In Brief
The appellants, owners of land reserved as a Recreation Ground under the Development Plan, surrendered the land to the Municipal Corporation and received standard Transferable Development Rights (TDR). They later claimed additional TDR for developing the Recreation Ground. The Corporation rejected their claim citing policy restrictions. A circular restricting such additional TDR was challenged before the Supreme Court in another case (Godrej and Boyce). After that decision, the appellants renewed their claim, which was again rejected. The High Court dismissed their writ petition, finding abandonment due to 12-year delay and that no amenity was actually developed. The Supreme Court held that the delay was justified as the right was suspended during the challenge period, but upheld the High Court's finding that the appellants did not develop the amenity as required, since all work was done during the initial surrender phase, not as a separate development project. Appeal dismissed.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.