MANEKA CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETYversusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND ORS.

                                                                                 1/17                    903 WP-1847-09.odt

                                                   Salgaonkar

MANDIRA MILIND
SALGAONKAR
                 Digitally signed by MANDIRA
                 MILIND SALGAONKAR
                 Date: 2026.09.11 19:05:50 +0530
                                                            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                                                    CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                                                                    WRIT PETITION NO.1847 OF 2009

                                                   Maneka Co-Operative Housing Society                 .. Petitioner
                                                                        Versus
                                                   State of Maharashtra & Ors.                         .. Respondents

                                                                               …
                                                   Mr.Bhushan Deshmukh with Abinash Pradhan and Yash
                                                   Dedhia i/b Wadia Ghandy & Co. for the Petitioner.
                                                   Mr.Abhijit Kulkarni with Abhishek Roy, Sweta Shah and
                                                   Gaurav Shahane for the PMC/Respondent Nos.3 and 4.
                                                   Mr.Karan S. Thorat,             ‘B’        Panel   Counsel     for    the
                                                   State/Respondent.

                                                                       CORAM: BHARATI DANGRE &
                                                                               ASHISH S. CHAVAN, JJ.
                                                                       DATE : 08th SEPTEMBER, 2026
                                                                                        ...
                                                   JUDGMENT (PER BHARATI DANGRE, J.)

                                                   1.       The Petitioner, a Co-operative Housing Society, is the
                                                   owner of property known as Bibvewadi, Survey No.47/1/1B/2.
                                                   In relation to the said property, land acquisition proceedings
                                                   were commenced and it resulted into passing of an Award on
                                                   05/11/1984, thereby acquiring land admeasuring 40 R for
                                                   which the compensation of Rs.64,800/- become payable.
                                                            It is the case of the Petitioner that the compensation,
                                                   though       deposited   by   the      acquiring   body      with    State
                                                   Government, the same is not collected by the Petitioner and it
                                                   chose to file Suit No.2053 of 1984 against the notice of
                                                   possession, seeking an order of injunction restraining the
                                                   authorities from taking possession of the land.
                            2/17                    903 WP-1847-09.odt

      In 1987, when the Corporation prepared a development
plan for the city of Pune, the subject land was shown as
reserved for weaker section-15.


2.    The Development Control Regulation for the city of Pune
was   published    and    this     included   Regulation     N-2.4.17,
determining the eligibility criteria for availing Transferable
Development Rights (TDR) in form of Development Right
Certificate (DRC) and covering those persons, whose lands
were acquired and possession of the land was delivered,
without receiving part or full compensation, either under the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (for
short, “MRTP Act”) or The Bombay Provincial Municipal
Corporations Act, 1949.
      Alongwith the said Regulation, the Commissioner of the
Municipal Corporation also floated a scheme to be availed by
the persons, whose land was acquired and who were willing to
pay the entire amount under the Award plus 12% interest and
5% service fees, to be entitled for grant of TDR.


3.    Pursuant to the said Regulation, the Petitioner Society
made an application to the concerned Department of PMC on
31/07/2003 for grant of TDR. The Municipal Commissioner
was informed that the Petitioner complied with three
conditions out of the four conditions and the condition
regarding withdrawal of the court proceedings must be
complied with.
      The Petitioner made a formal application for grant of
TDR alongwith an affidavit, which was accordingly preferred
                          3/17                 903 WP-1847-09.odt

in the prescribed format on 01/04/2004, which included the
documents like the Plan and Zoning demarcation, copy of
Award as well as the possession receipt.
     The Petitioner also undertook to comply with the
conditions for grant of TDR and on 18/10/2005, handed over
the possession of the property to the Corporation.
     This was followed by a letter addressed by the Land
Acquisition Special Officer to the Tahsildar stating that the
possession of the subject land has been taken and making a
request for updating the 7/12 extract.
     Further, on 28/06/1996, Suit No.2053 of 1984 filed by
the Petitioner was also dismissed.


4.   It is the case of the Petitioner that despite completion of
all the formalities and handing over the possession of its land
on 18/12/2005, no action was taken by the Corporation for
grant of TDR as per its request, whereas the applications of the
persons similarly situated to that of the Petitioner, were
considered and they were granted TDR. The Petitioner has
annexed the list of those persons in whose favour TDR has
been granted.


5.   A further development took place when the Petitioner
was awaiting a final decision from the Corporation on its
application for grant of TDR and it being, on 03/02/2007, the
Urban Development Department issued directives under
Section 154 of the MRTP Act, 1966 directing that TDR shall
not be granted once an Award has been declared by following
the acquisition process and/or the possession is delivered to
                               4/17           903 WP-1847-09.odt

the Municipal Corporation. This Notification was to come into
effect from its publication.
      This was followed by a clarification issued by the
Government on 16/08/2007, when the PMC vide its letter
dated 28/02/2007, requested the Government to consider
whether the directive issued would be applicable to the cases,
where the PMC has already taken the possession, but not paid
any compensation.
      The Government, therefore, issued clarification on
16/08/2007 directing that in all cases where the Award was
not published and the possession was not taken, grant of TDR
was permissible. However, in cases where possession of land
has been taken under any provisions of law and the
compensation is wholly or partly tendered or deposited or
accepted by the owner, TDR shall not be granted. It was also
clarified that in all cases, where the Award was not published
and the possession had been taken and in cases where no
compensation had been paid and possession is taken, TDR
shall be granted.


6.    It is on 05/10/2007, the Petitioner was communicated
about the refusal of the TDR, the same being solely based on
the directive issued by the State Government under Section
154 on 03/02/2007 read with the explanation dated
16/08/2007 that on publication of the Award, grant of TDR
was not permissible. This communication only relied upon the
directives of the Government and the clarification that
wherever the Award has been declared, no TDR was
admissible.
                                    5/17                     903 WP-1847-09.odt

7.          The aforesaid communication constrained the Petitioner
to approach the Government of Maharashtra on 08/10/2007
by clarifying that the Petitioner had not accepted any
compensation under the Award and has already handed over
the possession to PMC on 18/10/2005 on being asked to do so.
The Petitioner also stated that it has filed an affidavit stating
that it would not claim any compensation on 01/03/2005 and
has complied with all the conditions for grant of TDR.
            Upon the State Government seeking opinion of the
Municipal Commissioner, it was informed that the refusal of
grant of TDR was based upon the Government instructions/
Notification         dated      03/02/2007        and       the    consequent
clarification dated 16/08/2007.
            This resulted into the rejection of the claim of the
Petitioner by the State Government on 09/04/2008, when the
following reasoning was adopted for rejecting the claim staked
by the Petitioner.
                                      “MAHARASHTRA STATE
                                      No.TPS-1807/1900
                                      Case No.42/08/New-13,
                                      Urban Development Dept.
                                      Mantralaya,
                                      Mumbai 400 032
                                      Dated : 09/04/2008
     To,
     Menka Sahakari Gruha Rachana Sanstha Maryadit,
     B-48, Vizewada, 129, Shukrawar Peth,
     Pune 411 922

                 Subject :   Development Plan, Pune
                             Regarding T.D.R. for land S.No.674/1/1B/2
                             reserved for EWS.

                 Reference : Your letter dated 8.10.2007.
     Sir,
         Please refer to your above referred letter. In the said letter, it is
     requested to the Government for getting T.D.R. for the land in subject.
         The Award in respect of the land being Survey No.647/1B/2 at
     village Bibwewadi to be acquired for the purpose of economical weaker
                                 6/17                      903 WP-1847-09.odt

     section has been declared on 5.11.1984 and the possession of the land
     under acquisition has been taken on 18.10.2005. As per the directions
     issued by Government dated 3.2.2007 as per Section 154 and as per
     clarification issued by the Government on 16/8/2007, the T.D.R. Is not
     admissible for the lands where Award has been declared and
     possession of the lands taken. Hence, your request for issuing T.D.R..
     For the said land is hereby rejected and I am directed to inform you
     accordingly.

                                                         Yours,

                                                  (Nandkishore Patil)
                                                   Addl. Secretary”

8.      It is in this background cause of action, when the
proposal of the Petitioner Society for grant of TDR received
rejection, both by the Corporation as well as the State
Government, in light of the Notification/directives issued by
the State Government in exercise of power under Section 154
of the MRTP Act, the Petitioner has approached this Court and
primarily seeking the following reliefs :-

     “(b)      This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari
     or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of
     Certiorari, and after examining the legality, validity and propriety
     of the Impugned Orders dated 3rd February 2007 and 16th August,
     2007 be pleased to declare the same as ultra vires the provisions of
     the MRTP Act, 1966 and consequently, the letter/order dated 5 th
     October 2007 and 9th April 2008 be quashed and set aside.
     (c)       Alternatively for a declaration that the provisions of
     Section 154 of the MRTP Act are ultra vires the Constitution of
     India;
     (d)       This Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorari
     or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of Writ of
     Certiorari, and after examining the legality, validity and propriety
     of the Impugned Orders dated 3rd February 2007; 16th August 2007
     and letter/order dated 5th October 2007 and 9th April 2008 be
     pleased to direct the Respondents to grant TDR in favour of the
     Petitioners in respect of the subject land;”



9.      We have heard the learned counsel for the Petitioner and
the learned counsel for the Corporation as well as the State
Government.
                               7/17                     903 WP-1847-09.odt

      On 01/12/2009, Rule being issued, we took up the
Petition for final hearing on completion of the pleadings.
      According to the learned counsel for the Petitioner, the
rejection of the Petitioner’s claim is highly erroneous, as the
Petitioner satisfied the conditions for grant of TDR in cases
where the lands were under acquisition, and according to him,
Regulation N- 2.4.17 stipulated two conditions and both these
conditions being satisfied, according to the learned counsel
Mr.Bhushan Deshmukh, in terms of the DRC published by the
Corporation on 30/09/1993, the Petitioner is eligible for grant
of TDR.     He would place reliance upon the decision of the
Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kausarbag Co-
Operative Housing Society Ltd. Vs. State of Maharashtra 1 and
according to him, the High Court has set aside the Notification
dated 03/02/2007 as well as the consequential Notification
dated 22/03/2007, being ultra vires to the Regulations. He
would invite our attention to paragraph 9 of the law report,
which reads thus:-
   “9. Coming to the impugned letter dated 22-3-2007, it is submitted
   by Shri K.K Singhvi, learned senior counsel appearing for the
   petitioner that Regulation No.2.4.17 is in the realm of subordinate
   legislation. Therefore, no direction contrary to it could be given by
   the Government in terms of Section 154 of the MRTP Act. We have
   perused Notification dated 3-2-2007. The Notification itself leaves
   no room to deny that the Notification was issued under Section 154
   as one of the paras specifically mentions that. Curiously it also
   gives certain directions which it mentions as “New Rule" and the
   new Rule (1) is, "Transferable Development Rights (TDR) shall not
   be permissible once an award has been declared under the
   acquisition process and or the possession has already been
   delivered to the Municipal Corporation under any Act." The new
   Rule (4) says, "Pending the approval to the aforesaid modification
   the new rule mentioned hereinabove shall come into force with
   effect from the date of issue of this notification." The new Rule (3)
   says, "After completing the procedure as laid down under Section
   37(1) of the said Act Municipal Corporation shall submit the said
   modification proposal to the Government for final sanction." In
1 2009 SCC OnLine Bom 1435
                              8/17                    903 WP-1847-09.odt

   effect, this Notification appears to be a recommendation for
   modifying the Regulation. Although this Notification was issued in
   2007, but on the date of hearing it was conceded that there was no
   such approval granted by the Government and this Notification
   amounts to modifying Regulation No. 2.4.17 which could not have
   been done in exercise of power under Section 154 of the MRTP Act.
   Shri Singhvi refers to the judgment of the Supreme Court in
   Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v. State of Maharashtra , reported in
   (2003) 5 SCC 413 and more particularly to the observations in para
   51 thereof. The said observations read thus:
        “A direction of the State Government in terms of Section 154
        of the Act cannot supersede the statutory provisions
        contained either in the main enactment or the statutory
        regulations. The State of Maharashtra had absolutely no
        jurisdiction to issue any directive contrary to the statute or
        the statutory regulations.”


10.    According to Mr.Deshmukh, this decision was further
upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Pune
Municipal Corporation & Anr. Vs. Kausarbag Co-Operative
Housing Society Limited & Anr.2, which affirmed the order
dated 15/09/2009 and dismissed the Appeal filed by the Pune
Municipal Corporation and the State of Maharashtra.
       According to the Petitioner, since the Petitioner satisfy
both the conditions stipulated under Regulation N-2.4.17, as
the request for grant of TDR was first made by it on
31/07/2003 i.e. after 30/09/1993 and the second condition
stipulated therein being complied, as the possession of the
subject land was acquired by the State Government on
10/01/1984 i.e. within twelve years prior to 30/09/1993 and
the Petitioner has not accepted the compensation, though
deposited, the Petitioner is entitled for TDR.
       Apart from this, it is also pointed out to us that the
Petitioner submitted various affidavits/undertakings to the
Corporation, but without taking into consideration the fact
that it complied with the stipulation for grant of TDR as per
2 (2014) 15 SCC 753
                           9/17                  903 WP-1847-09.odt

the Regulation, its application was rejected on arbitrary
grounds.
      It is also submitted that pursuant to the High Court
quashing the directive dated 03/02/2007 issued under Section
154 of the MRTP Act as well as the subsequent clarification,
the Petitioner is entitled for TDR. The learned counsel has also
sought to place before us the comparison of the facts involved
in Kausarbag Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. (supra) and in
the case of the Petitioner to point out that         the striking
similarity in factual aspects alongwith the law laid down,
entitled the Petitioner to the TDR, as prayed for.


11.   The learned counsel for the Corporation, Mr.Kulkarni,
would make a strenuous effort in contesting the claim of the
Petitioner, and according to him, Kausarbag Co-Operative
Housing Society Ltd. (supra) involved distinct facts and he
would emphasise on the fact that the compensation was
deposited by the acquiring body with the State Government,
but it is the Petitioner, who failed to collect the compensation,
as the Petitioner was agitating its claim filed in the civil suit.
The learned counsel would also place reliance upon the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indore Development
Authority Vs. Manoharlal & Ors.3 to submit that once the
compensation is declared under the Land Acquisition Act
under an Award, it is not permissible to avail the benefit of
TDR. The learned A.G.P. would also place reliance upon the
decision of the Division Bench in the case of Pawan
Rajaramrao Kadam Vs.The State of Maharashtra & Ors. (Writ
Petition No.6746 of 2024), in opposing the claim of the Petition
3 (2020) 8 SCC 129
                            10/17                903 WP-1847-09.odt

and according to the learned counsel, representing the
Respondents, the Petition did not deserve any consideration
and they prayed for its dismissal.

12.   We have perused the decision of Division Bench of this
Court in Kausarbag Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd.(supra),
when a claim was staked for TDR under the relevant
Development Control Regulation (DCR) N-2.4 framed under
the MRTP Act, 1966. The moot question was as regards the
applicability of Regulation N-2.4.17 and the petitioner’s land
being situated in Kondhava Khurd, Pune shown in the
development plan as ‘garden’ and it was acquired under the
Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by passing an Award on
22/01/1982.
      The society then preferred an application for grant of
TDR and when the opinion was sought from various
authorities, they expressed willingness to grant TDR/DRC in
lieu of society’s entitlement for compensation. The society was
told that TDR/DRC would be granted, provided all the court
proceedings are withdrawn, and accordingly, the Petitioner
withdrew all the litigations.
      The compensation pursuant to the Award was offered to
the petitioner society in 1987, which was not accepted and it
rather filed a reference for higher compensation under Section
18 of the Land Acquisition Act, which was also subsequently
abandoned.
      The proposal of the petitioner, however, received
rejection in light of the directives issued by the State
Government under Section 154 of the MRTP Act and that was
the cause for the petitioner to approach this Court.
                           11/17                 903 WP-1847-09.odt

13.   In the wake of the facts placed before the Court, two
factors are to be noted, namely, the land was acquired
pursuant to an Award passed in 1987 and even the possession
of the land was taken and handed over to the Pune Municipal
Corporation.    The     respondent-Corporation       specifically
contended that the provision in Regulation N-2.4.17 will not
apply as the land was not shown as reserved in the
development plan under the MRTP Act, but was a part of the
layout submitted by the petitioner for the development of the
land, wherein it was shown as a ‘garden’ and which received
approval in the year 1973.         It was contended that the
development permission was granted on this assurance of the
petitioner, but the Division Bench noted that it would not make
any difference, whether the land was part of the development
plan reserved by the Government or was part of the
development plan submitted by the petitioner, as a part of the
layout in which the land in question is shown as ‘garden’.
      It was held that the modified DCR N- 2.4.17(ii) does not
make any such distinction, but it only offers TDR in lieu of
compensation at the request of the owner, provided the land
was acquired or taken possession of 12 years prior to
30/09/1993. The second submission advanced that the TDR
could not be claimed when the land was not acquired by an
agreement between the planning authority and the owner, was
also brushed aside by noting that no such stipulation is to be
found in Regulation N-2.4.17. The petitioner also claimed that
the owners similar to him were granted TDR and this fact was
not disputed.
                           12/17                   903 WP-1847-09.odt

      In light of the aforesaid facts, finding is rendered, which
we have already noted in the preceding paragraphs in form of
paragraph No.9 of the law report.
      As a result, the Notification dated 03/02/2007 was held
to be illegal and ultra vires to the Regulations and for this very
reason, the consequential Notification dated 22/03/2007 was
also set aside.


14.   As far as the present case is concerned, we find that the
challenge of the Petitioner is to the rejection of its application
for grant of TDR under the very same Development Control
Regulations, namely, N-2.4 and the Petitioner also staked its
claim for grant of TDR on the basis of Regulation N-2.4.17. The
land involved in the present case was shown in the
development plan to be reserved for weaker section and it was
acquired for rehabilitation of Janta Colony Slum on Parvati
Hill. The land acquisition proceedings commenced in January
1984 and the Award was passed on 05/11/1984.
      A reference to the letter dated 03/11/2003 read with the
letters, which are annexed alongwith the Petition and
specifically   tendered   before   us   in   the   compilation      of
documents, reflect that various departments of Respondent
No.3 initially opined that the Petitioner is eligible for grant of
TDR. The Petitioner filed a civil suit seeking a restraint order
from taking possession of the property and gave an
undertaking not to claim additional compensation and not to
prosecute the proceedings and in turn, complying with the
conditions of grant of TDR. The Petitioner gave a categorical
letter on 03/11/2003 stating that in the event TDR is granted,
                           13/17                 903 WP-1847-09.odt

the Petitioner will withdraw the suit.        In any case, on
28/06/1996, the suit was disposed of.
      The compensation of Rs.64,800/- was determined in the
Award, but the petitioner never received the compensation
      In this case also, the Petitioner has annexed the list of
similarly situated owners, who are granted TDR, but merely on
the basis of the impugned Notification as well as the
clarification issued by the State Government, by exercising the
power under Section 154, the request of the Petitioner has
been turned down.


15.   Comparing the facts of the present case with the one
which fell for consideration before the Division Bench in case
of Kausarbag Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. (supra), we
find that the facts are identically situated.          When we
specifically note that the Notification of 03/02/2007 does not
hold the field and is already declared as illegal and ultra vires
to the Regulations, we do not see any reason why we should
once again entertain the challenge to the said Notification,
which is already struck down.
      The Hon’ble Apex Court accorded its approval to the
reasoning adopted by the Division Bench while declaring the
Notification dated 03/02/2007 and 22/03/2007 to be illegal
and ultra vires of the DC Regulations. With specific focus on
Regulation N-2.4.17, on facts the Apex Court noted that the
acquisition of the land belonging to the respondent society was
initiated by Notification dated 28/01/1982 issued under
Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act and the Declaration
under Section 6 was published on 02/01/1985. Apart form
                           14/17                 903 WP-1847-09.odt

this, it was also noted that the Award was declared on
22/01/1987 and it was the stand of the petitioner that the
description of the land as an existing garden was incorrect and
what should have been mentioned in the development plan is
that the land was proposed for garden, as possession of the
same was still with the society on the date of publication of the
final development plan i.e. on 05/01/1987 and the possession
of the land was taken over only on 18/02/1987.
     In the backdrop of the aforesaid factual matter, the Apex
Court noted that the concept of TDR was introduced for the
first time in the MRTP Act in the year 1993, by an amendment
of Section 126(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the MRTP Act and the
modalities for grant of TDR were brought into force by
amending the DCR N-2.4 with effect from 05/06/1997.
Clarifying that the concept of TDR involves the surrender of
land reserved for various public purposes in the development
plan free of cost and in exchange thereof grant of TDR entitling
the holder thereof to construct a built-up area equivalent to
the permissible FSI of the land handed over by him on one or
more plots in the zone specified, it was held that such rights
are transferable. The object behind introduction of TDR and
which was admitted by the PMC, according to the Apex Court,
was to meet the situation faced by the Corporation on being
called upon to make payment of over Rs.1500 crores to take
over different sites measuring about 600 ha which had been
reserved for different public purposes in the development plan.
     Recording that in order to avoid this, the DCR
contemplated grant of TDR subject to the two specific
stipulations, namely,   the possession of the land has been
                              15/17                     903 WP-1847-09.odt

delivered without receipt of part or full compensation payable
under the MRTP Act, the Bombay Provincial Municipal
Corporation Act, private negotiations or under any Act and
such event should have occurred within 12 years prior to
30/09/1993 (date of publication of the draft DCR containing
the TDR concept).         The Hon’ble Apex Court specifically
observed thus :-
  “Having regard to the clear language contained in DCR N-2.4.17(ii)
  and the object sought to be achieved by the introduction of TDR, we
  do not see as to how grant of TDR can be confined only to cases of
  lands which have been reserved in the development plan and not to
  lands acquired under the Land Acquisition Act which land
  eventually becomes a part of the finally approved and sanctioned
  development plan. The above would also lead to the conclusion that
  DCR N-2.4.17 is capable of operating independently and is not
  contingent on the existence of the conditions mentioned in DRC N-
  2.4.1(A).”


Apart from the above, we deem it apposite to reproduce the
following observation of the Apex Court :-

  “16.      “Making of DCR or amendments thereof are legislative
  functions”. The Government Order dated 3-2-2007, though claimed
  to be clarificatory by the appellants, really, seeks to prohibit the
  grant of DCR under DCR N- 2.4.17 so far as lands in respect of which
  award under the Land Acquisition Act had been passed or
  possession of which has been taken over. This is contrary to the
  clear intent behind DCR N-2.4.17. The Government Order itself
  acknowledges the necessity of following the procedure prescribed
  by Section 37 of the MRTP Act before the aforesaid modification
  could become effective. Yet, surprisingly the Government Order
  goes on to state that, “Pending approval of the aforesaid
  modification, the new rule mentioned hereinabove shall come into
  force with effect from the date of issue of this notification”. The
  government order in question, having been issued under Section
  154 of the MRTP Act, therefore, cannot override DCR N- 2.4.17 as
  the directions under Section 154 of the MRTP Act would be in the
  nature of administrative instructions (Laxminarayan R. Bhattad v.
  State of Maharashtra). Admittedly, at the relevant point of time, the
  requisite process under Section 37 of the MRTP Act has not been
  completed.”
                             16/17                903 WP-1847-09.odt

16.   With the above clear pronouncement of law, we see no
reason why the Petitioner shall be denied the benefit, as we
find that the facts involved in the present Petition are identical
and rather correspond to the facts in Kausarbag Co-Operative
Housing Society Ltd. (supra), where the law has been laid to
the aforesaid effect.
      The reliance placed by the learned A.G.P. in case of
Pawan Rajaramrao Kadam (supra), in our view, does not take
the case of the Respondents any further.

17.   In the wake of the aforesaid, we allow the Writ Petition,
by clarifying that the Notification dated 03/02/2007 issued by
the State Government is already set aside by the Division
Bench in Kausarbag Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. (supra)
and this Judgment is upheld by the Apex Court.            We also
declare that the clarification regarding TDR in continuation of
the Government Letter dated 03/02/2007, addressed by the
Urban Development Department to the Commissioner, Pune
Municipal Corporation, for the very said reason that the
Notification dated 03/02/2007 is already quashed and set
aside, the challenge to the clarification dated 16/08/2007 must
also meet the same fate, as the main Notification itself does not
survive for consideration.
      In the wake of the aforesaid, the impugned order dated
05/10/2007 passed by the Pune Municipal Corporation as well
as the order dated 09/04/2008 passed by the State
Government (Urban Development Department), rejecting the
proposal of the Petitioner Society for grant of TDR based on the
Government directions dated 03/02/2007 and the clarification
dated 16/08/2007 are also quashed and set aside.
                           17/17                 903 WP-1847-09.odt

      We direct the Pune Municipal Corporation to grant the
TDR to which the Petitioner Society is entitled, but has been
refused, relying upon the Directions/clarification issued by the
State Government, which we have already quashed and set
aside.


18.   The counsel for the Corporation made an earnest request
to remand the matter back to the Corporation for determining
as to what TDR would be admissible to the Petitioner, but we do
not deem it appropriate to consider the said request, as we
must note that the claim of the Petitioner for the TDR is based
upon DCR N-2.7.14 and since we are of the view that the
Petitioner has complied with both the conditions thereof,
namely, the request was made for grant of TDR after
30/09/1993 and the possession of the subject land has been
given to the Corporation and the Petitioner has not yet
received the compensation and this has been done within the
period of twelve years prior to 30/09/1993, we direct the
Corporation to grant TDR to the Petitioner in accordance with
Regulation N-2.7.14.
      Since the Petitioner is kept away from the said benefit for
considerable length of time, we direct the TDR/FSI to be
granted to the Petitioner Society, by issuing appropriate DRC
within a period of twelve weeks from today.


19.   The Petition stands disposed of in the aforestated terms.



(ASHISH S. CHAVAN, J.)                 (BHARATI DANGRE, J.)