The Bombay High Court has reiterated the precedence of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP) over Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Maharashtra State (UDCPR), whilst ensuring legal protection for developers and buyers relying on valid permissions.

The bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan were hearing a matter dealing in a non-issuance of an Occupation Certificate (OC) by the Tehsildar with respect to ten buildings developed under permissions granted by the Collector. The Tahsildar withheld the OC, citing that the land in question was designated for agricultural purposes as per the Regional Plan.

The Petitioner was granted non-agricultural classification and development permission on April 4, 2017; subsequently, the Draft Regional Plan (DRP) was published in the Official Gazette on April 5, 2017. Thus, the Court was considering the issue of whether the permissions granted by the Collector before the publication of the DRP were valid.

The Court invoked Section 18 of the MRTP Act, which imposes specific restrictions on altering the use or carrying out development on land. According to this provision, such restrictions become effective from the date of publication of a notice indicating that the Development Plan (DRP) has been prepared.

Here, the Court observed that the restrictions commenced on April 5, 2017 and the permission for change of use and for development was issued to the Petitioner one day earlier, i.e. on April 4, 2017. It stated, “Therefore, arguably, the permission for the development of the Subject Land appears to have been conceived and approved even before the DRP was put up for public consultation.”

Thus, the Court for this issue noted that the framework for the change of use and the development of the land as set out in Section 18(1) was complied with, that too before the publication of the DRP

The Court then considered the issue of whether Regulation 5.1.3 of the UDCPR applies to the Petitioner's project. The Court examined Regulation 5.1.3, which allows developments approved before the DRP’s publication to proceed as “committed development.”

The Court observed that Regulation 5.1.3 of the Unified Development Control and Promotional Regulations (UDCPR) must be interpreted and applied in a manner that aligns with the provisions of Section 18 of the MRTP Act.

“The framework under Section 18(1) of the MRTP Act makes it clear that the restriction on change of use and on development of land would commence when notice of the DRP is published (in this case, April 5, 2017). Now, even if one were to regard Regulation 5.1.3(i) of the UDCPR as stretching such date further back to the date on which the Regional Planning Board passed a resolution approving such notice (in this case, March 22, 2017), for purposes of reading the term “already granted” used in Regulation 5.1.3(ii), one cannot lose sight of either the essential scope of Section 18 of the MRTP Act or the fact that the UDCPR itself was notified well after the permissions under Section 18 had already been granted.”

The Court observed that, on perusal of Regulation 5.1.3(ii), the term "already" signifies that development permissions previously granted for agricultural or residential uses within certain zones shall remain valid.

The Court held that since the development permissions and change of land use were granted prior to the enforcement of the UDCPR on December 2, 2020, the development remains eligible for an Occupancy Certificate (OC), provided the Petitioner adhered to the terms of those approvals. It further observed that before the UDCPR came into effect, the provisions of Section 18 of the MRTP Act were the sole governing regulations.

The Court then proceeded to delve into the conflict between the MRTP Act and UDCPR.The bench emphasised that subordinate legislation like the UDCPR must align with the parent statute, i.e., the MRTP Act.

The bench stated, “The framework under Section 18(1) of the MRTP Act makes it clear that the restriction on change of use and on development of land would commence when notice of the DRP is published (in this case, April 5, 2017). Now, even if one were to regard Regulation 5.1.3(i) of the UDCPR as stretching such date further back to the date on which the Regional Planning Board passed a resolution approving such notice (in this case, March 22, 2017), for purposes of reading the term “already granted” used in Regulation 5.1.3(ii), one cannot lose sight of either the essential scope of Section 18 of the MRTP Act or the fact that the UDCPR itself was notified well after the permissions under Section 18 had already been granted.”

Further, the Court observed that even if the date of the resolution passed by the Regional Planning Board (March 22, 2017) were considered as the commencement of the restrictions, the petitioner's change of use and development had been duly approved by the Collector. The Collector, acting within the authority conferred under Section 18 of the MRTP Act, was empowered to grant such approvals for the land in question.

It stated, “Such permissions granted by the Collector can only mean that the conscious decision of the Collector was taken (on April 4, 2017) before the Regional Plan was published (on April 5, 2017) and the subsequent revised development was with the “previous permission” of the Collector under Section 18 of the MRTP Act, after the Regional Plan was published. In any case, all of the activity of permissions was before the UDCPR was brought into effect, which would entitle the Petitioner to seek the OC pursuant to Regulation 5.1.3(ii) of the UDCPR.”

Thus, after due considerations, the Court directed the respondent authorities to issue the OC to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks.

Accordingly, the Writ Petition was disposed of.

Case Title: Raj Realtors vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. (Writ Petition No.2693 of 2024)

Advocate For Petitioner: Mr. Suresh Sabrad, Mr. Suresh Sabrad & Ors.

Advocate For Respondents: Ms A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P., Ms. P.M.J. Deshpande, AGP