Supreme Court Rejects Additional TDR Claim by Godrej & Boyce Against Mumbai Municipal Corporation

The case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited vs. The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai revolves around a dispute regarding the grant of Additional Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for land surrendered for public amenities in Mumbai. The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Bombay High Court, ruling against the appellants’ claim for additional TDR, stating that they had not developed the amenity as required under the applicable regulations.

Background of the Case

The dispute concerned 31,057.30 square meters of land in Mumbai, which was reserved for a Recreation Ground in the 1991 Development Plan (DP). The land was owned by Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Ltd. (hereinafter “the appellants”). Under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, the government provided mechanisms for land acquisition, including compensation through Transferable Development Rights (TDR).

The appellants agreed to surrender the land to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) and applied for TDR in 1994. Their request included a demand for additional TDR for the development of amenities on the surrendered land.

The Corporation granted TDR for the land but denied the request for additional TDR in 1998, citing policy restrictions. The appellants challenged this decision in the Bombay High Court, which dismissed their plea in 2011, leading them to file an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Petitioner’s Arguments (Godrej & Boyce)

The appellants, represented by senior counsel, contended:

Additional TDR is compensation for developing the amenity, and denying it violates Article 300A (right to property) of the Indian Constitution.
They had completed the development of the recreation ground as per approved plans.
The Municipal Commissioner had approved their work, contradicting MCGM’s claim that they had not developed the amenity.
They had waited for the Supreme Court’s ruling in an earlier case regarding TDR policy before reapplying in 2009, which should not be considered a delay or abandonment of claim.

Respondent’s Arguments (MCGM)

The Municipal Corporation countered:

The appellants had not developed the amenity as per regulatory requirements.
Their claim was only for regular TDR, and they had not specifically applied for additional TDR at the time of surrender.
The development work they carried out was only for facilitating land surrender, not for constructing an amenity.
The claim for additional TDR was filed only in 1998 and then again in 2009, showing abandonment of their claim.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the documents and found key discrepancies in the appellants’ claims. The Court observed:

The appellants’ initial application for TDR in 1994 did not mention any intent to claim additional TDR.
They had signed a possession receipt in 1995 stating that all necessary development work had been completed, contradicting their later claim for additional TDR.
Their response to a query in 1994 stated that “development of the amenity does not arise” as the land was reserved for a recreation ground.
Their renewed request for additional TDR in 1998 came after new policies restricting such grants.
After the rejection in 1998, they waited 12 years before challenging the decision in the Bombay High Court, leading to a reasonable inference of claim abandonment.

Key Judgment Excerpt

The Supreme Court ruled:

“Once the parties had agreed to surrender the land for TDR, the claim for additional TDR required clear demonstration of development work beyond mere land preparation. The petitioners failed to establish such work.”

It further noted:

“The 12-year delay in pursuing the claim for additional TDR, despite the 1998 rejection, strongly suggests an abandonment of the claim.”

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming:

The appellants were not entitled to additional TDR as they did not develop an amenity.
Their claim was not made at the time of land surrender, weakening their case.
The long delay in filing the petition indicated abandonment.
MCGM was within its rights to deny additional TDR under applicable policies.

This ruling reinforces the requirement that landowners must strictly adhere to procedural rules when seeking additional TDR and cannot claim benefits retroactively without clear proof of compliance.

Petitioner Name: Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited.
Respondent Name: The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.
Judgment By: Justice V. Ramasubramanian, Justice Pankaj Mithal.
Place Of Incident: Mumbai, Maharashtra.
Judgment Date: 08-05-2023.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: godrej-and-boyce-man-vs-the-municipal-corpor-supreme-court-of-india-judgment-dated-08-05-2023.pdf

Directly Download Judgment: Directly download this Judgment

See all petitions in Property Disputes
See all petitions in Contract Disputes
See all petitions in Damages and Compensation
See all petitions in Judgment by V. Ramasubramanian
See all petitions in Judgment by Pankaj Mithal
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments May 2023
See all petitions in 2023 judgments

See all posts in Civil Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Civil Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Civil Cases Category