State Dutybound To Pay Compensation To Land Losers As Otherwise There Would Be A Breach Of Article 300A Of Constitution: Supreme Court
The Supreme Court emphasised that the State must pay compensation to the land losers as otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution.
The Court was deciding a batch of civil appeals preferred against three judgments and orders of the Bombay High Court by which the writ petitions were rejected on the ground of delay and latches.
The two-Judge Bench comprising Justice B.V. Nagarathna and Justice Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh observed, “We have referred to the decisions of this Court where the question of delay and laches would not arise in matters such as the present cases. When relief in the nature of compensation is sought, as in the instant case, once the compensation is determined in the form of FSI/TDR, the same is payable even in the absence of there being any representation or request being made. In fact, a duty is cast on the State to pay compensation to the land losers as otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution.”
Senior Advocate Pravin Samdani appeared for the appellants while Senior Advocate Ans Nadkarni appeared for the respondents.
Brief Facts -
The appellants (writ petitioners) were holding plots of land shown as reserved in the sanctioned development plan under the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) which were reserved for Development Plan Road (DP Road). As per the appellants, they constructed DP Roads at their own cost and voluntarily surrendered the reserved lands to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC). In lieu thereof, in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act read with Regulations 33 and 34 as well as Para 5 of Appendix-VII of Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 (DCR), the appellants were granted Floor Space Index (FSI) and/or Transferrable Development Rights (TDR) in the form of Development Rights Certificates (DRC) equal to the gross area of the plots surrendered by them.
For the purpose of implementation of DCR, two Circulars were issued. By the first circular, the DRC equivalent to 15% area of the DP Road constructed by the owner or lessee on the surrendered plot was to be provided when the owner or lessee surrendered the developed amenity together with the reserved plot. By the second circular, the figure was enhanced to 25%. The grievance of the appellants before the High Court was that the MMC had declined to grant 100% additional TDR equivalent to the area of the amenity developed. As the writ petitions were dismissed by the High Court, the appellants approached the Apex Court.
The Supreme Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, noted, “As rightly contended by the learned senior counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants herein, the respondent-Mumbai Municipal Corporation has not established that owing to a short delay even if it has occurred in any of these cases owing to uncertainty in law, the Corporation has been prejudiced by the same or that the third-party rights had been created which could not be disturbed owing to delay or laches.”
The Court added that the calculation of period of delay in the table submitted by the senior counsel for the MMC is not acceptable. It further said that, neither the doctrine of delay and laches nor the principle of abandonment of claim or waiver would apply in these cases.
“Rather the delay has occurred on the part of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in complying with the Regulations insofar as these appellants are concerned”, it remarked.
The Court, therefore, concluded that the High Court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches.
Accordingly, the Apex Court allowed the civil appeals and directed MMC to consider the case of appellants.
Cause Title- Kukreja Construction Company & Others v. State of Maharashtra & Others (Neutral Citation: 2024 INSC 692)
