Mumbai Developer Not Entitled to Additional TDR if Amenity Not Developed: Supreme Court
Subject: Appeal against Bombay High Court’s decision to reject the appellants’ claim for additional Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for the development of amenity, after surrendering land to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
On 8 May 2023, in a case titled GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED Vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS, Supreme Court has upheld the Bombay High Court’s finding that a developer is not entitled to additional Transferable Development Rights (TDR) if the developer has not developed the amenity as required by law. The case involved a dispute over the grant of additional TDR for a recreation ground in Mumbai.
The developer, appellant No.1, had surrendered land to the Municipal Corporation and sought TDR for the same. The Corporation granted the TDR and also allowed the developer to develop a recreation ground (RG) on a portion of the surrendered land. However, the Corporation denied the developer’s request for additional TDR for the RG, stating that the developer had failed to develop the amenity as required by law.
The developer contended that it had developed the RG as required by law and was entitled to additional TDR. The developer argued that the RG, which was once a barren land, had become what it is today due to its activities. However, the Bombay High Court held that the developer had not developed the amenity as required by law and therefore was not entitled to additional TDR.
The developer appealed to the Supreme Court, which upheld the High Court’s finding. The Supreme Court held that all activities undertaken by the developer through their architects till the handing over of possession of the land were not towards the development of amenity and for the grant of additional TDR. The Court further held that the developer became bound by the condition laid down by the Corporation that the developer would not be entitled to additional TDR.
The Court also observed that if the developer’s activities up to the date of handing over possession constituted development of amenity, there was no necessity for the developer to give Power of Attorney to another developer to undertake the activity of development of amenity and to seek additional TDR. The Court held that the High Court was right in recording a finding of fact that the developer did not develop the amenity so as to be entitled to additional TDR.
8 May 2023,
GODREJ AND BOYCE MANUFACTURING COMPANY LIMITED Vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF GREATER MUMBAI & ORS
