Unified Development Control & Promotional Regulations Must Be Read In Consistence With Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act: High Court

In doing so, the Court stated that the any permission granted under the MRTP Act before coming into effect of the Unified Development Control and Promotional Regulations (UDCPR) would be valid, as the UDCPR has to be read in a manner that is consistent with the MRTP Act.

A division bench of Justice B. P. Colabawalla and Justice Somasekhar Sundaresan 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.”

The Court was considering the petitioner's challenge to the Tahsiladar's refusal to issue it an Occupation Certificate with respect to ten buildings constructed by it pursuant to development permissions granted by the Collector and also sought a direction that OC be issued to the petitioner. The reason for non-issuance of the OC by the Tahsildar was that the Subject Land fell within land earmarked for agricultural purposes in the Regional Plan.

The Draft Regional Plan (DRP) was published in the Official Gazette on April 5, 2017. The approval granted to the petitioner for the change of use of the Subject Land from agricultural to non-agricultural purpose and the development permission was issued one day earlier i.e. on April 4, 2017.

The Court referred to Section 18 of MRTP Act, which stipulates certain restrictions on change of user of land or development. It provides that the restriction on change of use and on development of land would commence upon publication of a notice that the DRP has been prepared.

Here, the Court noted 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.”

The Court also noted that the Collector granted permission change of use of the Subject Land from agriculture to non-agricultural purpose as per Section 18.

It observed 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 further referred to Regulation 5.1.3 of UDCPR and observed that the starting date for triggering the prohibition on development is the date on which the Regional Planning Board passes a resolution approving the publication of notice of the DRP.

Examining both the provisions, the Court remarked, “…it is apparent to us that any development permission granted, or any development proposal for which tentative or final approval has been recommended by the Town Planning Office and was pending with the relevant Revenue Authority before the date of passing the resolution would continue to be valid under Regulation 5.1.3(i). However, in the instant case, the approval on April 4, 2017 is after the date of the resolution by the Regional Planning Board.”

The Court noted that as per Regulation 5.1.3(ii), the word 'already' indicates that if development permissions have already been granted for agricultural or residential uses in certain zones, those permissions continue to be valid.

It stated that as the development permissions and change of land use were granted before the UDCPR came into effect, the development still qualifies for an Occupancy Certificate (OC) as long as the petitioner followed the terms of those approvals. It further noted that before the UDCPR came into effect, the rules under Section 18 of the MRTP Act were the only regulations in place.

The Court remarked that Regulation 5.1.3 of the UDCPR has to be read and understood in a manner that is consistent with 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.”

Here, the Court noted that even if the date of resolution passed by the Regional Planning Board (March 22, 2017) was to be taken as the date on which the restrictions commenced, yet the petitioner's change of use and development was approved by the Collector, who had the authority under Section 18 of the MRTP Act to approve such actions 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.”

Considering the facts, the Court directed the respondent authorities to issue the OC to the petitioner.

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

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Bom) 627