{"id":177139,"date":"2007-05-11T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-10T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007"},"modified":"2019-03-31T18:01:44","modified_gmt":"2019-03-31T12:31:44","slug":"promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"Promoters & Builders Association … vs Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors on 11 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
Promoters & Builders Association … vs Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors on 11 May, 2007<\/div>\n
Author: G Mathur<\/div>\n
Bench: G.P. Mathur, R.V. Raveendran<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nReview Petition (civil)  1809 of 2005\n\nPETITIONER:\nPromoters & Builders Association of Pune\n\nRESPONDENT:\nPune Municipal Corporation & Ors\n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/05\/2007\n\nBENCH:\nG.P. Mathur & R.V. Raveendran\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
REVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NO.1809 OF 2005
\nIN
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO.3800 OF 2003
\nWITH
\nREVIEW PETITION (CIVIL) NOS.1856-1857 OF 2005
\nIN
\nCIVIL APPEAL NO.3804 OF 2003<\/p>\n
G.P. Mathur, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThese are review petitions seeking review of the judgment and
\norder dated 5.5.2004 passed by this Court in Civil Appeal No.3800 of
\n2003.   We will give the facts of Review Petition No.1809 of 2005,
\nwhich is the leading case.\n<\/p>\n
2.\t    The Maharashra legislature enacted Maharashtra Regional
\nTown Planning Act, 1966 (for short ‘the Act’) for planning and
\ndevelopment of the cities, constitution of Regional Planning Boards
\nand to make provision for the preparation of development plans with a
\nview to ensuring that Town Planning Schemes are made in a proper
\nmanner and their execution is made effective and for ancillary
\npurposes.   Chapter III of the Act deals with development plans.
\nUnder the Scheme of the Act, Development Control Rules are framed
\nseparately for each city keeping in view the peculiar requirements of
\neach city\/town.  The dispute here pertains to Development Control
\nRules (for short ‘DCR’) for Pune which has been constituted as a
\ncorporation under the Bombay Provincial and Municipal Corporation
\nAct, 1949 (for short ‘BPMC Act’).  Pune Municipal Corporation is
\nalso the planning authority under the provisions of the Act for the city
\nof Pune.  A concept of Transfer of Development Rights (for short
\n‘TDR’) was introduced in the Regulations of Greater Bombay and the
\nobject of introducing such concept was to facilitate acquisition of land
\nfor public purposes.   The concept of TDR operates in the following
\nmanner :-\n<\/p>\n
 “The owner or the lessee of the plot of land will hand
\nover the possession of the reserved land to the planning
\nauthority and as against such handing over, such owner
\nor the lessee will be granted “development right
\ncertificate” so as to enable such owner to construct built
\nup area equivalent to permissible FSI of the land acquired
\nin one or more other plots and in the zones specified.
\nSuch one or more plots are termed as “receiving plots”.\n<\/p>\n
3.\tThe State of Maharashtra issued a directive under Section 37(1)
\nof the Act to the Pune Municipal Corporation on 8.7.1993 to amend
\nDevelopment Control Rules of Pune city. The Pune Municipal
\nCorporation then issued a notification in the Gazette on 30.9.1993 by
\nwhich the process of modification was initiated and it was notified
\nthat the modification would be on the same lines as applicable in
\nGreater Bombay.  One of the proposed modifications was in Rule
\nN.2.4.11 which was as under :\n<\/p>\n
 “FSI of receiving plot shall be allowed to be exceeded
\nby not more than 0.4 in respect of D.R. available in
\nrespect of the reserved plot and upto a future 0.4 in
\nrespect of D.R. available in respect of the lands
\nsurrendered for road widening or construction of new
\nroads as prescribed.”\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter prescribed procedure had been completed, the
\nCorporation forwarded the proposed modification to the State
\nGovernment.   The State Government then issued a notification under
\nSection 37(2) of the Act on 5.6.1997 sanctioning the proposal and
\nnotified the modified Development Control Rules of Pune Municipal
\nCorporation.  Rule N.2.4.11 which was sanctioned and notified by the
\nState Government reads as under :\n<\/p>\n
 “(a)    The FSI on receiving plots shall be allowed to be
\nexceeded not more than 0.4 in respect of DR available for
\nthe reserved plots.\n<\/p>\n
(b)\tThe FSI on receiving plots shall be allowed to be
\nexceeded by further 0.4 in respect of DR available on
\naccount of the land surrendered for the road widening or
\nconstruction of new road from very said plot.”\n<\/p>\n
4.\tThe State Government while sanctioning Rule N.2.4.11
\nintroduced a departure from the Bombay Development Control Rules.
\nSome other changes were also made by the State Government in the
\nRules which had been proposed by the Pune Municipal Corporation.
\nThereafter, some exchange of correspondence and meetings took
\nplace between the Pune Municipal Corporation and the State
\nGovernment as regards the interpretation of the above Rule.  The
\nChief Secretary of the Urban Development Department, Government
\nof Maharashtra then sent a detailed letter to the Pune Municipal
\nCorporation on 11.6.1998 regarding the correct interpretation of the
\nnotified Development Control Rules.   Regarding Rule N.2.4.11 it was
\nstated as under in the said letter :\n<\/p>\n
 “8.\tUse of 0.4 Transferable Development Rights and
\n0.4 Development Plan Road together making 0.8 Floor
\nSpace Index on the same property.\n<\/p>\n
The policy adopted by the Mumbai Municipal
\nCorporation should be followed by the Pune Municipal
\nCorporation.”\n<\/p>\n
5.\tIn view of the clarification issued by the State Government, the
\nPune Municipal Corporation issued a circular on 20.7.1999 and with
\nregard to Rule N.2.4.11 it was stated as under :
\n“As per the rule No.2.4.11 (a & b) of the Development
\nControl Rules the TDR of 0.4 of the total floor space area
\nof the receiving plot out of TDR of road widening or
\nother roads widening and 0.4 of the total floor space area
\nof the receiving plot out of TDR of areas reserved for
\nother purposes is allowed.   Thus a maximum of 0.8 of
\nthe total floor space area of the receiving plot shall be
\npermitted.”\n<\/p>\n
\tMore than two years thereafter, the Pune Municipal
\nCorporation  passed a Resolution on 29.10.2001 not to allow use of
\nadditional 0.4 FSI in the area other then the plot from which the land
\nfor road widening has been acquired which was in tune with clause (b)
\nof D.C.R.-2.4.11.   This decision of the Corporation was endorsed by
\nthe General Body on 21.11.2001.  It may be pointed out here that
\nwhile sanctioning the proposal of the Pune Municipal Corporation, the
\nState Government added the words “from the very said plot” towards
\nthe end of clause (b) of Development Control Rule N.2.4.11 in the
\nnotification which was issued by it on 5.6.1997.  It is the addition of
\nthese words by the State Government which gave rise to the litigation
\nwhich was ultimately decided by this Court in Civil Appeal No.3820
\nof 2003 and the introduction of said words is also under challenge in
\nthe present review petitions.\n<\/p>\n
6.\tPromoters and Builders Association of Pune, a Society
\nregistered under the provisions of Societies Registration Act, filed
\nWrit Petition No.5198 of 2001 against Pune Municipal Corporation
\nand State of Maharashtra challenging the modified Development
\nControl Rules, especially Rule N-2.3(A) and N.2.4.11 (a) and (b),
\nwherein the principal relief claimed was that a writ of mandamus be
\nissued commanding the respondents to the writ petition to implement
\nDevelopment Control Rule N-2.4.11(b) in a manner that the road area
\nin respect of the plot, which is reserved for the road can be utilized
\nbeing 0.4 FSI on the same plot and the balance unutilized FSI, if any,
\ncan be converted into TDR and can be used anywhere on a receiving
\nplot to the extent of 0.4 FSI, in addition to the 0.4 FSI permissible on
\nthe receiving plot for amenities under Rule N-2.4.11(a) and direct the
\nMunicipal Corporation to forthwith dispose of the applications which
\nhad been submitted by the members of the petitioner Association in
\nthe light of said clarification.   The writ petition was contested by the
\nPune Municipal Corporation and State of Maharashtra by filing
\ncounter affidavits.  The High Court after considering the provisions of
\nSection 37 of the Act and also of the Development Control Rules,
\nallowed the writ petition on 23.4.2002.  It will be useful to reproduce
\nthe findings recorded by the High Court and the relevant part of paras
\n18, 19 and 21 of the judgment of the High Court are reproduced
\nbelow:\n<\/p>\n
“18.\tIn our opinion, therefore, it was not possible for
\nthe State to add the words “from the same plot” in \tclause
\n2.4.11 as the same have been added without being
\npublicized as required by the provisions of Section 37(1).
\nThe planning authority did not want the words “same
\nplot” to be introduced.  It did not therefore propose the
\nmodifications in that fashion. It is the claim of the
\nPlanning Authority before us that the words were
\ninserted by the Government.  There is no answer to this
\nby the State Government and it was obvious that it was
\ndone by the State Government.  Since the addition has
\nbeen done by the State without following the procedure
\nestablished by Section 37(1)(A) or Section 37(1), the
\nwords added cannot be read as validly added in the
\nDevelopment Regulations and the addition will have to
\nbe struck down as beyond the competence of the State
\nGovernment.  The State Government has not directed
\nunder Section 37(1) to make modification in the
\nRegulations as the direction does not include the words
\n“from the same plot”.  There was no notice to the persons
\naffected and therefore there was no objection raised to it.
\nThe insertion of those words by the State while granting
\nsanction is therefore tantamount to modifying the Final
\nDevelopment Plan in the exercise of its powers under
\nSection 37(1)(A).  The State could have done so but then
\nit was duty bound to follow the procedure under Section
\n37(1)(A).  Obviously there is failure on the part of the
\nState to do so and therefore inclusion of those words in
\nthe Regulation is illegal. …….. ………………………..\n<\/p>\n
19.\t………………………………. On the principles of
\npromissory estoppel also, therefore, the Corporation
\ncannot be allowed to insist that the additional 0.4 FSI be
\nused on the same very plot.   In our opinion, therefore,
\neven if the interpretation put by us on Section 37 is not
\naccepted still on the ground of promissory estoppel, the
\ncorporation will have to be restrained from requiring the
\nowners or builders from giving up additional 0.4 FSI on
\nthe interpretation of the regulation of 2.4.11 to mean that
\nit must be used on the same very plot.\n<\/p>\n
21.\tIn the result, therefore, the petitions succeed and
\nare allowed.   The words “from the same very plot” in
\nclause 2.4.11 of the Development Control Regulation as
\npassed by the Planning Authority, Municipal
\nCorporation, Pune are hereby struck down. The
\nrespondents Planning Authority is directed to permit the
\nuse of 0.8 FSI to the petitioners and other similarly
\nsituated owners, builders etc. as transferred development
\nrights wholly or on part as proposed by them.
\nConsequently, the respondents are directed to sanction
\nthe building plan submitted by the petitioners
\nincorporating FSI of 0.8 as available in accordance with
\nD.C. Rules 2.4.11.”\n<\/p>\n
7.\tFeeling aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the Pune
\nMunicipal Corporation filed Civil Appeal No.3800 of 2003 in this
\nCourt.   After hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court
\nallowed the appeal by the judgment and order dated 5.5.2004.  The
\njudgment of the High Court was set aside and the writ petition filed
\nbefore the High Court was dismissed.   For the sake of convenience,
\nthe relevant part of the judgment of this Court is reproduced below :
\n\t“The question now for consideration is whether the
\nState Government can make any changes of its own in
\nthe modifications submitted by Planning Authority or
\nnot. The impugned Section 37 of the Act reads as
\nfollows:\n<\/p>\n
“37(1) Where a modification of any part of or any
\nproposal made in, a final Development plan is of
\nsuch a nature that it will not change the character
\nof such Development plan, the Planning Authority
\nmay, or when so directed by the State Government
\nshall, within sixty days from the date of such
\ndirection, publish a notice in the Official Gazette
\nand in such other manner as may be determined by
\nit inviting objections and suggestions from any
\nperson with respect to the proposed modification
\nnot later than one month from the date of such
\nnotice; and shall also serve notice on all persons
\naffected by the proposed modification and after
\ngiving a hearing to any such persons, submit the
\nproposed modification with amendments, if any, to
\nthe State Government for sanction.\n<\/p>\n
(1A) …..\n<\/p>\n
(1AA) …..\n<\/p>\n
(1B) ……\n<\/p>\n
(2) The State Government may, make such inquiry
\nas it may consider necessary and after consulting
\nthe Director of Town Planning by notification in
\nthe Official Gazette, sanction the modification
\nwith or without such changes, and subject to such
\nconditions as it may deem fit, or refuse to accord
\nsanction. If a modification is sanctioned, the final
\nDevelopment plans shall be deemed to have been
\nmodified accordingly.”\n<\/p>\n
(emphasis supplied)
\n Reading of this provision reveals that under
\nClause (1), the Planning Authority after inviting
\nobjections and suggestions regarding the proposed
\namendment and after giving notice to all affected persons
\nshall submit the proposed modification for sanction to the
\nGovernment. The deliberation with the public before
\nmaking the amendment is over at this stage. The
\nGovernment, thereafter, under Clause (2) is given
\nabsolute liberty to make or not to make necessary inquiry
\nbefore granting sanction. Again, while according
\nsanction, Government may do so with or without
\nmodifications. Government could impose such conditions
\nas it deem fit. It is also permissible for the Government to
\nrefuse the sanction. This is the true meaning of the
\nClause (2). It is difficult to uphold the contrary
\ninterpretation given by the High Court. The main
\nlimitation for the Government is made under Clause (1)
\nthat no authority can propose an amendment so as to
\nchange the basic character of the development plan. The
\nproposed amendment could only be minor within the
\nlimits of the development plan. And for such minor
\nchanges it is only normal for the government to exercise
\na wide discretion, by keeping various relevant factors in
\nmind. Again, if it is arbitrary or unreasonable the same
\ncould be challenged. It is not the case of the Respondents
\nherein that the proposed change is arbitrary or
\nunreasonable. They challenged the same citing the reason
\nthat the Government is not empowered under the Act to
\nmake such changes to the modification.\n<\/p>\n
Making of DCR or amendment thereof are
\nlegislative functions. Therefore, Section 37 has to be
\nviewed as repository of legislative powers for effecting
\namendments to DCR. That legislative power of amending
\nDCR is delegated to State Government. As we have
\nalready pointed out, the true interpretation of Section
\n37(2) permits the State government to make necessary
\nmodifications or put conditions while granting sanction.
\nIn Section 37(2), the legislature has not intended to
\nprovide for a public hearing before according sanction.
\nThe procedure for making such amendment is provided
\nin Section 37(1). Delegated legislation cannot be
\nquestioned for violating principles of natural justice in its
\nmaking except when the statute itself provides for that
\nrequirement. Where the legislature has not chosen to
\nprovide for any notice or hearing, no one can insist upon
\nit and it is not permissible to read natural justice into such
\nlegislative activity. Moreover, a provision for ‘such
\ninquiry as it may consider necessary’ by a subordinate
\nlegislating body is generally an enabling provision to
\nfacilitate the subordinate legislating body to obtain
\nrelevant information from any source and it is not
\nintended to vest any right in anybody. (Union of India
\nand Anr. v. Cynamide India Ltd and Anr.<\/a> (1987) 2 SCC
\n720 paragraphs 5 and 27. See generally HSSK Niyami
\nand Anr. v. Union of India and Anr.<\/a> (1990) 4 SCC 516
\nand Canara Bank v. Debasis Das<\/a> (2003) 4 SCC 557).
\nWhile exercising legislative functions, unless
\nunreasonableness or arbitrariness is pointed out, it is not
\nopen for the Court to interfere. (See generally ONGC v.
\nAssn. of Natural Gas Consuming Industries of Gujarat<\/a>
\n1990 (Supp) SCC 397) Therefore, the view adopted by
\nthe High Court does not appear to be correct.\n<\/p>\n
          The DCR are framed under Section 158 of the Act.
\nRules framed under the provisions of a statute form part
\nof the statute. (See General Office Commanding-in-Chief
\nand Anr. v. Dr. Subhash Chandra Yadav and Anr.<\/a> (1988)
\n2 SCC 351, paragraph 14). In other words, DCR have
\nstatutory force. It is also a settled position of law that
\nthere could be no ‘promissory estoppel’ against a statue.
\n(A.P Pollution Control Board II v. M V Nayudu<\/a> (2001) 2
\nSCC 62, paragraph 69, Sales Tax Officer and Another v.
\nShree Durga Oil Mills<\/a> (1998) 1 SCC 572, paragraphs 21
\nand 22 and Sharma Transport v. Govt. of AP (2002) 2
\nSCC 188, paragraphs 13 to 24). Therefore, the High
\nCourt again went wrong by invoking the principle of
\n‘promissory estoppel’ to allow the petition filed by the
\nRespondents herein.\n<\/p>\n
For the foregoing reasons, the view adopted by the
\nHigh Court cannot be sustained.”\n<\/p>\n
8.\tWe have heard Mr. U.U. Lalit and Mr. V.A. Bobde, Senior
\nAdvocates for the review petitioners and Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Senior
\nAdvocate for the respondents at considerable length and have
\nexamined the record.\n<\/p>\n
9. \tThe main challenge of the review petitioners is to the addition
\nof the words “from the very said plot” towards the end of clause (b) in
\nDCR-2.4.11.  Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that
\nin the proposal sent by the Pune Municipal Corporation after
\nfollowing the procedure prescribed in Sub-section (1) of Section 37
\nthe aforesaid words were not there.   However, the State Government
\nwhile sanctioning the proposal added the said words which in law it
\ncould not do.  It has been submitted that the Municipal Corporation
\nhad submitted the proposal after inviting objections and after giving
\nan opportunity of hearing and the proposal so made by the Municipal
\nCorporation could not have been modified or altered by the State
\nGovernment without inviting objections or giving an opportunity of
\nhearing with regard to changes which it proposed to make and which
\nwere ultimately made in the notification issued by it.  This point has
\nbeen considered and examined in the judgment and order of this Court
\ndated 5.5.2004.   The language of Sub-section (2) of Section 37 uses
\nthe expression “sanction the modification with or without such
\nchanges, and subject to such conditions as it may deem fit, or refuse to
\naccord sanction”.  The language of the Section is very clear and it
\nempowers the State Government to sanction the proposal of the
\nMunicipal Corporation regarding modification of Development
\nControl Rules “with or without any changes as it may deem fit”.
\nThese words are important and cannot be ignored.  They have to be
\ngiven their natural meaning. In Union of India v. Hansoli Devi<\/a> (2002)
\n7 SCC 273 it has been held that it is a cardinal principle of
\nconstruction of a statute that when the language of the statute is plain
\nand unambiguous, then the Court must give effect to the words used
\nin the statute and it would not be open to the court to adopt a
\nhypothetical construction on the ground that such construction is more
\nconsistent with the alleged object and the policy of the Act.  In Nathi
\nDevi v. Radha Devi Gupta<\/a> (2005) 2 SCC 271 it was emphasized that
\nit is well settled that in interpreting a statute, effort should be made to
\ngive effect to each and every word used by the legislature.  The courts
\nalways presume that the legislature inserted every part of a statute for
\na purpose and the legislative intention is that every part of the statute
\nshould have effect.  In Dr.Ganga Prasad Verma v. State of Bihar
\n(1995) Supp. (1) SCC 192 it has been held that where the language of
\nthe Act is clear and explicit, the Court must give effect to it, whatever
\nmay be the consequences, for in that case the words of the statute
\nspeak the intention of the legislature. Therefore, the view taken by this
\nCourt in the judgment and order dated 5.5.2004 that the State
\nGovernment had full authority to make any changes or add any
\ncondition in the proposal of the Municipal Corporation is perfectly
\ncorrect.  In fact, on the plain language of the statute no other view can
\npossibly be taken.\n<\/p>\n
10.\tThe High Court also accepted the contention of the writ
\npetitioners based on the ground of promissory estoppel. The
\nDevelopment Control Rules are framed by the State Government in
\nexercise of power conferred by Section 158 of the Act.   Consequently
\nthey must be treated as if they were in the Act and are to be of the
\nsame effect as if contained in the Act and are to be judicially noticed
\nfor all purposes of construction and obligation.  [See State of U.P. v.
\nBabu Ram Upadhya AIR<\/a> 1961 SC 751 and State of Tamil Nadu v.
\nHind Stones AIR<\/a> 1981 SC 711 (para 11)].  If the Development
\nControl Rules have the same force as that of a statute, then no
\nquestion of promissory estoppel would arise as the principle is well
\nsettled that there can be no estoppel against a statute.  We are in
\ncomplete agreement with the view taken earlier by this Court and
\nthere is not even a slightest ground which may cast any doubt
\nregarding the correctness of the earlier judgment.\n<\/p>\n
11.\tAs was observed by this Court in Col. Avtar Singh Sekhon v.
\nUnion of India<\/a> (1980) Supp. SCC 562 review is not a routine
\nprocedure.   A review of an earlier order is not permissible unless the
\nCourt is satisfied that material error, manifest on the face of the order
\nundermines its soundness or results in miscarriage of justice.   A
\nreview of judgment in a case is a serious step and reluctant resort to it
\nis proper only where a glaring omission or patent mistake or like
\ngrave error has crept in earlier by judicial fallibility …..  The stage of
\nreview is not a virgin ground but review of an earlier order which has
\nthe normal feature of finality.\n<\/p>\n
This view has been reiterated in Devender Pal Singh v. State
\n(2003) 2 SCC 501 (para 16).  This being the legal position, there is
\nabsolutely no ground for review of the judgment and order dated
\n5.5.2004.  The review petitions are, therefore, liable to be dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
12.\tLearned counsel for the review petitioners next submitted that
\nafter the clarification had been issued by the Chief Secretary of the
\nUrban Development Authority of the State Government by the letter
\ndated 11.6.1998 and consequent circular had been issued by the Pune
\nMunicipal Corporation on 20.7.1999 which provided that a maximum
\nof 0.8 of the total floor space area of the receiving plot shall be
\npermitted, large number of land owners whose properties were
\nreserved for public amenities like roads, schools, gardens, etc. were
\nencouraged to hand over their lands to the Pune Municipal
\nCorporation free of cost, in the expectation of fetching higher price for
\nthis TDR as a result of greater utilization to the extent of 0.8 being
\npermissible as against the earlier 0.4 FSI.   Similarly, the developers
\nwhile negotiating for buildable properties considered total FSI
\npotential of 1.8 (1 + 0.8 TDR, FSI) as against 1.4 FSI and have
\naccordingly paid much higher consideration towards the land.   Many
\ndevelopers commenced their projects after sanctioning regular 1.0 FSI
\nand as per the Pune Municipal Corporation procedure applied for
\nfurther 0.8 TDR, FSI.    In fact, many builders and land owners had
\ngot their entire project lay out approved from the Corporation with 1.8
\nFSI and had constructed some buildings upto the sanctioned height.
\nMany such plans were approved  by the Pune Municipal Corporation
\nbetween the period 20.7.1999 and 21.11.2001 when the second
\ncircular was issued adopting a different stand.  It has been urged that
\nrefusal of Pune Municipal Corporation to honour its own lay out plan
\nhas given rise to disputes between developers and buyers of the flats
\nand also between the developers and land owners.   The difficulty
\nbeing faced by the review petitioners appears to be quite genuine as
\nthe stand of Pune Municipal Corporation between the period
\n20.7.1999 to 21.11.2001 was different and building plans were
\nsanctioned without giving effect to the words “from the very said
\nplot” occurring towards the end of clause (b) in D.C.R.-2.4.11. A
\nreply affidavit has been filed by Shri Prashant Madhukar Waghmare,
\nCity Engineer, Pune Municipal Corporation giving statement of TDR
\ncases wherein an excess of TDR was claimed during the period
\n20.7.1999 to 21.11.2001.  The sanction of plan and construction
\nundertaken have been broadly described in 7 categories and category
\nnos.1 to 4 are as under : :-\n<\/p>\n
S.\n<\/p>\n
No.\n<\/p>\n
Description
\nTotal
\nCases
\nTotal
\nsanctioned
\narea (in sq.
\nmeters)
\nExcess
\nTDR
\nutilized (in
\nsq. meters)\n<\/p>\n
1.
\nDetails of construction works for
\nwhich the final completion
\ncertificate was granted after
\n21.11.2001, wherein the original
\nsanction for construction by the
\nCorporation was in excess of 0.4
\nTDR.\n<\/p>\n
  55<\/span><\/p>\n
213763.89
\n 35544.66\n<\/p>\n
2.
\nDetails of construction works for
\nwhich the part completion
\ncertificate was granted after
\n21.11.2001, wherein the original
\nsanction for construction by the
\nCorporation was in excess of 0.4
\nTDR.\n<\/p>\n
   9<\/span><\/p>\n
 92287.14
\n 20073.25\n<\/p>\n
3.
\nDetails of construction works for
\nwhich the completion certificate
\nwas granted between 20.07.1999
\nto 21.11.2001, wherein the
\noriginal sanction for construction
\nby the Corporation was in excess
\nof 0.4 TDR.\n<\/p>\n
  14<\/span><\/p>\n
  31124.47
\n   4676.57\n<\/p>\n
4.
\nDetails of construction works for
\nwhich no completion certificate
\nhas been granted so far, wherein
\nthe original sanction for
\nconstruction by the corporation
\nwas in excess of 0.4 TDR
\n   5<\/span>
\n   8555.62
\n   1600.88<\/p>\n
It will be seen that in all the above mentioned four categories
\nthe Municipal Corporation gave sanction for construction in excess of
\n0.4 TDR and even completion certificates were issued for serial nos.1
\nto 3.\n<\/p>\n
13.\tDuring the course of hearing Mr. Makarand D. Adkar, learned
\nAdvocate for Pune Municipal Corporation, on instructions received
\nfrom the Commissioner, Pune Municipal Corporation, has made a
\nstatement that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the
\ncase, the respondent corporation will have no objection if the
\nconstructions made as enumerated in category nos.1 to 4 described
\nabove are treated to be not in violation of clause (b) of D.C.R.-2.4.11.
\nIn the written submission filed by Mr. Vishwajit Singh, Advocate,
\nlearned counsel for Pune Municipal Corporation, it is stated that the
\nCorporation does not have objection if the four categories of
\nconstruction mentioned above are given relief in view of the fact that –\n<\/p>\n
a\tThe building plans have been sanctioned by the Corporation<\/p>\n
b\tIn most of the cases, the completion or the part completion
\ncertificates have been issued by the Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
c\tIn all the cases, the TDR has been loaded\/utilized and
\ncommencement certificate has been issued for the particular
\nprojects.\n<\/p>\n
d\tIn all the cases, the construction has taken place with sanction
\nof Corporation.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe statement made by Mr. Makarand D. Adkar, Advocate, is
\naccordingly taken on record.\n<\/p>\n
14.\tThe review petitions are dismissed, recording the submission on
\nbehalf of the Pune Municipal Corporation that the constructions
\nmentioned in categories 1 to 4 above will not be treated to be in
\nviolation of clause (b) of D.C.R.-2.4.11.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India Promoters & Builders Association … vs Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors on 11 May, 2007 Author: G Mathur Bench: G.P. Mathur, R.V. Raveendran CASE NO.: Review Petition (civil) 1809 of 2005 PETITIONER: Promoters & Builders Association of Pune RESPONDENT: Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11\/05\/2007 BENCH: G.P. Mathur […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-177139","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nPromoters & Builders Association ... vs Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors on 11 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Promoters & Builders Association ... vs Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors on 11 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-03-31T12:31:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Promoters & Builders Association … vs Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors on 11 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-31T12:31:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4295,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007\",\"name\":\"Promoters & Builders Association ... vs Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors on 11 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-03-31T12:31:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Promoters & Builders Association … vs Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors on 11 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Promoters & Builders Association ... vs Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors on 11 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Promoters & Builders Association ... vs Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors on 11 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-03-31T12:31:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Promoters & Builders Association … vs Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors on 11 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-31T12:31:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007"},"wordCount":4295,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007","name":"Promoters & Builders Association ... vs Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors on 11 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-10T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-03-31T12:31:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/promoters-builders-association-vs-pune-municipal-corporation-ors-on-11-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Promoters & Builders Association … vs Pune Municipal Corporation & Ors on 11 May, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177139","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=177139"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/177139\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=177139"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=177139"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=177139"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}