Holding

The Supreme Court held that the doctrine of delay and laches does not bar the grant of additional FSI/TDR, and the High Court’s dismissal on that ground is set aside.

Summary

The appellants, owners of land reserved for Development Plan Roads under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, constructed the roads at their own cost, surrendered the land to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and were granted 25% transferable development rights (TDR). They later claimed the balance 75% (or 100% in some cases) of additional FSI/TDR based on the Supreme Court’s decision in Godrej & Boyce I, but the Bombay High Court dismissed their writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches. The appellants appealed, and the Corporation also filed appeals against the High Court’s orders. The Supreme Court held that once compensation in the form of FSI/TDR is determined, it is a vested right enforceable irrespective of any delay, and the doctrines of delay, laches, abandonment or waiver do not apply. Consequently, the High Court’s dismissal on those grounds was set aside, the Corporation’s appeals were dismissed, and the respondents were directed to grant the balance FSI/TDR within three months, with a specific direction to consider the nature of amenities in the Kukreja case.

Issues considered

Whether the doctrine of delay and laches can be invoked to deny additional FSI/TDR under Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act.
Whether the 2016 amendment to Regulation 34 of the Development Control Regulations applies retrospectively to cases where the amenity was developed before the amendment.
Whether the Mumbai Municipal Corporation’s appeals merit interference with the High Court’s order.
Whether entitlement to additional FSI/TDR is a vested right that must be honoured irrespective of the claimant’s delay.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 300-A
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966s. 126(1)(b), s. 2(2), s. 2(7)
Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888

Subjects

Acquisition of land for public purposesDevelopment Plan RoadAmenityDelay and lachesFloor Space IndexTransferrable Development RightsCompensationArticle 300-AAbandonmentWaiverRetrospective legislation

Judgment

[2024] 9 S.C.R. 830 : 2024 INSC 692

Kukreja Construction Company & Others
v.
State of Maharashtra & Others
(Civil Appeal No. 9702 of 2024)
13 September 2024
[B.V. Nagarathna* and
Nongmeikapam Kotiswar Singh, JJ.]

Issue for Consideration
Whether the High Court was right in declining to grant relief to
the writ petitioners-appellants herein on the ground of delay and
laches; whether the appeals filed by the respondent-Mumbai
Municipal Corporation would call for any interference; what order
to be passed.

Headnotes†
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 –
s.126(1)(b) – Acquisition of land required for public purposes
specified in plans – Development Control Regulations for
Greater Bombay, 1991 – Regulations 33; 34 r/w Para 6 of
Appendix-VII – Determination of compensation in form of Floor
Space Index (FSI) and/or Transferrable Development Rights
(TDR) – Claim for additional FSI/TDR against the development/
construction of the amenity on the surrendered land at owner
or lessee’s cost – Inapplicability of doctrine of delay and
laches – Appellants-land owners held plots reserved in the
sanctioned development plan for Development Plan Road
(DP Road) – Appellants had constructed DP Road at their
own cost and voluntarily surrendered the reserved lands to
the respondent-Corporation, were granted 25% TDR for the
construction of said amenity at their cost – Later, after the
judgment of Supreme Court in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing
Company Limited v. State of Maharashtra reported as [2009]
1 SCR 1016 (Godrej & Boyce I) holding that the owner or
lessee would be entitled to FSI or TDR equivalent to 100%
of the area of the road constructed by them, the appellants

* Author
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 831

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

claimed additional FSI/TDR – Rejected by High Court on the
ground of delay and laches – Correctness:
Held: Not correct – Question of delay and laches would not
arise in present cases – Once the compensation is determined
in the form of FSI/TDR, the same is payable even without any
representation or request being made, as otherwise there would
be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution – Respondent did
not establish that owing to a short delay even if it had occurred in
any of these cases owing to uncertainty in law, it was prejudiced
by the same or that third-party rights were created which could
not be disturbed owing to delay or laches – Neither the doctrine
of delay and laches nor the principle of abandonment of claim or
waiver would apply in these cases – Rather, the delay occurred
on the part of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in complying
with the Regulations insofar as the appellants are concerned –
High Court not right in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground
of delay and laches, impugned order set aside to that extent –
However, reasoning of the High Court holding that the 2016
notification amending Regulation 34 of the 1991 DCR would not
apply retrospectively or retroactively to a land reserved under the
development plan which is surrendered and amenity is developed
on the said land by the owner or lessee thereof at his own cost
prior to the amendment, not interfered on merits – Respondent to
consider the case of writ petitioners-appellants herein in light of
Godrej & Boyce I case and release the balance FSI/TDR to the
appellants however, in the case of appellant – Kukreja Construction
company and others, the respondent to consider the nature of
the amenities constructed and thereafter consider their case for
additional FSI/TDR. [Paras 4.8, 18, 20]

Case Law Cited
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited v. State of
Maharashtra [2009] 1 SCR 1016 : (2009) 5 SCC 24; Municipal
Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Natwar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd.,
Civil Appeal No. 1748 of 2015; Noida Entrepreneur Association
v. NOIDA [2011] 8 SCR 25 : (2011) 6 SCC 508; Sukh Dutt Ratra
v. State of Himachal Pradesh [2022] 2 SCR 1041 : (2022) SCC
OnLine SC 410; Lalaram v. Jaipur Development Authority [2015]
14 SCR 403 : (2016) 11 SCC 31; Moon Mills Ltd. v. M.R. Meher,
832 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

President, Industrial Court, Bombay, AIR 1967 SC 1450; M/s Dehri
Rohtas Light Railway Company Limited v. District Board, Bhojpur,
[1992] 2 SCR 155 : (1992) 2 SCC 598; Hindustan Petroleum
Corporation Ltd. v. Dolly Das (1999) 4 SCC 450; Mohar Singh
(Dead) Thr. Lrs. v. State of UP Collector [2023] 14 SCR 842 : 2023
INSC 1019; Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai [2023] 6 SCR 56 : (2023) SCC
OnLine SC 592; A.P. SRTC v. S. Jayaram (2004) 13 SCC 792;
Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Yeshwant Jagannath
Vaity [2011] 5 SCR 653 (2011) 11 SCC 88; Vidya Devi v. State of
Himachal Pradesh [2020] 1 SCR 749 : (2020) 2 SCC 569; Dehri
Rohtas Light Rly. Co. Ltd. v. District Board, Bhojpur [1992] 2 SCR
155 : (1992) 2 SCC 598; Tukaram Kana Joshi v. Maharashtra
Industrial Development Corporation [2012] 13 SCR 29 : (2013) 1
SCC 353; Kazi Moinuddin Kazi Bashiroddin v. Maharashtra Tourism
Development Corporation [2022] 7 SCR 509 : (2022) SCC OnLine
SC 1325; G.T. Lad v. Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. [1979] 2
SCR 613 : (1979) 1 SCC 590; State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh
Bhullar [2011] 15 SCR 540 : (2011) 14 SCC 770 – referred to.
Natwar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2014 SCC
Online Bom 495 – referred to.

List of Acts
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966; Development
Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991; Mumbai Municipal
Corporation Act, 1888; Constitution of India.

List of Keywords
Acquisition of land for public purposes; Sanctioned development
plan; Development Plan Road (DP Road); Amenity; Delay and
laches; Mumbai Municipal Corporation; Compensation; Floor Space
Index (FSI); Transferrable Development Rights (TDR); Additional
FSI/TDR; Development Rights Certificates; Surrendered plot/
land; Development/construction of the amenity on surrendered
land at owner or lessee’s cost; Article 300-A of the Constitution of
India; Principle of abandonment of claim or waiver; Abandonment/
waiver of rights; Retrospective; Retroactive; Construction of road;
Surrender of land reserved for road; Development right; Planning
Authority; Development Authority; Appropriate Authority; Free of
cost; Free from all encumbrances.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 833

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

Case Arising From
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9702 of 2024
From the Judgment and Order dated 18.12.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Bombay in WP No.1898 of 2009
With
Civil Appeal Nos. 9703, 9704, 9705, 9706, 9707, 9708, 9709, 9710,
9711, and 9712 of 2024

Appearances for Parties
R. Venkataramani, AG, ANS Nadkarni, Pravin K. Samdani, Amar
Dave, Shikhil Suri, Ms. Liz Mathew, Sr. Advs., Ms. Asha Gopalan
Nair, Ms. Nivedita Nair, S.S. Rebello, Ms. Deepti Arya, Ms. Manisha
Gupta, Rishikesh Haridas, Ms. Himanshi Nagpal, M/s. Pratap and
Co., Ms. Pallavi Pratap, Sandip Patil, Raghav Gupta, Gaurav
Gopal, Chiranjivi Sharma, Filji Frederick, Ms. Apoorva Kaushik,
Vasu Gupta, Uday Mathur, Pranaya Goyal, Mahesh Agarwal,
Rishi Agrawala, Ankur Saigal, Anshuman Srivastava, Divyanshu
Srivastava, Kaustubh Singh, Ms. Vidisha Swarup, E. C. Agrawala,
Ms. Madhu Suri, Ms. Jyoti Suri, Ms. Wamika Chadha, Ms. Vidhi
Kapoor, Ms. Ishita Ahuja, Ms. Divya Swami, Aaditya Aniruddha
Pande, Naresh Jain, Ms. Arati Agarwal, Ms. Neha, Alok Kumar,
Rameshwar Prasad Goyal, Mukul Taly, Phiroze Merchant, Ms.
Mamta Singh, Ms. Anchala C., Ms. Mallika Agarwal, Ms. Bagavathy
Vennimalai, Navneet R., Rahul Chitnis, Siddharth Dharmadhikari,
Bharat Bagla, Sourav Singh, Aditya Krishna, Ms. Preet S. Phanse,
Adarsh Dubey, Advs. for the appearing parties.

Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

Judgment

Nagarathna, J.

These appeals have been filed against three impugned judgments
and orders of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, namely,
i) Judgment dated 18.12.2018 whereby Writ Petition Nos.
1898/2009, 1823/2012, 839/2015, 2871/2015, 2107/2016,
2170/2016, 384/2017 and 541/2017 were rejected on the ground
834 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of delay and laches and the writ petitioners therein/appellants
herein have filed an appeal. Writ Petition Nos. 203/2014 and
2262/2010 were allowed and Writ Petition No.1860/2017 was
partly allowed.
As against Writ Petition No.203/2014, Municipal Corporation of Greater
Mumbai (hereinafter referred as “Mumbai Municipal Corporation”) has
filed Civil Appeal No.9708/2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.13365/2019. However, as against orders in Writ Petition
No.2262/2010 and 1860/2017, there are no Special Leave Petitions
filed by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation;
ii) Judgment and Order dated 18.10.2019/08.11.2019 whereby Writ
Petition No.2531/2009 was allowed and the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation has filed Civil Appeal No.9711/2024 arising out of
Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.10430 of 2020;
iii) Judgment dated 20.10.2022 whereby Writ Petition No.411/2013
was allowed and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation has filed
Civil Appeal No.9712/2024 arising out of Special Leave Petition
(Civil) No.606 of 2023.
1.1 Thus, there are sets of judgments and orders of the Bombay
High Court which have been considered together owing to
their similarity.
1.2 The High Court considered the writ petitions on the issue
concerning the implementation of the decision of this Court
in Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited
vs. State of Maharashtra (2009) 5 SCC 24 (“Godrej &
Boyce I”). The said decision dealt with Regulation 34 read with
Para 6 of Appendix-VII to the Development Control Regulations
for Greater Bombay, 1991 (“the DCR” for short).

Relevant facts:
2. With regard to the order dated 18.12.2018, the writ petitioners before
the High Court (appellants herein) 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” for short) which were reserved for Development Plan Road (“DP
Road” for short). According to the writ petitioners, they constructed
DP Roads at their own cost and voluntarily surrendered the reserved
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 835

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

lands to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. 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
DCR, the writ petitioners were granted Floor Space Index (“FSI” for
short) and/or Transferrable Development Rights (“TDR” for short)
in the form of Development Rights Certificates (“DRC” for short)
equal to the gross area of the plots surrendered by them. Para 6 of
Appendix-VII (as it stood prior to its amendment) provided that when
an owner or a lessee also develops or constructs the amenities on
the surrendered plot at his own cost and hands over the developed/
constructed amenity to the Municipal Commissioner, he is entitled to
DRC in the form of FSI or TDR equivalent to the area of construction/
development done by him. The expression “amenity” has been
defined in sub-section (2) of Section 2 of the MRTP Act as well as
clause (7) of Regulation 3 of DCR.
2.1 For the purpose of implementation of the DCR, two Circulars
were issued on 09.04.1996 and 05.04.2003. By Circular dated
09.04.1996, 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 Circular
dated 05.04.2003, the figure was enhanced to 25%.
2.2 In Godrej & Boyce I, this Court held that the expression
“equivalent” in Para 6 of Appendix-VII would entitle the owner or
lessee to 100% FSI or TDR for the construction of an amenity at
his cost. Therefore, FSI or TDR for construction of an amenity
would not be confined to 15% or 25% of DP Road area and it
would be equivalent to 100% of the area of the road constructed
by the owner or the lessee.
2.3 The grievance of the writ petitioners before the High Court was
that the Mumbai Municipal Corporation had declined to grant
100% additional TDR equivalent to the area of the amenity
developed. By a notification issued on 16.11.2016, Regulation 34
of the DCR was amended. As a result, Appendix-VII was virtually
obliterated from the DCR. The notification dated 16.11.2016 was
assailed and question arose as to whether the modifications
made by the notification amending Regulation 34 of the DCR
would have retrospective or retroactive operation.
836 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

2.4 The High Court made a brief reference to the facts of each
of the writ petitions and considered the detailed submissions
made on behalf of the writ petitioners, the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation and the State Government.

Contentions before the High Court:
3. It was contended on behalf of the writ petitioners before the High
Court that the unamended Regulation 33(1) of the DCR enabled the
owner of the land to seek benefit of FSI of the land reserved for DP
Road and utilize the same on the remaining land. Till 17.06.2010,
there was no entitlement to seek FSI under Regulation 33 for
construction of an amenity and the amenity TDR was available
only under Regulation 34 read with Para 6 of Appendix-VII. The
amendment made on 17.06.2010 to Regulation 33 resulted in the
owner, who had constructed the road, instead of TDR, to opt for
FSI to be utilized on the remainder of the land. He would then be
entitled to an extent of 25% of the FSI. But if the owner constructed
an amenity but did not avail FSI benefit on the remainder land, the
benefit was separated from the land and given in the form of TDR
under Regulation 34 read with Para 6 of Appendix-VII. That Para 6
of Appendix-VII was not amended as such on 17.06.2010 after the
decision of this Court in Godrej & Boyce I as no amendment was
carried out as such. However, by the notification dated 16.11.2016,
the entire Regulation 34 and Appendix-VII were substituted. As per
the amended provision, the owner was eligible to obtain TDR for the
land at the rate mentioned in Para 4.1 of the amended Regulations
as the owner who developed the amenity thereon became eligible
to receive TDR in terms of Para 4.2 but by this, Regulation 33(1)
did not undergo any amendment.
3.1 It was contended that the aforesaid amendment should be
construed to be prospective as otherwise it would apply to
cases where amenity was developed and surrendered earlier,
and hence would be unconstitutional. It was pointed out
that subsequent to the judgment of this Court in Godrej &
Boyce I, in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater
Bombay vs. Natwar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Civil Appeal
No.1748 of 2015 (“Natwar Parikh”) this Court had rejected
the prayer of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to revisit the
decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce I and had also rejected
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 837

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

the prayer for declaring that the said judgment would have
only a prospective effect. In the said case, this Court had also
rejected an argument of delay and laches.
3.2 It was further contended that the notification dated 16.11.2016
could not have a retrospective effect as the decision of this
Court in Godrej & Boyce I could not have been nullified by
taking away the vested right conferred, without altering the
basis of the judgment.
3.3 It was next contended that clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 126 of the MRTP Act, which was incorporated into
the statute book with retrospective effect from 25.03.1991,
would imply that prior to the said date, there was no provision
for FSI/TDR for construction of a road by the owner. That
for the first time w.e.f. 17.06.2010, provision was made for
an additional 25% FSI for construction of DP Road. Since a
road falls within the definition of amenity under the DCR as
well as MRTP Act, compensation in the form of FSI/TDR for
the construction of an amenity as provided by the relevant
DCR ought to have been granted to the petitioners. This was
having regard to Regulation 34 read with Appendix-VII which
is a complete code for grant of TDR. It was submitted that the
scheme of an additional 100% TDR on account of construction
of an amenity was in lieu of payment of compensation in an
acquisition proceeding.
3.4 The contention of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation, on the other
hand, was that the decision of this Court in Godrej & Boyce I,
was per incuriam as it ignored the effects of Regulation 33 of the
DCR. It was contended that if the compensation had been paid
partly or fully by any means, TDR could not be granted. That in
the case of the writ petitioners, the compensation in the form
of 10% or 25% additional TDR had already been granted and
the notification dated 16.11.2016 had removed the basis of the
decision of this Court in Godrej & Boyce I and there was now
a prohibition for issuance of TDR in favour of the persons who
had already been compensated. They further contended that
the impugned notification would apply even to cases pending
before the High Court and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation
as the judgment in Godrej & Boyce I had been nullified by the
838 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

said notification. Further, there cannot be 100% TDR in respect
of the area of the amenity developed, and therefore, to cure
the defect, the notification dated 16.11.2016 was enforced and
that the DCR applicable on the date of deciding an application
for grant of development permission would govern the decision
on the application.
3.5 By way of reply, the writ petitioners contended before the High
Court that the notification dated 16.11.2016 was not a validating
Act. It was merely a delegated legislation which could not nullify
the judgment of the Apex Court. The right to claim TDR on the
development of the amenity vests in the owner the moment the
permission is granted by the Municipal Corporation to construct
the road/amenity. The judgment in Godrej & Boyce I is not per
incuriam and had been applied in other subsequent cases. The
object of giving a benefit under Regulation 34 is owing to lack
of financial capacity of the Municipal Corporation to construct
amenities by itself. Hence, the writ petitioners sought relief
under Regulation 34 of the DCR.

Consideration by the High Court:
4. On a consideration of the rival submissions and taking note of
the fact that the contention of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation
was that the decision of this Court in Godrej & Boyce I was per
incuriam, the High Court considered the provisions of the Act and
the Regulations in extenso. The High Court noted that in almost all
the cases the action of surrendering the land and developing the
amenities had been completed by 17.06.2010 when Regulation 33
underwent an amendment. Therefore, on a consideration of the
erstwhile Regulation 33, the High Court observed that the same
was applicable to a case where the owner, including a lessee,
had surrendered the land or area required for road widening or
for construction of a new road proposed under the development
plan or those proposed under the Mumbai Municipal Corporation
Act, 1888 (“the Act of 1888” for short). Thus, it would apply to the
lands reserved in the development plan for construction of new roads
or for road widening and also to the lands which were within the
road-line as fixed under the Act of 1888 on which a road had not yet
been constructed. The said provision was not applicable to any other
amenity. It was further observed that a part of FSI could be used on
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 839

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

the plot remaining after such surrender and the balance FSI was to
be permitted to be utilised as TDR by issuing DRC. Such TDR was
to be governed by Regulation 34 as that is the provision for grant of
TDR. Thereafter, the road and land would stand transferred in the
city survey record in the name of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation
and vest in the Corporation.
4.1 Reference was then made to Regulation 34 and Appendix-VII,
which deals with TDR. The concept of TDR is that FSI available
in respect of one plot of land could be permitted to be utilised
on another plot of land. Para 6 of Appendix-VII dealt with a case
where the owner or lessee developed or constructed the amenity
on the surrendered land. In such a case, it was relatable to
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act. The
said Act defines “amenity” under sub-section (2) of Section 2 of
the MRTP Act, as also in clause (7) of Regulation 3 of the DCR.
The High Court observed that Regulation 33(1) gave effect to
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act.
That Para 5 of Appendix-VII pertains to the extent of TDR to
be granted against the surrender of a reserved land. Para 5 of
Appendix-VII is significant inasmuch as it deals with a case
where the owner or lessee develops or constructs an amenity on
the surrendered plot at his own cost subject to such stipulation
as may be prescribed by the Municipal Commissioner. That the
expression ‘amenity’ would include a road and the construction
or development of the road would have to be at the cost of
the owner. In such an event, under Para 6 of Appendix-VII,
the grant of additional FSI in the form DRC is equivalent to the
area of construction/development done by the owner as per
the stipulations prescribed by the Commissioner. This is like a
compensation granted for construction of an amenity as provided
in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the Act.
4.2 The High Court again considered the argument of the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation made before this Court to the effect
that the value of the amenity developed or constructed by
the owner for which an additional TDR was sought must be
commensurate to the value of the amenity and not the area of
the amenity, which argument had been repelled by this Court
in Godrej & Boyce I. Thus, the High Court on considering the
judgment of this Court in Godrej & Boyce I observed that the
840 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

additional TDR was required to be granted as per DCR and
in particular Para 6 of Appendix-VII equivalent to the area
constructed or developed and not on the basis of the value of
the development of the amenity. Hence, the High Court observed
that when a land which is reserved in the development plan
under the MRTP Act for a public purpose is surrendered by
the owner or lessee free of cost and the amenity is developed
thereon, on its surrender, the owner or lessee will be entitled
to FSI/TDR equivalent to the area of the surrendered land
and an additional TDR equivalent to the area of the amenity
developed or constructed by him.
4.3 While considering the arguments on behalf of the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation with regard to Regulation 33, the High
Court observed that the said Regulation provided that only a
part of the land FSI can be used on the remaining portion of
the land and the balance FSI had to be provided in the form
of TDR, as per Appendix-VII. That Appendix-VII read with
Regulation 34 dealt only with grant of TDR and the conditions
on which TDR can be granted. Even the TDR available in terms
of the Regulation 33(1) will be governed by Regulation 34
read with Appendix-VII. This is particularly so, as per Para 5
of Appendix-VII which applied to the grant of TDR in respect of
land covered by Regulation 33(1). That Para 6 of Appendix-VII
dealt with both situations, i.e., where the entire land held by the
owner or lessee was reserved or a part thereof was reserved
and the land was surrendered to the Corporation. Para 6 also
dealt with grant of an additional TDR for construction of an
amenity in terms of clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 126
of the MRTP Act. Regulation 33(1) dealt with FSI or TDR in
lieu of surrender of land required for roads whereas Para 6 of
Appendix-VII dealt with the grant of FSI or TDR in respect of the
road developed at the cost of the owner or the lessee. That this
Court in Godrej & Boyce I had considered Regulation 33 also.
4.4 Considering Regulation 33 which had undergone an amendment
on 17.06.2010, the High Court observed that prior to the
amendment, the said Regulation did not deal with FSI or TDR
in lieu of the construction of road. It dealt with only FSI or TDR
against the surrender of land reserved for road. However, after
amendment, when a road constructed as per the stipulation of
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 841

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

the Commissioner was handed over to the Commissioner free of
cost, an initial FSI equivalent to 25% of the area of construction
of road can be granted. A part of the FSI can be consumed
on the remaining land and the remaining part of the FSI will
be provided in the form of TDR. Therefore, the amendment to
Regulation 33(1) was applicable to reservation of road and not
for any other amenity. It was also clarified that the amendment
will not apply where the FSI granted in lieu of road had been
utilized and full occupation certificate had been granted prior
to 17.06.2010. Therefore, after 17.06.2010, in case of a land
reserved for road or road widening which was surrendered, if
the amenity being a road had been constructed by the owner
on the land surrendered, the additional FSI as provided in
clause (b) of sub-section (1) of Section 126 of the MRTP Act will
be 25% of the area of the construction of road. Hence, Para 6
of Appendix-VII to Regulation 34 would apply and the owner or
the lessee will not get TDR equivalent to entire area of the road
constructed by him but it will be confined to 25% of the area.
4.5 It was clarified that pursuant to notification dated 16.11.2016,
Para 4.2 of the Schedule to the notification would be the only
clause applicable to the grant of TDR against construction
of amenity and that from 16.11.2016, Para 6 of Appendix-VII
would not apply to the lands with amenity surrendered after
that date. In other words, Regulation 34 stands substituted by
the Schedule to the said notification. It was further observed
by the High Court that the said notification dated 16.11.2016
did not have a retrospective operation and it also did not take
away the basis of the decision in Godrej & Boyce I.
4.6 It was further clarified by the High Court that in the case of
Natwar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra,
2014 SCC Online Bom 495 (“Natwar Parikh & Co. Pvt.
Ltd.”), 25% TDR was granted to the petitioner therein in the
year 2006-2007. Subsequent to the decision of this Court in
Godrej & Boyce I, the petitioner therein had filed a petition. On
the facts of the case in Natwar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd., it was
observed that there was no delay or laches. The said decision
of the High Court was sustained by this Court in Civil Appeal
No.1748 of 2015. This Court had also rejected the argument that
the judgment in Godrej & Boyce I should apply prospectively.
842 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

4.7 Finally, it was held that additional FSI or TDR in terms of Para 6
of Appendix-VII as well as in terms of clause (1) of Regulation 33
becomes available on surrender of the land reserved with
or without amenity, as the case may be. After 17.06.2010, if
there is surrender of land reserved for road or road widening
on which road is constructed by the owner or lessee, the FSI
or TDR will be available in respect of amenity of road as per
Regulation 33(1) as amended. Therefore, the right to get FSI
or TDR accrues at the time of surrender.
4.8 Thereafter, the High Court went into the facts of each of the writ
petitions. Accordingly, the High Court passed the following order:
i) We hold that the notification dated 16th November 2016 is
legal and valid. However, the said notification will not have
retrospective or retroactive application to a land reserved
under the development plan which is surrendered and
amenity is developed on the said land by the owner or
lessee thereof at his own cost prior to 16th November 2016.
Such cases will be governed by the Regulation 33(1) and
clauses (5) and 6 of Appendix VII. In case of a land reserved
for a road, either in development plan under the MRTP
Act or under the provisions of the said Act of 1888 and
surrender is made and road is developed on or after 17th
June 2010 but before 16th November 2016, the FSI or TDR
in lieu of amenity will be governed by the Regulation 33(1)
as amended on 17th June 2010.
ii) We reject the argument that the decision of the Apex Court
in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Company
Limited (supra) is per incuriam.
iii) We hold that whether the writ jurisdiction of this Court
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be allowed
to be invoked on the basis of the said decision or not
depends upon the facts of each case and the conduct of
the petitioners especially the delay and laches on their part;
iv) Writ Petition No.203 of 2014 is allowed. We direct the
third respondent-MMRDA to make recommendation
to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation for grant of 75%
additional FSI/TDR in terms of the aforesaid decision
of the Apex Court within a period of two months from
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 843

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

today. The Municipal Corporation shall examine the said
recommendation and if the petitioners are otherwise entitled
to TDR for amenity in terms of the aforesaid decision of the
Apex Court, necessary DRC shall be issued within a period
of two months from the date on which recommendation
of MMRDA is received.
v) Writ Petition No.1898 of 2009 is rejected;
vi) In Writ Petition No.2262 of 2010, the petitioners will be
entitled to additional 100% amenity FSI in terms of the
aforesaid decision of the Apex Court provided by producing
the documents, they satisfy the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation that work was actually carried out by them
for developing the recreation grounds and the ground;
vii) Writ Petition No.1823 of 2012 is rejected.
viii) Writ Petition No.839 of 2015 is rejected.
ix) Writ Petition No.2871 of 2015 is rejected.
x) Writ Petition No.2107 of 2016 is rejected.
xi) Writ Petition No.2170 of 2016 is rejected.
xii) Writ Petition No.384 of 2017 is rejected.
xiii) Writ Petition No.541 of 2017 is rejected.
xiv) Writ Petition No.1860 of 2017 is partly allowed. We direct
the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to grant additional FSI in
respect of amenity of road as provided by Regulation 33(1)
as amended with effect from 17th June 2010.
xv) We make it clear that wherever we have held that the
petitioners are entitled to 100% amenity TDR in accordance
with clause 6 of Appendix VII in terms of the aforesaid
decision of the Apex Court, the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation will have to examine whether the petitioners
are otherwise eligible for grant of TDR.”
4.9 Out of all the writ petitions disposed of, Writ Petition No.203
of 2014 was allowed and a direction was issued to the MMRDA
to make recommendations to Mumbai Municipal Corporation for
grant of 75% additional FSI/TDR in terms of the decision of this
Court in Godrej & Boyce I within two months from the said date
844 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

of disposal. A further direction was issued to Mumbai Municipal
Corporation to consider the said recommendation and to pass
orders for issuance of DRC within a period of two months from
the date on which recommendation of MMRDA was received,
provided the writ petitioner was otherwise entitled to TDR for
amenity in terms of the judgment of this Court in Godrej & Boyce I.
4.10 Similarly, in Writ Petition No.2262 of 2010, additional FSI to
the extent of 100% on amenity was granted in terms of the
decision of this Court in Godrej & Boyce I provided the writ
petitioner therein produced the documents and satisfied the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation that work was actually carried
out for developing the recreation grounds and ground.
4.11 Writ Petition No.1860 of 2017 was partly allowed to the effect
that Mumbai Municipal Corporation ought to grant additional FSI
in respect of amenity of road as provided by Regulation 33(1)
as amended with effect from 17.06.2010. It was also observed
that the petitioners therein are entitled to 100% amenity TDR
in accordance with Para 6 of Appendix-VII in terms of the
aforesaid decision of this Court in Godrej & Boyce I and Mumbai
Municipal Corporation was to examine whether the petitioners
therein were otherwise eligible for grant of TDR.
4.12 With regard to those cases which were dismissed on the ground
of delay and laches, appeals have been filed by the private
petitioners therein. Appeal has been filed by Mumbai Municipal
Corporation against the order in writ petition No.203 of 2014
but no appeal has been filed against the order in Writ Petition
Nos.2262/2010 and 1860/2017.
There are two more impugned judgments in Writ Petition Nos.
2531/2009 and 411/2013 against which the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation has filed its appeals.
4.13 At this stage, it may be mentioned that where the writ petitions
were dismissed by the High Court on the ground of delay and
laches, there is no observation in those writ petitions denying
the benefit on merits. Insofar as in three cases where the writ
petitions were allowed, there is only one appeal filed by the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation as the orders in Writ Petition
No.2262 of 2010 and Writ Petition No.1860/2017 have been
accepted by it.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 845

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

4.14 The details of the three cases in which appeals have been
filed by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation are noted as under:-
(i) WP No.2531 of 2009 – Starwing Developers Private
Limited vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai -
disposed of on 18.10.2019
(ii) WP No.203 of 2014 – Apurva Natvar Parikh and Co.
Private Ltd. vs. State of Maharashtra and Others -
disposed of on 18.12.2018
(iii) WP No.411 of 2013 – Arvind Kashinath Dadarkar and
Others vs. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
and Others – disposed of on 20.10.2022.

Starwing Developers Private Limited:
5. In Starwing Developers Private Limited vs. State of Maharashtra
(“Starwing Developers Private Limited”), Writ Petition No.2531
of 2009 disposed by the High Court on 18.10.2019, unamended
Regulation 33 and Regulation 34 as they stood prior to 2010 were
considered in depth. It was observed that Regulation 34 as it
stood at the relevant time provided that in certain circumstances,
the development potential of a plot of land could be separated
from the land itself and could be made available to the owner
of the land in the form of TDR which would be subjected to
Regulation 34 and Appendix-VII. It was observed that Appendix-VII
titled “Regulations for the grant of Transferable Development
Rights (TDRs) to owners/developers and conditions for grant of
such rights” had a scheme for the award of TDR to the owner of
the plot of land which was reserved for public purpose and for
additional amenities in the form of FSI. As per the conditions set
out therein, such award would entitle the owner of the land to
FSI in the form of DRC which he could use for himself or transfer
to any other person. Para 5 of the Appendix provided that the
built- up area for the purposes of FSI credited in the form of
DRC shall be equal to the gross area of the reserved plot to be
surrendered and will proportionately increase or decrease according
to the permissible FSI of the zone where the TDR has originated.
Para 6 provided that when an owner or a lessee also developed
or constructed an amenity on the surrendered plot at his own cost,
subject to such stipulations which may be prescribed and to the
satisfaction thereof and hands over the developed or constructed
846 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

amenity to the Commissioner or the appropriate authority free
of cost, he would be granted further DR in the form of FSI equivalent to
the area of construction/development done by him, utilisation of which
would be subject to the regulations contained in the said Appendix.
5.1 Contrasting Regulation 34 with Regulation 33, it was observed
that the latter pertained to additional FSI which may be allowed
to certain categories. Sub-regulation (1) as it stood at the
relevant time, provided that the Commissioner could permit the
additional FSI on 100% of the area required for road widening
or for construction of new roads under the development plan.
Such FSI so surrendered would be utilisable on the remainder
of the land up to a limit of 40% in respect of the plots situated in
Mumbai city and 80% in respect of the plots situated in suburbs
and extended suburbs. The balance FSI remaining thereafter
was allowed to be utilised as a development right in accordance
with the regulations governing TDRs. In the said case, it was
again contended on behalf of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation
that the petitioner therein having utilised 100% FSI for surrender
of land without cost on the same layout, was governed by
Regulation 33 and therefore, could not claim any additional
FSI/TDR for having constructed the amenities. This contention,
in fact, was squarely identical to those in the case of Apurva
Natwar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd which case is discussed later.
5.2 It was pointed out that till the amendment on 17.06.2010,
there was no provision in Regulation 33 for claiming FSI for
construction of amenities and the same could be claimed only
in terms of Regulation 34 read with Para 6 of Appendix-VII. On
the other hand, it was contended by the Municipal Corporation
that Regulation 33 was not brought to the notice of this Court
in Godrej & Boyce I and that by notification dated 16.11.2016
the Regulation was amended to restrict the benefit of additional
TDR for development of amenities which was to cure a defect
in the legislation. The said contention was considered in light of
the amendment to Regulation 33 with effect from 17.06.2010,
by which a clause was added to sub-regulation (1) and it was
observed that the amendment to Regulation 33(1) was applicable
to roads and not to any other amenity. Moreover, this portion of
the amendment would not apply where the FSI granted in lieu
of road is utilised and full occupation certificate was granted
prior to 17.06.2010. Therefore, from 17.06.2010 in case of a
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 847

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

land reserved for road or road widening which was surrendered,
if the amenity of the road was constructed by the owner of the
land surrendered, the additional FSI as provided in clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of Section 126 will be 25% from the area of the
construction of the road. Therefore, for such amenity, in terms
of Para 6 of Appendix-VII, the owner or a lessee will not get
TDR equivalent to entire area of the road constructed by him.
It will remain confined to 25% of the area. It was observed that
Regulation 33(1) as amended on 17.06.2010 was not modified
by the impugned notification dated 16.11.2016.

Apurva Natwar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd.:
6. In the case of Apurva Natwar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd. vs. State
of Maharashtra, Writ Petition No.203 of 2014 filed before the High
Court, the surrender of land was in the form of deed of conveyance
and handing over of possession was in February, 2007 and
within three years from the surrender i.e. February, 2010, the writ
petitioner/appellant herein requested an officer of MMRDA to
recommend to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to issue 100%
additional TDR in respect of construction of amenity. In December,
2010, DRC of 25% of the amenity was granted. The balance 75%
had not been paid. Hence, the writ petition was filed in October, 2013.
Actually, within one month from the date of decision in the case of
Godrej and Boyce I, the petitioner applied to the respondent-MMRDA
for recommending to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation for grant of
100% TDR in respect of the amenity and the said application was
acted upon and 25% FSI was granted in December, 2010. Therefore,
the High Court held that conduct of the petitioner is not such that it
will prevent the Writ Court from granting relief in terms of the decision
in Godrej & Boyce I.

Arvind Kashinath Dadarkar:
7. In Arvind Kashinath Dadarkar vs. Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai, Writ Petition No.411 of 2013 (“Arvind Kashinath
Dadarkar”), disposed of on 20.10.2022, another Division Bench of
the High Court of Bombay while adverting to Godrej & Boyce I and
Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd., and Starwing Developers
Private Limited, allowed the writ petition and directed that TDR be
issued to the petitioner therein.
848 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Submissions:
8. We have heard the arguments of the respective Senior Counsel and
other Counsel on both sides and perused the material on record.

Submissions on behalf of the Appellants:
8.1 Learned senior counsel, Sri Pravin Samdani, contended that
the impugned judgment dated 18.12.2018 has, in fact, upheld
petitioners’ right to 100% additional TDR and has applied
the judgment of this Court in Godrej & Boyce I. However,
reliefs were declined to certain writ petitioners on the ground
of delay and laches in claiming the additional TDR in time.
Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed by the High
Court. Being aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petitions,
the writ petitioners before the High Court have preferred these
appeals. Therefore, this Court may reverse the finding of the
High Court on the issue of the delay and laches and grant the
reliefs to these appellants as the other writ petitioners have
been granted by the High Court.
8.2 In this regard, it was submitted that the compensation payable
to the landowners/lessees for acquisition of their land for
a public purpose is, in fact, held in trust by the acquiring
body, i.e., the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in the instant
case. Once the compensation is determined, the same was
payable and the reliefs could not have been denied by the
High Court on the ground of delay or laches. In this context,
reliance was placed on Noida Entrepreneur Association vs.
NOIDA (2011) 6 SCC 508 (Para 38-39) (“Noida Entrepreneur
Association”).
8.3 It was next submitted that the State is the guardian or custodian
and protector of the rights of the citizens. This casts a duty
and obligation on the State to pay compensation to land
losers for lands compulsorily acquired. The right to receive a
fair compensation is a constitutional right guaranteed under
Article 300A of the Constitution of India which can also be
traced to Article 21 of the Constitution of India as a citizen
cannot be deprived of his property, save in accordance with
law. It was contended that the mandate of Section 126(1)(b)
of the MRTP Act and the DCR be complied with by the
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 849

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

respondent-Mumbai Municipal Corporation vis-à-vis the
appellants herein. Otherwise, the denial of compensation would
amount to usurping the citizens’ property without authority of
law and in breach of the constitutional rights of the citizens.
In this context, reliance was placed on Vidya Devi vs. State
of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 2 SCC 569 (Para 12.9 to
12.14); Sukh Dutt Ratra vs. State of Himachal Pradesh
(2022) SCC OnLine SC 410 (Para 13-27); and Lalaram Vs.
Jaipur Development Authority (2016) 11 SCC 31 (Para 124
& 129); Kazi Moinuddin Kazi Bashiroddin vs. Maharashtra
Tourism Development Corporation (2022) SCC OnLine SC
1325 (Para 26).
8.4 In the above backdrop, learned senior counsel, Sri Pravin
Samdani submitted that the High Court was not right in
dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches
when the respondent – Mumbai Municipal Corporation had not
proved that:
(i) the delay amounted to laches;
(ii) owing to delay and during the interregnum, the
respondent-Mumbai Municipal Corporation had altered its
position to its prejudice; and
(iii) certain rights had accrued which could not be disturbed
by grant of reliefs to the writ petitioners/appellants herein.
In this context, reliance was placed on Moon Mills Ltd. vs.
M.R. Meher, President, Industrial Court, Bombay, AIR 1967
SC 1450 (Para 9); M/s Dehri Rohtas Light Railway Company
Limited vs. District Board, Bhojpur (1992) (2) SCC 598
(Para 13); Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. vs. Dolly
Das (1999) 4 SCC 450] (Para 8); and Tukaram Kana Joshi vs.
Maharashtra Industrial Development Corporation (2013) 1
SCC 353 (Para 12); and Mohar Singh (Dead) Thr. LRs. vs. State
of UP Collector, 2023 INSC 1019 (Para 12).
8.5 It was further urged that the Mumbai Municipal Corporation
has not asserted that owing to the alleged delay on the
part of the appellants herein in making their claim under
Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act, there was any prejudice
caused to it.
850 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

8.6 It was also submitted that the observations of the High Court
in the impugned judgment that there was a waiver or an
abandonment of their rights by the writ petitioners/appellants
herein are contrary to the facts and law. In this regard reference
was made to Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. vs.
Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (2023) SCC
OnLine SC 592 (Paras 8, 15 and 18) (“Godrej & Boyce II”);
G.T. Lad vs. Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. (1979) 1
SCC 590 (Para 5 & 6); A.P. SRTC vs. S. Jayaram (2004) 13
SCC 792 (Para 5); and State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal
Singh Bhullar (2011) 14 SCC 770 (Para 37 to 42).
8.7 Petitioners’ counsel therefore sought for allowing these appeals
by setting aside that portion of the order of the High Court
declining to grant relief on the ground of delay and laches.
8.8 On the merits of the case, Sri Samdani submitted that
Section 2(2) of the MRTP Act defines an amenity which is also
defined under Regulation 3(7) of DCR. Section 126(1)(b) of MRTP
Act provides for compulsory acquisition, wherein compensation
is provided in the form of FSI or TDR in two parts: (i) for the
land; and (ii) for development/construction of the amenity at
the cost of the owner on the surrendered land in terms of the
DCR. That Regulations 33(1) and 34 prior to their amendment
in the year 2010 provided a mechanism for grant of TDR for
both the first as well as the second component. This Court had
interpreted the aforesaid provisions in the case of Godrej &
Boyce I. This Court observed that the grant of additional TDR
was for construction or development of the amenity. However,
in the year 2010, there was an amendment which stated that
in addition to the land component of FSI/TDR, the land owner
would be entitled to receive only additional 25% FSI/TDR for
construction of road. However, the additional 25% could be used
as FSI on the remainder of the plot if the remainder of the plot
could consume to the extent of 40/80% of the remaining land
after surrender. The balance FSI/TDR was eligible to be paid as
TDR under Paras 5 and 6 of Appendix-VII-A and Regulation 34
of the DCR. This amendment of 17.06.2010 was subsequent
to the judgment of this court in Godrej & Boyce I. However,
there was no alteration to Regulation 34 and Paras 5 and 6 of
Appendix-VII-A of the DCR. This amendment was in the form
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 851

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

of delegated legislation and was only prospective in nature. But
by the amendment of 16.11.2016, the entire Regulation 34 and
Appendix-VII-A was amended. As a result of the amendment, if
the land owner desired to obtain TDR for the land component,
the owner was eligible to do so at the rate mentioned in Para 4.1
of amended Regulation. If the landowner also developed the
amenity, the owner became eligible to receive compensatory
TDR in terms of Para 4.2 of the amended Regulation.
8.9 According to learned senior counsel, this amendment is also
prospective. It was further submitted that by the amendment of
Regulation 34 of the DCR, the basis of the judgment in Godrej &
Boyce I was not removed. The intention of the amendment was
to grant additional compensation to the landowner in view of the
enforcement of Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and
not to remove the basis of the judgment in Godrej & Boyce I.
There was no intention to validate any action of the Corporation
of curtailing amenity TDR to 25% or to validate Circulars based
on which it was sought to be curtailed to 25%. Therefore, the
judgment of this Court in Godrej & Boyce I remains intact.
8.10 It was further submitted that the right to receive compensation
for acquisition is a vested right and a constitutional right and the
same cannot be taken away by an amendment to the statute.
8.11 It was next submitted that the attempt of the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation to deny balance 75% TDR in view of the notification
dated 16.11.2016 is unsustainable. This is because the writ
petitioners’ right to receive the balance TDR is a vested right
which arose under the old DCR and continues even after the
amendment. Further, a person cannot be denied compensation
by a subsequent legislation when the entitlement is recognized
under a prior legislation. The High Court has rightly held that
the DCR amended was prospective and not retrospective.

Submissions on behalf of the Respondents:
9. Per contra, learned senior counsel Sri Nadkarni, appearing for the
respondent – Mumbai Municipal Corporation submitted a chart giving
details of each of the appellants/writ petitioners before the High
Court. The relevant chart is extracted hereinbelow:
852 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

SR. NO./ PARTICULARS DATE OF WHETHER APPLICATION DELAY
RELEVANT HANDING HANDED FOR
REGULATION OVER OF OVER ADDITIONAL
AMENITY AMENITY AMENITY FSI/
COMPLIES TDR AFTER
WITH ALL GODRIJ
CONDITIONS & BOYCE
JUDGMENT
(06.02.2009)
1. KUKREJA 28.01.1994 --NO— In the 31.08.2009 6-15 years
REGULATION CONSTRUCTION constructed (calculated
34 CO. & ORS. road the from the
VS. STATE OF sewer lines date of
MAHARASHTRA were not laid handing over
down nor
& ORS. SLP (C) of amenity)
the street
NO.5273.2019 lights were
WP(C) NO. laid down.
1898/2009 On failure
to comply
parties are
required to
pay prorate
charges. As
regard to
street lights
the prorate
charges were
paid after
delay, Sewer
lines were not
paid.
2. NANABHOY 1. 13.04.2004 YES For 6 cases 8-16 years
REGULATION JEEJEEBHOY 2. 20.03.2001 – 11.07.2014 (calculated
33(1) PVT. LTD. & ANR. 3. 27.03.2002 For 4 cases from the
VS. STATE OF 4. 06.09.2001 – 19.08.2014 date of
MAHARASHTRA 5. 13.02.2006 For one case handing over
& ANR. SLP (C) 6. 27.10.1997 – 26.08.2014 of amenity)
NO.8664/2019 WP 7. 27.10.1997
(C) NO.541/2017 8. 29.10.1997
9. 21.12.2002
10. 14.12.2001
/22.05.2002
11. 14.08.2002
3. JITENDRA 05.03.2005 YES 24.02.2009 4 years
REGULATION AMRITLAL (calculated
33(1) SETH & ORS. from the
VS. STATE OF date of
MAHARASHTRA handing over
& ORS. SLP of amenity)
(C) NO.8204
/ 2019 WP(C)
NO.1823/2012
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 853

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

SR. NO./ PARTICULARS DATE OF WHETHER APPLICATION DELAY
RELEVANT HANDING HANDED FOR
REGULATION OVER OF OVER ADDITIONAL
AMENITY AMENITY AMENITY FSI/
COMPLIES TDR AFTER
WITH ALL GODRIJ
CONDITIONS & BOYCE
JUDGMENT
(06.02.2009)
4. GEETA ALIAS 20.05.2005 YES For Balance 4½ years
REGULATION CHANDANI 75% additional (calculated
34 UMESH GANDHI TDR on from the
SLP (C) 01.12.2009, date of
NO.15702/2019 20.06.2014, handing over
WP(C) 01.12.2014, of amenity)
NO.839/2015 20.02.2016
5. MCGM V. 07.02.2007 YES Balance No delay
REGULATION APURVA 75% TDR case as
34 NATWAR 14.12.2011 High Court
PAREKH & CO. (Godrej & allowed the
PVT. LTD & Boyce case – WP
ORS. SLP (C) after 2 years
NO.13365/2019 applied)
WP(C)
NO.203/2014
6. OBEROI REALITY 1. 26.05.04 YES 10.06.2016 8 years
REGULATION LTD. ANR. 2. 16.04.08 (calculated
33(1) VS. MCGM & 3. 29.03.08 from the
ANR. SLP (C) date of
NO.8520/2019 handing over
WP(C) of amenity)
NO.384/2017
7. GIRDHARLAL 13.12.1995 YES 05.08.2014 18 years
REGULATION D. RUGHANI (calculated
33(1) ALIAS THAKAR from the
HUF & ANR. date of
VS. STATE OF handing over
MAHARASTHRA of amenity)
& ORS. SLP (C)
NO.5745/2020
WP(C)
NO.2170/2016
8. JAMEEL A. 29.07.2004 YES 28.07.2014 4 years from
REGULATION HUSSAIN & ORS. notification
33(1) V. STATE OF dated
MAHARASHTRA 17.06.2010
& ORS. SLP (C)
NO.8704/2019
WP(C)
NO.2871/2015
854 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

SR. NO./ PARTICULARS DATE OF WHETHER APPLICATION DELAY
RELEVANT HANDING HANDED FOR
REGULATION OVER OF OVER ADDITIONAL
AMENITY AMENITY AMENITY FSI/
COMPLIES TDR AFTER
WITH ALL GODRIJ
CONDITIONS & BOYCE
JUDGMENT
(06.02.2009)
9. BYRAMJI 05.06.2007 YES No Application 9 years (wrt
REGULATION JEEJEEBHOY made for 75% the WP filed)
34 PVT LTD. ANR. additional.
VS. STATE OF
MAHARASHTRA
SLP (C)
NO.8552/2019
WP(C)
NO.2107/2016
10. MCGM V. 29.12.2007 YES ………………. 1½ years
REGULATION STARWING (calculated
33(1) SLP (C) from the
NO.10430/2020 date of
WP(C) rejection by
NO.2531/2009 the State
Government
on
15.07.2008
and
thereafter
WP filed on
05.12.2009)

9.1 Insofar as the appellant – M/s Kukreja Construction Company,
it was submitted that the conditions which are required to be
complied with for seeking compensation under Section 126(1)(b)
of the MRTP Act have not been met and therefore, unless and
until the said conditions are complied with, the said appellant
would not be entitled to compensation under the scheme of
the Act and the Regulations made thereunder. As far as the
other appellants are concerned, he fairly submitted that even
according to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation they have
complied with the conditions as required under the scheme and
therefore, their cases could be considered if they are otherwise
eligible for compensation being paid to them in case they are
successful in these appeals.
9.2 Learned senior counsel also strenuously sought to buttress
the submissions made on behalf of the Mumbai Municipal
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 855

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

Corporation before the High Court regarding the judgment of
this Court in Godrej & Boyce I, but did not persuade himself
to do so. Ultimately, he supported the order of the High Court
in denying the reliefs to the writ petitioners who had delayed
in making their claims. He contended that the High Court was
right in declining to grant the relief to the said parties.
9.3 Sri Nadkarni contented that firstly, the High Court was right in
declining relief based on the judgment of this Court in Godrej
and Boyce I owing to delay, as those developers who already
availed of the TDR and accepted the same without any protest
or demur could not again agitate the matter after the judgement
of this Court in Godrej and Boyce I. Secondly, there was
a crystallisation of the compensation payable in the form of
FSI/TDR as on the date of the notice of acquisition which in this
case could be either the publication of the development plan or
the date of preliminary notification under the Acquisition Act and
that the owner or lessee could not have returned for a second
helping or make an additional claim of 100% TDR since the value
of the land as on the date when the project was conceived or
when the benefits were received would have been lesser than
the value of the land on the date of the filing of the writ petition.
Thirdly, any grant of additional TDR despite there being a delay
would result in unjust enrichment of the owner and the lessee
who could get an advantage of escalation in price of land which
is contrary to public interest. Therefore, for this reason also, the
High Court was justified in declining to grant relief on the ground
of delay and laches. Hence, there is no merit in these appeals.
9.4 Learned senior counsel submitted that in the event this Court
is to condone the delay and laches and thereby modifies the
impugned judgment of the High Court then, in the case of
the appellants in CA No. 9702 of 2024, (Kukreja Construction
company and others) this Court may direct that only on complying
with the mandatory requirements could the said appellant avail
of the benefits of additional FSI/TDR in accordance with law
as indicated in the table above.
9.5 Learned senior counsel, Sri Nadkarni, with reference to our
order dated 06.08.2024, sought further instruction on Estate
Investment Company Ltd. and Ever-smile Construction being
856 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

granted relief of 100% of TDR rights in terms of Section 126(1)(b)
of the MRTP Act as well as the DCR. He fairly submitted that
there is no dispute that the aforesaid two entities were indeed
granted 100% TDR rights. Further, there has been no appeal
filed with regard to the order of the High Court in Writ Petition
No. 1860 of 2017 and Writ Petition No.2262 of 2010. Learned
senior counsel, Sri Nadkarni, also submitted that insofar
as the judgment of the High Court assailed in Civil Appeal
Nos.9711/2024 and 9712/2024, they may be disposed in light
of the prevalent law.

Reply arguments:
10. By way of reply, learned senior counsel, Sri Samdani and other learned
counsel contended that the Mumbai Municipal Corporation cannot
be permitted to raise any contention contrary to the judgment of this
Court in Godrej & Boyce I which is holding the field and there is
no contention raised by the Municipal Corporation either before the
High Court or this Court which can lead to a reconsideration of the
said judgment. Hence, they sought for application of the judgment
of this Court in Godrej & Boyce I to their cases as well.
10.1 Learned counsel for the respondents in the three appeals
filed by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation supported the
impugned order passed by Bombay High Court and contented
that having regard to the judgment of this Court in Godrej
& Boyce I and the order passed in Civil Appeal No. 1748
of 2015 which arose from the judgment of the Bombay High
Court in the case of Natwar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd, there is
no merit in these appeals. Hence, they contended that the
appeals filed by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation may be
dismissed.

Points for consideration:
11. In light of the aforesaid contentions, the following points would arise
for our consideration: -
(i) Whether the High Court was right in declining to grant relief
to the writ petitioners/appellants herein on the ground of delay
and laches?
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 857

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

(ii) Whether the appeals filed by the respondent-Mumbai Municipal
Corporation would call for any interference by this Court?
(iii) What order?

Godrej & Boyce I:
12. At the outset, it would be useful to refer to the dictum of this Court
in Godrej & Boyce I which has been followed by the High Court
in these cases. In the said case, this Court considered the scheme
of development rights in respect of land acquired for the purpose
specified in plans under Section 126 of the MRTP Act. Three modes
of acquisition of land required for a public purpose specified in the
plan are contemplated under Section 126 of the MRTP Act, which
reads as under:
“126. Acquisition of land required for public purposes
specified in plans.— (1) Where after the publication of a
draft Regional plan, a Development or any other plan or town
planning scheme, any land is required or reserved for any of
the public purposes specified in any plan or scheme under
this Act at any time, the Planning Authority, Development
Authority, or as the case may be, any Appropriate Authority
may, except as otherwise provided in Section 113-A
acquire the land,—
(a) by agreement by paying an amount agreed to, or
(b) in lieu of any such amount, by granting the land-owner
or the lessee, subject, however, to the lessee paying
the lessor or depositing with the Planning Authority,
Development Authority or Appropriate Authority, as the
case may be, for payment to the lessor, an amount
equivalent to the value of the lessor’s interest to be
determined by any of the said Authorities concerned on
the basis of the principles laid down in the Right and Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Floor Space
Index (FSI) or Transferable Development Rights (TDR)
against the area of land surrendered free of cost and free
from all encumbrances, and also further additional Floor
Space Index or Transferable Development Rights against
858 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the development or construction of the amenity on the
surrendered land at his cost, as the Final Development
Control Regulations prepared in this behalf provide, or
(c) by making an application to the State Government for
acquiring such land under the provisions of the Right and
Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, and the
land (together with the amenity, if any so developed or
constructed) so acquired by agreement or by grant of
Floor Space Index or additional Floor Space Index or
Transferable Development Rights under this section or
under the provisions of the Right and Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013, as the case may be, shall vest
absolutely free from all encumbrances in the Planning
Authority, Development Authority, or as the case may be,
any Appropriate Authority.
(2) On receipt of such application, if the State Government
is satisfied that the land specified in the application is
needed for the public purpose therein specified, or if the
State Government (except in cases falling under Section 49
and except as provided in Section 113-A) itself is of opinion
that any land included in any such plan is needed for any
public purpose, it may make a declaration to that effect in
the Official Gazette, in the manner provided in Section 19
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013,
in respect of the said land. The declaration so published
shall, notwithstanding anything contained in the said Act,
be deemed to be a declaration duly made under the said
section:
Provided that, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4),
no such declaration shall be made after the expiry of one
year from the date of publication of the draft Regional
Plan, Development Plan or any other Plan, or Scheme,
as the case may be.
(3) On publication of a declaration under the said Section 19,
the Collector shall proceed to take order for the acquisition
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 859

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

of the land under the said Act; and the provisions of that
Act shall apply to the acquisition of the said land with the
modification that the market value of the land shall be,—
(i) where the land is to be acquired for the purposes of
a new town, the market value prevailing on the date of
publication of the notification constituting or declaring the
Development Authority for such town;
(ii) where the land is acquired for the purposes of a
Special Planning Authority, the market value prevailing
on the date of publication of the notification of the area
as undeveloped area; and
(iii) in any other case, the market value on the date of
publication of the interim development plan, the draft
development plan or the plan for the area or areas for
comprehensive development, whichever is earlier, or as
the case may be, the date of publication of the draft Town
Planning Scheme:
Provided that, nothing in this sub-section shall affect the
date for the purpose of determining the market value of land
in respect of which proceedings for acquisition commenced
before the commencement of the Maharashtra Regional
and Town Planning (Second Amendment) Act, 1972:
Provided further that, for the purpose of clause (ii) of this
sub-section, the market value in respect of land included
in any undeveloped area notified under sub-section (1) of
Section 40 prior to the commencement of the Maharashtra
Regional and Town Planning (Second Amendment) Act,
1972, shall be the market value prevailing on the date of
such commencement.
(4) Notwithstanding anything contained in the proviso to
sub-section (2) and sub-section (3), if a declaration, is not
made, within the period referred to in sub-section (2) (or
having been made, the aforesaid period expired on the
commencement of the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning (Amendment) Act, 1993, the State Government
may make a fresh declaration for acquiring the land
under the provisions of the Right and Fair Compensation
860 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013, in the manner provided by
sub-sections (2) and (3) of this section, subject to the
modification that the market value of the land shall be
the market value at the date of declaration in the Official
Gazette, made for acquiring the land afresh.”
In this case, we are concerned with Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act.
12.1 Under Section 126(1) of the MRTP Act, when land is required
or reserved for any of the public purposes specified in any plan
or scheme under the Act at any time, the Planning Authority, the
Development Authority, or as the case may be, any Appropriate
Authority may acquire the land by agreement by paying an
amount agreed to landowner or lessee [Section 126(1)(a)]; the
second mode is, in lieu of any such amount as mentioned above,
by granting the landowner or the lessee, subject, however, to
the lessee paying the lessor or depositing with the Planning
Authority, the Development Authority or Appropriate Authority,
as the case may be, for payment to the lessor, an amount
equivalent to the value of the lessor’s interest to be determined
by any of the said Authorities concerned on the basis of the
principles laid down in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Floor
Space Index (FSI) or Transferable Development Rights (TDR):
(i) against the area of land surrendered free of cost and free
from all encumbrances, and also
(ii) further additional FSI or TDR against the development or
construction of the amenity on the surrendered land at
his cost, as the Final Development Control Regulations
prepared in that behalf provide [Section 126(1)(b)].
The third mode being by acquisition of the land under the
relevant Act [Section 126(1)(c)].
12.2 Thus, it is open to the landowner to surrender the plot of land
“free of cost” and “free from all encumbrances” to the appropriate
authority who may acquire the land by granting to the owner
FSI or TDR against the area of the surrendered land. The
scheme further provides for additional FSI or TDR against the
development of construction of amenities (for which the plot
is shown reserved in the plan) by the owner at his own cost.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 861

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

12.3 In Godrej & Boyce I, the appellants therein had their plots
covered under the development plan as reserved for roads,
which they voluntarily surrendered. In addition, they constructed
on their respective pieces of land the development plan roads
at their own cost and as per the specifications stipulated in the
relevant rules. In the said case, there was no dispute between
the parties in regard to the FSI or TDRs granted to them for
the surrendered plots of land. The controversy was with regard
to the FSI or TDRs for roads constructed on the surrendered
lands at the owner’s cost. The landowners claimed that for
constructing the roads they were entitled to FSI or TDRs for
the whole of the surface area of the roads. They relied upon
Para 6 of Appendix-VII to the DCRs. The Mumbai Municipal
Corporation however relied upon a Circular dated 09.04.1996
issued by the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation
of Greater Bombay, which envisaged a graded scheme for grant
of additional development rights for construction of amenities by
the landowner, e.g. in case of amenities like general hospital,
municipal primary school, etc. which allowed FSI equal to the
built-up area of the structure but in case of DP road only 15%
of the area of the road surface. The Circular was assailed by
the landowners.
12.4 In the said case, the Bombay High Court had accepted the
contention advanced on behalf of the State of Maharashtra
to the effect that by introducing a graded scheme for grant of
additional FSI or TDR the Circular had eliminated the possibility
of any discriminatory or arbitrary action on the part of the
authority competent to issue the development right certificate.
It was contended that grant of further additional TDR was
commensurate to the value of the amenity constructed/developed
on the surrendered land. Therefore, it was contended that Para 6
of the Appendix-VII, unlike Para 5 didn’t use the words “equal to
the gross area of the reserved plot” or “equal in area”. Instead,
Para 6 used the words “equivalent to the area of construction/
development”. That, Para 6 of Appendix-VII to the Regulations
must be read with Section 126(1)(b) of the Act. It was evident
that the said provision used the words “against the area of the
land surrendered” and “against the development or construction
of amenity on the surrendered land”. Therefore, the grant of
862 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

additional development right was proportionate to the value
of the amenity constructed by the owner at his own cost and
the Circular issued by the Municipal Commissioner simply
quantified the exchange value of different kinds of amenities
in percentage terms depending upon their cost of construction
and other relevant considerations.
12.5 However, the aforesaid submission, which was accepted by
the Bombay High Court was not agreed to by this Court and
the judgment of the Bombay High Court was set-aside. While
doing so, the submission on behalf of the appellants therein was
accepted that the provision clearly envisaged grant of the FSI
or TDR under two separate heads: one, for the land, and the
other, for the construction of the amenity for which the land was
designated in the development plan at the cost of the owner.
The Court also held that Section 2(9-A) defined “development
right” to include TDR and Section 126(1)(b) provided for:
(i) grant of FSI or TDR against the area of land surrendered
free of cost, and
(ii) further, additional FSI or TDR against the development or
construction of the amenity on the surrendered land at the
owner’s cost as the final Development Control Regulations
should provide.
12.6 In the case of (i) above, FSI or TDR would be equal to the
gross area of the surrendered plot, and for (ii) above i.e. for
construction of the amenity, the extent of the FSI or TDR would
be equivalent to the area of the construction/development made
on the land.
12.7 That Regulation 34 made provisions for transferability of the
development rights and Appendix-VII referred to in Regulation 34
provided for the extent of FSI or TDR admissible under the
two heads. That the expression “equivalent to the area” of the
construction or development made on the surrendered land in
Para 6 of Appendix-VII would mean “equivalent to the area of
construction/development”, that is to say, the additional DR would
be the same in area as the amenity constructed/developed on
the surrendered land. Hence, there cannot be a differentiation
in the grant of additional TDR on a variable and sliding scale
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 863

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

on the surrendered land for amenities constructed on the basis
of the Circular issued by the Municipal Commissioner. Also, the
Circular cannot override the provisions of the Regulations. It was
further observed that the expressions “against the area of the
land surrendered free of cost” and “against the development or
construction of amenity on the surrendered land” would mean
“in exchange for, in return for; as an equivalent or set-off for;
in lieu of, instead of”. Section 126(1)(b) was a recompense to
the landowner proportionate to the area of development or
construction of the amenity on the surrendered land. Thus, in
Para 5 of Appendix-VII to the Regulations, the expression “equal
to the gross area of reserved plot” was relatable to the bare
land and in Para 6 of the Appendix, the expression “equivalent
to the area of the construction/development” would mean that
“the area of construction or development” is the measure
of equivalence. Therefore, there could be no other basis for
determining the equivalence. Hence, the Circular was held to
be without authority of law.

Natwar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd.:
13. Prior to the impugned judgments of the High Court, in Natwar Parikh
& Co. Pvt. Ltd., a writ petition was filed before the Bombay High
Court seeking a direction for grant of additional TDR/development
rights certificate (DRC) for the balance 75% area as set out in the
Schedules annexed to the writ petitions. In that case also, admittedly,
the respondents therein had been granted 25% TDR/DRC in lieu of
the construction of the specified DP Road and there was no challenge
about the actual work done at the relevant time. Subsequent to the
judgment of this Court in Godrej & Boyce I, the petitioner therein filed
the petition. The respondent Mumbai Municipal Corporation sought to
deny the same on a twofold contention: firstly, there was delay and
laches; and, secondly, an attempt was made to reopen the issues on
facts about the construction of the DP Road. The same were repelled
by the High Court by holding that already 25% TDR had been granted
and therefore, there could be no reopening of the controversy on that
basis and the only question which remained was the entitlement of
the petitioner to remaining 75% TDR/DRC as prayed.
13.1 A contention was also sought to be raised by the
respondent-Corporation that the petitioner therein had not
864 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

built upon the amenity as contemplated under Regulation 34
Appendix-VII Paras 5 and 6. The said contention was also
repelled by holding that the right of the petitioner has already
been crystallised and the cause of action was a continuing
one and hence there was no question of delay and laches.
Consequently, a direction was issued to grant additional TDR
for the balance 75% area. It was also observed that the issues
which were raised in the said case had been concluded by the
judgment of this Court in the case of Municipal Corporation
of Greater Bombay vs. Yeshwant Jagannath Vaity (2011) 11
SCC 88 (“Yeshwant Jagannath Vaity”), “for other amenity”
also.
13.2 In Civil Appeal No.1748 of 2015 (Municipal Corporation of
Greater Mumbai vs. Natwar Parikh and Co. Pvt. Ltd.), this
Court by order dated 05.05.2016 has categorically observed
that it was too late to re-visit the entire issue and to take a
decision whether the judgment delivered earlier in Godrej &
Boyce I should apply prospectively and not retrospectively. That
is a matter which should have been agitated when Godrej &
Boyce I was being heard. It was further observed that insofar as
the 89 applicants who were then waiting to take an advantage
of the aforesaid decision rendered by this Court, on the facts
of the cases the applications ought to be considered and if a
dispute arises the appropriate Court would take a decision in
the matter. Consequently, the Civil Appeal filed by the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation were dismissed.

Godrej & Boyce II:
14. It would be useful to refer to another decision of this Court in the
case of Godrej & Boyce II. In the said case, two questions arose
for consideration in the context of grant of DRC for a total area of
31,057.30 sq. metres, for the construction and development of the
amenity namely, Recreation Ground. One of the questions considered
was whether the High Court was right in concluding that there was
an abandonment of claim by the appellants therein. Touching upon
the facts of the case, this Court took note of the rejection of the
claim by the Corporation vide communication dated 27.11.1998 for
the grant of additional TDR made by application dated 17.04.1998;
the resolution of the dispute of the said entity with the decision of
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 865

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

this Court dated 06.02.2009 in Godrej & Boyce I (its own case);
application being made for the grant of additional TDR on 03.11.2009
being rejected and a fresh writ petition being filed in the year 2010.
This Court considered the law of abandonment in the context of the
contention raised by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation and it was
observed in paragraphs 15 to 18 as under:
“15. The law of abandonment is based upon the maxim
invito beneficium non datur. It means that the law
confers upon a man no rights or benefits which he
does not desire. In P. Dasa Muni Reddy v. P. Appa Rao,
this Court held that “abandonment of right is much more
than mere waiver, acquiescence or laches…. Waiver is an
intentional relinquishment of a known right or advantage,
benefit, claim or privilege….”. In paragraph 13 of the said
decision, this Court put the law pithily in the following words:
“13…. There can be no waiver of a non-
existent right. Similarly, one cannot waive
that which is not one’s as a right at the time
of waiver. …”
16. Irrespective of whether the respondents concede
or not, the Circular dated 09.04.1996 curtailed the
rights of the owners to have additional TDR in certain
circumstances. The Circular came under challenge before
this Court and the decision of this Court in Godrej and
Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited was delivered
on 06.02.2009. As we have stated earlier, the decision in
Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited was
in the case of the very appellant No. 1 herein though in
respect of some other property.
17. To put it differently, what was cited by the Municipal
Corporation in their order of rejection dated 27.11.1998
as an impediment for the grant of additional TDR was the
subject matter of challenge in the first round. It was made
by the very appellant No. 1 herein, though in respect of
another property. If the said decision in the first round
had gone against appellant No. 1 herein, the rejection
of the claim of the appellants for additional TDR on the
basis of “prevailing policy” would have become final and
unquestionable.
866 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

18. In other words, during the period from 1996 to 2009,
the right to claim additional TDR was in suspended
animation. Therefore, the appellants had to necessarily
wait till the cloud over their right got cleared. To say
that the wait of the appellants during the period of this
cloudy weather, tantamount to abandonment, is clearly
unjustified and unacceptable. Therefore, the finding
recorded by the High Court on question No. 1 is not in
tune with the law or the facts of the present case and
hence question No.1 has to be answered in favour of
the appellants herein.”
(underlining by us)
14.1 The next question considered was whether the finding of fact
arrived at by the High Court that the appellant therein did
not and could not have developed the amenity, calls for any
interference, especially in light of the statutory provisions and the
facts of the case. The statutory provisions in Section 126(1)(b)
were adverted to on the approach that the authorities ought to
have in these matters and this Court observed as under:
“21. As we have noted earlier, clauses (a), (b) and (c)
were inserted by way of substitution in sub-section (1) of
Section 126 under Maharashtra Act 10 of 1994 with effect
from 25.03.1991.
22. As per Section 126(1), whenever the Planning Authority
or Development Authority finds after the publication of a
draft Regional Plan or a Development Plan that any land
is required or reserved for any of the public purposes
mentioned in the plan, such authority may acquire the
land for the said public purpose. This acquisition can be
made by three different methods, indicated in clauses (a),
(b) and (c). The methods of acquisition prescribed in
clauses (a), (b) and (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 126,
in simple terms are as follows:—
(i) The acquisition may be through an agreement entered
into with the owner, by paying an amount agreed to;
(ii) Alternatively, the acquisition may be by the grant of FSI
or TDR in lieu of any payment, along with Additional
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 867

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

FSI or Additional TDR against the development or
construction of the amenity on the surrendered land
at the cost of the owner; or
(iii) The acquisition may also be by requesting the
State Government to initiate the process of land
acquisition under the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation
and Resettlement Act, 2013.
23. We are concerned in this case with the second
method of acquisition of land indicated in clause (b) of
sub-section (1) of Section 126. Under this clause, the
owner and the planning authority are granted the leverage
to agree that the compensation for the acquisition of the
land will be for a consideration, not paid in the form of
cash but granted in kind, in the form of two things, namely,
(i) FSI or TDR for the area of land surrendered; and (ii)
additional FSI or additional TDR against the development
or construction of the amenity on the surrendered land.
24. Once the parties are ad idem on the fact that the case
is covered by clause (b), then what is necessary to be
seen by Courts is : (i) whether the parties had agreed to
give/take FSI or TDR in lieu of the amount of compensation?;
and (ii) whether there was a valid claim for the grant of
additional FSI or additional TDR towards the development
or construction of the amenity on the surrendered land at
the cost of the owner?.”
14.2 This Court observed therein that there was no dispute on
facts that the appellants therein had surrendered the land and
accepted TDR in lieu of compensation. The only question was
whether parties had satisfied the last limb of clause (b) which
reads as under:
“26. ……and also further additional Floor Space Index or
Transferable Development Rights against the development
or construction of the amenity on the surrendered land at
his cost, as the Final Development Control Regulations
prepared in this behalf provide,”
868 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

14.3 It was observed that the owner of the land is under an obligation
to develop or construct the amenity on the surrendered land at
his cost and the Planning Authority has to reciprocate the same
by granting additional FSI or additional TDR. While considering
the said issue, both on facts as well as in law, this Court referred
to the definition of the word “amenity” and “development” in
Section 2(2) and 2(7) respectively of the Act and observed that
the word “amenity” means several things including recreational
grounds in respect of which the controversy arose in the said
case. There was a dispute as to whether the appellant therein
had not developed the recreational grounds. While considering
the expression “development”, it was observed that the same
was of wide import and in fact clause (b) of sub-section (1) of
Section 126 of the Act has used both the expressions, namely
(i) development; and (ii) construction. Therefore, the word
“development” has to be understood to mean any activity which
may or may not include construction. Therefore, the question in
the said case was, whether, the appellant therein had developed
or constructed any amenity which ought to be tested with
reference to the final DCR. While referring to the definition of
amenity in Regulation 2(7) which includes recreational grounds,
reference was made to Regulation 34 and it was observed that
Appendix-VII was later renumbered as Appendix-VII-A vide order
dated 15.10.1997. It was observed that clauses (5), (6) and (7)
of the Regulation 34 was the substratum of the controversy
before the High Court.
14.4 Going through the entire gamut of correspondence involved in
the said case, it was held that all the activities undertaken by
appellant No.1 therein through the Architects till handing over of
the possession of the land were not towards the development
of amenity and the grant of additional TDR. All these works
were undertaken as part of the effort to make the Municipal
Corporation accept the surrender of land and to grant TDR.
On the facts of the said case, it was held that no amenity
was developed as required by law by appellants Nos.1 and 2
therein to be entitled to additional TDR. Therefore, on facts,
it was held that appellant was not entitled for additional TDR.
Accordingly, the view of the High Court was confirmed and the
appeal was dismissed.
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 869

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

Yeshwant Jagannath Vaity:
15. In Yeshwant Jagannath Vaity, the facts were that the respondents
therein owned 10,000 sq. yards of land in Mulund village, which
came within the area of Greater Bombay. A development plan was
sanctioned for Greater Bombay in the year 1957. The said land was
shown as reserved for public purpose of construction of a godown.
However, the respondents and four other co-owners entered into a
private agreement to handover possession of 10,000 sq. yards to
the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay (MCGB) for temporary
use as a truck terminal. The land was also to be used as a town
duty office. The possession was handed over on 18.09.1961. The
land was not put to any other use till November 1998. Therefore,
Writ Petition No.3437 of 1988 was filed seeking a declaration
that the land was not liable to be acquired which resulted into a
compromise between the parties in which MCGB agreed to acquire
and retain the area of 3500 sq. metres for the purpose of establishing
and constructing an export octroi office. The respondents therein
constructed the export office and also developed the surrounding
area. The possession of the export office and the courtyard was
handed over to the MCGB for which a possession receipt was also
issued. An application was made by the respondents for TDR in
respect of the export office being 3500 sq. metres equivalent of the
100 per cent of the built-up area of the export office. However, insofar
as the additional transferable rights in lieu of the development of
the export courtyard surrounding the export office was concerned,
the same was restricted to 466.96 sq. metres being 15 per cent of
the built-up area of the courtyard.
15.1 The respondents not having received a favourable response
to their request filed a writ petition which was allowed by the
High Court. The High Court while granting the relief relied upon
the judgment of this Court in Godrej & Boyce I. In the appeal
filed by the MCGB, several contentions were raised including
the contention regarding the Circular dated 09.04.1996 having
no bearing on Godrej & Boyce I, since it was issued after the
landowners had surrendered their plot of land after construction
of the roads as required by the Municipal Council while in the
said case the said Circular was issued prior to the respondents
No.1 and 3 therein completing the construction of an export
office and asphalting of the courtyard and handing over the
870 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

possession. Several arguments were advanced to distinguish
the judgment of this Court in Godrej & Boyce I. This Court
observed that the works done by the respondent therein was
an amenity and the Circular dated 09.04.1996 did not have any
bearing on the case as it was issued after the compromise in
the Writ Petition on 10.03.1992 and the issuance of the letter
of intent dated 22.02.1995. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the
respondent MCGB was dismissed.
15.2 The reasoning of this Court in the said judgment is squarely
applicable to these cases. This Court held that the High Court
was right in allowing the writ petition filed by the respondent
therein and granting 100% TDR as against the development
of the courtyard by asphalting the same.

Delay and Laches:
16. However, most of the writ petitions which were filed by the appellants
herein were dismissed on the ground of delay and laches by the
Bombay High Court. We have already adverted to the judgment of
this Court in Godrej & Boyce II on the aspect of abandonment of
the claim. The contentions of learned senior counsel and learned
counsel for the appellants would not call for a reiteration.
17. At this stage, we shall consider some of the judgments relied upon
by the learned senior counsel for the respective parties.
On the question of discretion of courts in considering the issue of
delay and laches, this Court in Vidya Devi vs. State of Himachal
Pradesh (2020) 2 SCC 569 (“Vidya Devi”) noted as under,
“12.12. The contention advanced by the State of delay
and laches of the appellant in moving the Court is also
liable to be rejected. Delay and laches cannot be
raised in a case of a continuing cause of action, or
if the circumstances shock the judicial conscience of the
Court. Condonation of delay is a matter of judicial
discretion, which must be exercised judiciously and
reasonably in the facts and circumstances of a case.
It will depend upon the breach of fundamental rights, and
the remedy claimed, and when and how the delay arose.
There is no period of limitation prescribed for the
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 871

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

courts to exercise their constitutional jurisdiction to
do substantial justice.”
(emphasis supplied)
17.1 On the question of the principles the Court should rely upon
when exercising the discretion to condone delay and laches,
the following judgments are instructive.
(a) In Dehri Rohtas Light Rly. Co. Ltd. vs. District Board,
Bhojpur (1992) 2 SCC 598, this Court noted that:
“13... The principle on which the relief to the party
on the grounds of laches or delay is denied is
that the rights which have accrued to others by
reason of the delay in filing the petition should
not be allowed to be disturbed unless there is a
reasonable explanation for the delay. The real
test to determine delay in such cases is that
the petitioner should come to the writ court
before a parallel right is created and that the
lapse of time is not attributable to any laches
or negligence. The test is not as to physical
running of time. Where the circumstances
justifying the conduct exist, the illegality
which is manifest cannot be sustained on
the sole ground of laches.”
(emphasis supplied)
(b) In Tukaram Kana Joshi vs. Maharashtra Industrial
Development Corporation (2013) 1 SCC 353, this
Court held, albeit in the context of the State taking over
possession of land without any sanction of law, to the
following effect:
“12… Our Constitution is an organic and flexible
one. Delay and laches is adopted as a mode of
discretion to decline exercise of jurisdiction to
grant relief. There is another facet. The Court
is required to exercise judicial discretion. The
said discretion is dependent on facts and
circumstances of the cases. Delay and laches
872 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

is one of the facets to deny exercise of
discretion. It is not an absolute impediment.
There can be mitigating factors, continuity
of cause action, etc. That apart, if the whole
thing shocks the judicial conscience, then the
Court should exercise the discretion more so,
when no third-party interest is involved.”
(emphasis supplied)
(c) In Kazi Moinuddin Kazi Bashiroddin vs. Maharashtra
Tourism Development Corporation, 2022 SCC OnLine
SC 1325, at para 26, this Court noted that, in matters
relating to payment of amount of compensation to land
losers, if at all two views are possible, the view that
advances the cause of justice is always to be preferred
rather than the other view, which may draw its strength
only from technicalities.
17.2 On the question of abandonment or waiver of rights, this Court
in G.T. Lad vs. Chemical and Fibres of India Ltd. (1979) 1
SCC 590 noted, albeit in the context of workmen abandoning
service, that “to constitute abandonment, there must be total or
complete giving up of duties so as to indicate an intention not
to resume the same”. It further noted that such abandonment
is always a question of intention.
17.3 Further, in State of Punjab vs. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar
(2011) 14 SCC 770, this Court dealt with the doctrine of waiver.
It held that, to constitute waiver, the person who is said to have
waived, must have intentionally abandoned his rights with full
knowledge after being fully informed of his rights.
18. In the following Writ Petitions by the impugned order dated 18.12.2018
the Bombay High Court observed as follows and dismissed the Writ
Petitions on the ground of delay and laches.

“(i) WP No.1898 of 2009 –
Kukreja Construction and Others vs. The State
of Maharashtra and Others.
35. In Writ Petition No.1898/2009, the petitioners’ land
was reserved for 18.3 meters wide DP Road. The
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 873

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

petitioners surrendered the reserved land and were
granted TDR in lieu of the reserved land. Thereafter,
the petitioners constructed DP Road as claimed in
the petition and a completion certificate was issued
on 19th August 1994. According to the case of the
petitioners, they carried out work of storm water drain
for which competition certificate was issued 17th March
2003. According to their case, the TDR in respect
of the land was issued on 16th March 1994 and 5th
April 2003. On 21st July 2003, the petitioners through
their Architect applied for grant of additional TDR
under clause (6) of Appendix-VII. But the application
made by the petitioner (Exhibit-I) shows that on 21st
July 2003, only 25% additional TDR was claimed in
respect of amenity of DP Road. It is not the case of
the petitioners that thereafter they followed the said
application by issuing reminders. For six years or
more, no claim was made for 100% TDR on account
of construction of the amenity. However, on 28th August
2009, through their Architect, the petitioners applied
for grant of additional TDR for the amenity equivalent
to 100% of the area. The said application was made
only after the decision of the Apex Court in the case
of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra)
and the present petition was lodged on 15th September
2009. Therefore, in facts of the case, no relief can be
granted as for a period of more than six years after
surrender, no claim was made for 100% TDR.

(ii) WP No.1823 of 2009 –
Jitendra Amritlal Sheth vs. State of Maharashtra
and Others.
37. Now, we come to Writ Petition No.1823/2012.
In this case, the possession of DP Road after its
construction was handed over by the petitioners to
the Municipal Corporation on 5th March 2005. On 24th
February 2009, the petitioners’ Architect for the first
time applied for 100% FSI in lieu of the constructed
amenity. There was inaction for more than 3 years and
874 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

11 months and claim for 100% additional TDR was not
made. The averments made in the petition show that
on 18th November 2009, a reminder was issued. By
communication dated 7th December 2009, the proposal
of the Architect was specifically rejected. The petition
was affirmed on 30th July 2012 i.e. two years after the
prayer for grant of 100% TDR was turned down. The
explanation for delay given by way of amendment to
the petition is that on 7th March 2010, a file containing
correspondence and judgments of the Supreme Court
was handed over to the attorneys. It is stated that
amendment of 17th June 2010 to the DCR was made
available to the petitioners in July 2010. On 8th January
2011, the Legal Consultant of the fourth petitioner by
writing an email enquired with the Solicitors whether
draft was ready. On 25th January 2011, it is claimed
that the draft was forwarded. Thereafter, on 18th July
2011, a meeting was held between the petitioners,
their Legal Consultant and Architect. It is claimed that
the documents were furnished by the Architect to their
advocate on 15th June 2012 and, ultimately, on 30th
July 2012, the petition was filed. This is hardly an
explanation for delay of 2½ years, especially when in
the facts, of the case after construction of DP Road,
the possession of the same was handed over on 5th
March 2005. There is no explanation for not claiming
100% TDR within three years from that date. Even
after entrusting the case to the Advocate, there is a
long delay. Hence, considering the gross delay and
laches which is not at all explained, this is a case
where a Writ Court should not allow the party to invoke
its extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India.

(iii) WP No.839 of 2015 –
Geeta alias Chandani Umesh Gandhi vs. The State
of Maharashtra and others.
38. In Writ Petition No.839/2015, the possession of DP
Road was handed over to the Municipal Corporation
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 875

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

on 20th May 2005. On 31st December 2006, 25% FSI/
TDR in respect of the constructed road was granted.
On 1st December 2009, the petitioner through her
Architect requested to release balance 75% TDR
towards the amenity developed. The perusal of the
averments made in the petition shows that after
lapse of 4½ years thereafter, by a letter dated 20th
June 2014, the petitioner requested the Municipal
Corporation to issue balance 75% TDR. Thereafter,
there was a legal notice sent on 1 st December
2014. The petition was filed one year thereafter in
January 2015. There is absolutely no explanation
as to why there is a complete inaction on the part
of the petitioner from 1st December 2009 when the
petitioner’s Architect applied for grant of remaining
75% additional TDR till 20th June 2014 when similar
request was made by the petitioner. As there is no
explanation for this inaction for a period of more 4½
years and the delay involved thereafter, this is not a fit
case wherein a Writ Court should exercise jurisdiction
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(iv) WP No.2871 of 2015 –
Jameel A. Hussain and Others vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others.
39. In Writ Petition No.2871/2015, the reservation
of the land claimed by the petitioners was for DP
Road. The possession of the developed portion of the
reserved land was taken over by the said Corporation
on 29th July 2004. The completion certificate was
issued on 23rd August 2014. It is claimed in the
petition that FSI in respect of surrender of land was
granted but FSI in respect of amenity constructed
thereon was never granted. Going by the averments
made in the petition, though the petitioners claim to
have surrendered the reserved land with amenity
on 29th July 2004, the petitioners never applied for
grant of 100% TDR in respect of the amenity. Even
after the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
876 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra)
which is of 6th February 2009, the petitioners did not
apply for grant of additional FSI/ TDR in respect of
amenity surrendered in the year 2004 and for the
first time by a letter dated 17th February 2012, the
petitioners applied for grant of additional TDR. The
proposal for grant of additional TDR was rejected
on 30th January 2015. Thereafter the petition was
filed. Thus, after surrendering the reserved land on
29th July 2004, the petitioners never claimed TDR
in respect of the amenity developed by them till 17th
February 2012. The application was made three years
after the decision of the Apex Court in the case of
Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra).
Considering this conduct of the petitioners which
virtually amounts to abandonment of their right, no
relief can be granted to the petitioners in this petition.

(v) WP No.2107 of 2016 –
M/s Byramjee Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. and Another
vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai
and Others.–
40. In Writ Petition No.2107/2016, according to the
case of the petitioners, they constructed DP Road.
They surrendered the reserved land on 5th June
2007. Their Architects/ Licensed Surveyors made
an application on 4th September 2009 for grant of
100% additional TDR in the light of the decision of
the Apex Court. A legal notice was issued by their
advocate on 7th December 2009. Thereafter, the
petitioners took no steps and after a gap of 6½ years
on 21st July 2016, the petitioners called upon the
said Corporation to grant additional FSI/TDR. The
correspondence made by the petitioners in the year
2009 was based on the decision of the Apex Court
in the case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co.
Ltd. (supra). The petitioners sought to rely upon
the subsequent decision of the Apex Court dated
5th May 2016 in the case of Municipal Corporation
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 877

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

of Greater Mumbai v. Natvar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd.
(Civil Appeal No.1479/2015) which followed the
decision of the Apex Court in the case of Godrej &
Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra). There is no
explanation offered in the petition as to why there was
complete inaction on the part of the petitioners from
2009 to 2016. Therefore, considering this conduct
of the petitioners, they are dis-entitled to any relief.

(vi) WP No.2170 of 2016 –
Girdharlal D. Rughani Alia Thakkar H.U.F. and
Another vs. The State of Maharashtra and Others.–
41. In Writ Petition No.2170/2016, the case of the
petitioners is that on 20th October 1995 they handed
over the possession of their land reserved for DP
Road to the said Corporation. They claimed that
after completing the construction of DP Road on 20th
October 1994, a completion certificate was granted
by the Municipal Corporation. It is not the case of
the petitioners that thereafter they applied for grant
of additional 100% TDR in respect of the amenity
developed. Only on 5th August 2014 (i.e. ten years after
developing the amenity) that the petitioners applied
for grant of additional TDR through their Architect. For
a period of 10 years, the petitioners never claimed
100% additional TDR in respect of the amenity. Even
thereafter, no action is taken and the present petition
is filed in July 2016. Considering the conduct of the
petitioners, they are not entitled to any relief.

(vii) WP No.384 of 2017 –
Oberoi Realty Limited and Another vs. Municipal
Corporation of Greater Mumbai and Others.–
42. In Writ Petition No.384/2017, the case of the
petitioners is that between 2004 and 2008, they
developed seven DP Roads and handed over the
possession thereof to the said Corporation. However,
they made representation for the first time on 10th June
878 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

2016 claiming additional TDR in respect of amenity
developed. The representation was rejected on 30th
November 2016 by the said Corporation. Thus, even
after the decision in the case of Godrej & Boyce
Manufacturing Co. Ltd. (supra), the petitioners did
not apply for grant of additional TDR. The petitioners
sought additional TDR after lapse of eight years and
more. Therefore, for a period of eight years or more,
the petitioners never claimed additional TDR. Hence,
considering the delay and laches on the part of the
petitioners, no relief can be granted.

(viii) WP No.541 of 2017 –
Nanabhoy Jeejeebhoy Pvt. Ltd. and Another vs.
The State of Maharashtra and Others. –
43. In Writ Petition No.541/2017, the case of the
petitioners is that there were eleven reservations on
their property for DP Roads. The petitioners have
referred to the said reservations as DP Road-I to DP
Road-XI. According to the case of the petitioners,
after developing the amenities, the possession of DP
Roads was handed over to the said Corporation on
13th April 2004, 20th March 2001, 27th March 2002, 6th
September 2001, 13th February 2006, 27th October
1997, 27th October 1997, 29th October 1997, 21st
December 2002, 22nd May 2002 and 14th August
2002 respectively. For the first time additional TDR
was claimed by the petitioners by making application
on 11th July 2014. Thus, in all cases except one, the
possession was handed over after the development
of DP Roads before the year 2003. In some cases,
the possession of DP Road was handed over in the
year 1997. In one case, the possession was handed
over in the year 2006. Thus, after lapse of several
years after handing over possession of DP Roads
i.e. in 2014, belatedly a request was made for grant
of additional TDR. The request was made after a
gap of about 8 to 13 years for which there is no
explanation. Thus, the petitioners by their conduct
[2024] 9 S.C.R. 879

Kukreja Construction Company & Others v.
State of Maharashtra & Others

have virtually abandoned their claim for additional
FSI/TDR in respect of amenity.”
In all these cases, we find that the writ petitioners/appellants herein
had surrendered the reserved land and had also been granted 25%
TDR and a representation for additional TDR was made after the
judgment of this Court in Godrej & Boyce I and in some cases, the
representation was made early but in other cases, the representations
were made after some time. It is also noted in Civil Appeal No.1748
of 2015, in the case of Natwar Parikh, this Court had stated that
the decision in Godrej & Boyce I could not be revisited inasmuch
as the Mumbai Municipal Corporation could not seek to reargue the
matter. Also, the facts in each case on the questions of delay was to
be considered as observed by this Court. The issue of abandonment
of claim has also been considered and negatived in the judgment
of this Court in Godrej & Boyce II.
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. 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
calculation of period of delay in the table submitted by learned senior
counsel for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation is not acceptable in
view of our discussion above. The decisions referred to by us above
would clearly indicate 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.
18.1 In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the Bombay
High Court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions on
880 [2024] 9 S.C.R.

Digital Supreme Court Reports

the ground of delay and laches. Hence, those portions of the
impugned order of the High Court are set aside.
19. We also do not find any merit in the three appeals filed by the Mumbai
Municipal Corporation. Having regard to the earlier judgments of this
Court, we find that the reasoning of the High Court on merits in the
three impugned decisions discussed above is just and proper which
would not call for any interference by this Court.
20. Consequently, the civil appeals filed by the writ petitioners/appellants
herein are allowed as under:
(i) Those portions of the impugned order dated 18.12.2018 by
which the writ petitions were dismissed on the ground of
delay and laches are set aside and the respondent Mumbai
Municipal Corporation is directed to consider the case of those
writ petitioners/appellants herein in light of the judgments of
this Court in Godrej & Boyce I and release the balance FSI/
TDR to the appellants.
(ii) However, in the case of appellant-Kukreja Construction company
and others, the Mumbai Municipal Corporation is directed to
consider the nature of the amenities constructed and thereafter
to consider their case for additional FSI/TDR.
(iii) The said exercise shall be carried out as expeditiously as
possible and within a period of three months from today.
20.1 The Civil Appeals filed by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation
are dismissed and the cases of the respondents in those civil
appeals shall be considered in terms of the judgments of this
Court in Godrej & Boyce I and the balance FSI/TDR shall be
released to the respondents therein within a period of three
months from today.
Parties to bear their respective costs.

Result of the Case: A
ppeals filed by the appellants are allowed and
those of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation are
dismissed.

†
Headnotes prepared by: Divya Pandey