforesaid opinion is premised on wrong informationfurnished by the Department. Admittedly, on discovering the purportedCfactual error, the Department did not go back to seek a fresh opinion ofthe learned Advocate General. Instead, the aforesaid opinion was dulyaccepted and acted upon by the respondents and based thereon, videletter dated 28[th] May, 2004, respondents No.3 and 4/Corporation issuedTDR in favour of the appellants, permitting FSI @ 100% in lieu of theDparcel of land surrendered by them. Contemporaneously, physicalpossession of the land was also taken over from the appellants who paidover ` 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs) to the respondents No.3 and 4/Corporation towards construction of the compound wall and for levellingof the land.E25. So far so good. Trouble started after lapse of one year whenthe respondents decided to cancel the TDR granted to the appellantsand proceeded to reduce it from 100% FSI to 4% FSI by observing thatthere was no residential development in the land adjoining the subjectland and that there was an adjoining canal and ‘Hill Top/Hill slope’ zone.Therefore, though residential use is permissible adjoining the subject land,Feven then, the site would remain as ‘Hill Top/Hill Slope’ zone in nature,making it permissible to award TDR only @ 4% FSI, for such a zone.

26. In the order impugned before the High Court, no effort wasmade to explain as to why the opinion taken by the respondent No.1/State had to be brushed aside. No explanation has been offered thatGjustified disagreement with the said opinion; no effort was made by theState to approach the learned Advocate General for obtaining a freshopinion on the plea that the letter seeking the earlier opinion, had furnishederroneous facts. In all this back and forth between respondent Nos.1and 2/State and the respondent Nos.3 and 4/Corporation, it is the appellantsHwho have been left high and dry. They had surrendered the subject land to the authorities as far back as in the year 2004 on the expectation ofbeing granted TDR, which has still not materialized. In these eighteenyears, the respondents have continued to retain the possession of thesubject land. In the course of arguments advanced before this Court, itwas specifically enquired from learned counsel for the respondents thatthe land having been surrendered for a public purpose, whether the samehas been put to any such use, the Court was first informed that a reservoirhas been built on the land; later, it was stated that the status of the landhas remained the same as it was when it was surrendered.

27. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that gross injusticehas been caused to the appellants who had offered their land to therespondent No.3/Corporation on the basis of a Scheme floated by itproposing to acquire land for public purpose and grant TDR to the landowners in lieu of the land. Having decided to award TDR @ 100% FSIto the appellants, later on the respondents reneged from their decisionand slashed the offered TDR to 4% FSI on the premise that the appellantscould not compare their land with the adjoining lands for claimingresidential use since the said land is also in the nature of ‘Hill Top/HillSlope’. We may note that the boundation of the land as was mentionedby the Principal Secretary, UD Department to the learned AdvocateGeneral in the communication dated 3[rd] September, 2003, has beenspecifically stated to be residential zone towards the North wherebuildings could be constructed with FSI that is available in the residentialzone. Yet again, towards the west of the subject plot, is the ‘Hill Top/HillSlope’ zone and a canal further to which residential/public utilitydevelopment with FSI of 1.00 was available. When to the north and thewest of the subject land, residential construction was permissible and tilldate, the lands falling in ‘Hill Top/Hill Slope’ zone have not been zonedfor being put to any use, the appellants cannot be expected to wait tilleternity for the respondents to take a decision in this regard.

28. It is noteworthy that the appeal was taken up for hearing onseven occasions, between February, 2022 to May, 2022 and on eachdate, the respondents were directed to resolve the matter amicably withthe appellants instead of bringing it to a head. This Court had clearlyobserved on 4[th] May, 2022 that it was not persuaded by the argumentsadvanced by learned counsel for the respondent Nos.3 and 4/Corporation.As for the respondent Nos.1 and 2/State of Maharashtra, learned counselhave stated on instructions that it will take time for the State Government A

B

C

D

E

F

G

H

Ato take a definite decision in the matter. In the said circumstances, wehad proposed the following two solutions to the respondents for settlingthe matter once and for all :

(a) to grant Transferable Development Right Certificate (TDRC)to the petitioner as was given to the petitioner on 28-5-2004;Bor (b) to acquire the land and pay compensation to the petitioner inaccordance with the Right to Fair Compensation andTransparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation andResettlement Act, 2003.

C29. On the next date of hearing, i.e., 10[th] May, 2022, after takingnote of the order passed on the earlier date, the following proceedingswere recorded :

“3. Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellantssubmits that vide Notification dated 05.01.1987, the DevelopmentDPlan of Pune City, 1987 was sanctioned and under the said Plan,the land in dispute was shown as reserved for park. An amendmentwas made to the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966and the Development Control Rules. Section 126 of the amendedAct permitted acquisition of lands which were reserved under theEDevelopment Plan for public purpose and further, provided forissuance of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in lieu ofcompensation against the area of land acquired or surrenderedfree of cost. Learned Senior counsel further submits that the ChiefMinister vide order dated 27.12.2007 had directed that the TDR’salready granted to the appellants at the rate of 100% be cancelledFand had further directed that new TDRs be issued to the appellantsat the rate of 4% instead of 100%.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.3 –Municipal Corporation of Pune submits that the order impugnedhas been passed by the State Government and for any modificationGor implementation of the said order, permission has to be given bythe State Government but the State Government is un-willing toagree to either of the two proposals which had emanated duringthe course of hearing.

5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theHrespondent – State submits that it has already been suggested to the Municipal Corporation of Pune to either auction the land inquestion under the new Act or return the said land to the appellants.

6. In view of the ongoing tussle between the Municipal Corporationof Pune and the State Government, we are of the view that someresponsible officer of the State Government should be called uponto appear before this Court personally and explain the stand takenby the State Government.

7. We, accordingly, deem it appropriate to direct the ChiefSecretary, State of Maharashtra to personally appear before thisCourt and apprise us about the stand taken by the StateGovernment in compliance with the order passed by this Court on04.05.2022.

8. At this juncture, learned counsel appearing on behalf of theState of Maharashtra submits that it is the Principal Secretary,Urban Development Department who is competent to take a finaldecision in this regard and not the Chief Secretary.

9. In view of the above, we direct the Principal Secretary (UrbanDevelopment Department), Government of Maharashtra topersonally appear before this Court on 19.05.2022 and explainthe steps taken by the State Government in compliance with theorder passed by this Court on 04.05.2022.”

30. The Principal Secretary, UD Department, Government ofMaharashtra did appear before this Court on the next date but no practicalsolution was offered. Instead, the matter was sought to be argued to thehilt yet again and the respondent No.2/State and the respondent Nos.3and 4/Corporation kept on passing on the buck to each other for theimpasse.

31. Having considered the factual matrix of the present appealwhere the matter has been lingering in courts for over eighteen yearsand there have been several rounds of litigation, three before the HighCourt and two before this Court in respect of the subject land, which hasall along remained in the possession of the respondent No.3/Corporation,thereby not only depriving the appellants of its use but also deprivingthem of the compensation to which they were entitled as long back as inthe year 2004, we are unable to concur with the impugned judgment. Inordinary course, we would have been inclined to restore the TDR grantedto the appellants by the respondent No.3/Corporation on 28[th] May, 2004.

A

B

C

D

E

F

GH

AHowever, keeping in mind the submission made by learned counsel forthe respondent Nos.3 and 4/Corporation that extensive construction hasmushroomed in Pune over the past two decades and additionalconstruction of over seven lakhs sq. feet, if permitted, will cause a severestrain on the civic amenities available in the city, it is deemed appropriateto direct the respondent Nos.3 and 4/Corporation to return the landBacquired by it to the appellants within four weeks. Once the possessionis restored, the appellants shall be permitted to use it for residentialpurposes. Further, the respondents are directed to compensate theappellants @ Rs.1 crore per year for the loss caused to them onsurrendering per 66,000 sq. mts. of land way back in the year 2004. TheCentire exercise shall be completed within a period of three months fromthe date of this order.

32. The impugned judgment is, accordingly, quashed and set asideand the present appeal is allowed on the above terms.

DNidhi Jain

(Assisted by : Shashwat Jain, LCRA)

Appeal allowed.

E

F

G

H