1 lgc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5638 OF 2009 Rashtriya Shikshan Mandal & Anr. : Petitioners versus Pune Municipal Corporation and ors. : Respondents. Ms. Chandana Salgaocar-Radia for the Petitioners. Mr. S M Gorwadkar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. CORAM : P B MAJMUDAR & R M SAVANT, JJ. DATE : 06th July 2010 P.C. 1 Rule, made returnable forthwith by the consent of the parties and heard. 2 A limited grievance in the above Petition is that the Petitioners who are the owners of certain lands are claiming TDR on account of the lands being acquired/taken over for the purpose of road widening. 3 The facts which are relevant in the context of this limited grievance can be briefly stated as under :- The Petitioners are the owners of the land bearing City Survey Nos.25 and 26 admeasuring about 13168.41 sq.mtrs and 695.05 sq.mtrs of villae Erandavane, Taluka Havel, District Pune. It appears that in the year 1980 the Petitioners had handed over an area admeasuring 9206 sq.mtrs to the Respondents for road widening vide Possession Receipt dated 28/1/1980. Subsequent thereto the possession of three pieces of land admeasuring 257.72 sq.mtrs, 70.15 sq.mtrs and 2 157.94 sq.mtrs were handed over on 13/09/2001 and 14/07/2004. The said lands totally admeasure 486.81 sq.mtrs in respect of which the Petitioners now claim TDR in terms of the policy of the Respondent-Corporation. 4 It would be significant to note that in the Possession Receipt dated 13/09/2001 as well as Possessin Receipt dated 14/7/2004 it has been mentioned that the possession has been given on the basis that the TDR would be given as per the policy then prevailing. The Petitioners have also relied upon a brochure pertaining to the Transfer of Development Rights as per Development Control Regulation No. N – 2.4 of the Respondent No.1. In the said brochure under the clause “Who is Eligible” it has been mentioned that the owner (or lessee) of a plot of land which is reserved for a public purpose or road construction or road widening, in the Development Plan would be entitled for the grant of TDR. 5 It is also pointed to us by the learned counsel for the Petitioners that in terms of the letter dated 08/12/2006 addressed to the Deputy Municipal Commissioner, Land Acquisition and Establishment of the Respondent-Corporation by the Legal Adviser of the Municipal Corporation that the transferable development certificate can even be issued in the name of the power of attorney holder. 6 On behalf of the Respondent-Corporation its learned counsel contended that since the Petitioners’ land has been taken over in terms of Sections 212 and 213 of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporation Act the policy pertaining to grant of TDR is not applicable. 3 7 We need not dilate on the said aspect, suffice it to say that in terms of what is stated herein above viz. the policy as contained in the brochure as well as the contents of the Possession Receipts, that the Petitioners are claiming the said TDR, it is for the Respondent-Corporation to take an appropriate decision in respect of the application of the Petitioners for grant of TDR, which is annexed at Exhibit-I which is the part of the brochure pertaining to the Tranfer of Development Rights. The Respondent-Corporation is directed to take into consideration the material which has been placed on record by the Petitioner and arrive at a appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from date. 8 The Petition is accordingly disposed of. Rule made absolute in the above terms. [R.M.SAVANT, J] [P.B.MAJMUDAR, J]