Bombay HC Upholds Panvel TDR Premium Rule, Dismisses Developers’ Challenge
· Free Press Journal
Mumbai, Feb 14: The Bombay High Court has cleared the Maharashtra government’s policy allowing developers in Panvel to use a large portion of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) by paying a premium, ruling that the measure is lawful, optional, and aimed at correcting a supply imbalance.
A bench of Chief Justice Shree Chandrashekhar and Justice Gautam Ankhad, on Friday, dismissed a batch of petitions challenging the October 7, 2024 notification and the insertion of Clause 10.16 in the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations (UDCPR).
Visit sweetbonanza.qpon for more information.
Details of the amendment
The amendment allows developers within the jurisdiction of the Panvel Municipal Corporation to utilise up to 75% of the permissible TDR component by paying a premium linked to government land rates. The remaining 25% must still be sourced as TDR. The provision is temporary and will remain in force until Panvel’s development plan is sanctioned.
Petitioners argued that the change undermines the statutory framework under which landowners surrender plots for public purposes in exchange for TDR. Counsels for the petitioners — senior advocates Milind Sathe, Anil Anturkar and Anil Sakhare — submitted that the premium route would reduce demand for market TDR, financially strain the planning authority, and make TDR less viable.
State’s defence and court’s findings
The state, through senior advocate Ashutosh Kumbhakoni and advocate Neha Bhide, countered that a large portion of Panvel lacked a sanctioned development plan, leading to negligible TDR generation. This created a sharp mismatch between demand and supply and raised concerns of price cartelisation. The amendment, it said, merely provides an additional option and does not force developers or landowners into any particular route.
The court agreed with the state and observed: “Having considered the rival submissions and examined the record, we find no merit in the challenge to the notice dated 15th March 2024 or the impugned Notification dated 7th October 2024. We do not find that the said notice or the impugned Notification is arbitrary, illegal and ultra vires the MRTP Act.”
The judges stressed that the amendment does not change the overall permissible Floor Space Index (FSI) or dismantle the TDR framework. Developers remain free to source TDR entirely from the open market if they choose.
Limited scope of judicial review
The court also reiterated that judicial review of planning policy and delegated legislation is limited. A regulation cannot be struck down merely because it affects commercial expectations or market value.
Rejecting claims that the amendment imposes an illegal levy or renders TDR meaningless, the bench held that valuation remains market-driven and the premium mechanism falls within statutory powers.
Also Watch:
Bombay HC Upholds State’s Reservation And Rotation Policy For SC/ST In Local Body Elections“We also find no merit in the contention that the impugned amendment renders TDR illusory or valueless. Neither the MRTP Act nor the UDCPR prescribes or guarantees any fixed value for TDR. The value of TDR is governed by market forces of demand and supply. A regulatory measure that incidentally impacts commercial expectations or market valuation cannot, by itself, be a ground to invalidate delegated legislation, particularly when the measure is aimed at correcting distortions in the planning framework,” the bench said in its detailed judgment, while dismissing the petitions.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/