LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-126

MR. MANOJ JASWANTLAL KAPADIA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Decided On March 08, 2017
Mr. Manoj Jaswantlal Kapadia Appellant
V/S
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner claims to espouse a cause in public interest in filing the present petition and in doing so the petitioner has described himself to be a resident of Bhaindar, District Thane and regular tax payer and law abiding citizen and claims to have no personal interest in the subject matter of the petition.

(2.) The challenge in this Public Interest Litigation is to the action of Respondent No. 2 Municipal Corporation in issuing Development Right Certificate (for short 'DRC') in favour of Respondent No. 4 who is a developer, on the ground that issuance of such certificate has caused huge loss to the public exchequer. The Petitioner by this petition therefore interalia seeks directions against Respondent No. 2 Corporation to initiate appropriate action against Respondent No. 3 Municipal Commissioner. The final and interim prayers in the petition are as under:-

(3.) The case of the Petitioner is that Respondent No. 4 had made an application to Respondent No. 3 requesting for Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in the form of Development Right Certificate (DRC) in lieu of the amenities provided by Respondent No. 4, namely construction of road on the land as described in paragraph 5(i) of the Petition. The land in question was reserved for a public road in the sanctioned development plan of Respondent No. 2 Corporation. The Development Right Certificate came to be issued in favour of Respondent No. 4 on 28 Aug. 2015 to the extent of 96992 sq.mtrs for constructing a public road. The Petitioner has stated that the lands mentioned in the certificate are shown to have been surrendered to the Municipal Corporation though the name of the respective owners continued to be shown in the official records. The Petitioner, therefore, made a representation to the Municipal Commissioner dated 20 Nov. 2015 stating that the DRC should not have been issued in favour of Respondent No. 4. It is stated by the Petitioner that even oral representation came to be made pointing out that the Urban Development Department of the State Government, on 30 April 2015 had directed to publish a notice in the Official Gazette under the provisions of clause (a) of subsection (1)(AA) of Sec. 37 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (for short 'MRTP Act'), disclosing its intention to incorporate new regulation regarding Transferable Development Rights in the sanctioned development regulations of various Planning Authorities including Respondent No. 2 Corporation and for which objections or suggestions were invited and thereby requested that Respondent No. 3 ought to have applied stringent provisions out of two existing Development Control Regulations (DCR), in considering the application of Respondent No. 4 for grant of Development Right Certificate.