In a significant judgment of Raj Realtors v/s The State of Maharashtra & Others, the Bombay High Court ruled in favor of a partnership firm seeking the issuance of an Occupation Certificate (OC) for ten buildings constructed under the project name Tulsi Vivaan. The court directed the Respondents to issue the OC within eight weeks, dismissing the grounds on which its issuance had been delayed.
Factual Background:
The petitioner, a partnership firm, constructed ten buildings on land measuring approximately 7.9 hectares in Mouje Pashane, Taluka Karjat, District Raigad, Maharashtra. These buildings comprised 446 residential units and 20 commercial units. The development followed permissions granted by the State authorities, including a no-objection certificate from the Gram Panchayat, land use approval from the Collector, and several other formalities.
However, after the construction was completed, the Tahsildar, Alibag, refused to issue the OC for the project, citing that the Subject Land was earmarked for agricultural purposes in the Regional Plan. This refusal was based on the interpretation of Regulation 5.1.3 of the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations (UDCPR) in relation to the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning (MRTP) Act.
Key Legal Provisions:
The MRTP Act, particularly Section 18, outlines restrictions on land use changes and development activities after the publication of the Draft Regional Plan (DRP). The statutory provision aimed to regulate development and ensure that the land was used according to the designated regional plan.
Regulation 5.1.3 of the UDCPR, which came into effect in 2020, further complicated the situation. The regulation stipulates that development permissions granted prior to the publication of the DRP would remain valid, but only under specific conditions.
Court’s Analysis:
The Court examined the timeline of events in the case, focusing on two key dates: the issuance of the permission by the Collector on April 4, 2017, and the publication of the DRP on April 5, 2017. The Court noted that the permissions granted to the petitioner for the change of land use and development of the Subject Land occurred before the DRP was published. Despite the later implementation of the UDCPR, which brought in new regulations, the permissions granted under the MRTP Act were deemed valid.
The Court emphasized that, as per Section 18 of the MRTP Act, the development permission and land use change approved by the Collector were within the legal framework before the publication of the DRP. Furthermore, the Court interpreted Regulation 5.1.3 of the UDCPR as allowing the continued validity of such approvals, regardless of the restrictions introduced under the new regulations.
Ruling and Conclusion:
Ultimately, the Court concluded that there were no legal grounds to withhold the OC for the petitioner’s project, as the development was compliant with the permissions granted by the authorities. The Court directed the Respondents to issue the OC in accordance with the earlier permissions and without delay, highlighting that the issuance of the OC was a matter of legal entitlement, given the compliance with existing regulations.
The Court’s decision also emphasized the need for subordinate legislation, like the UDCPR, to be interpreted in a manner consistent with the parent statute (MRTP Act). This ensured that the rights of the developer were protected despite the enactment of new regulations after the permissions had already been granted.
The Respondents were ordered to complete the issuance of the Occupation Certificate within eight weeks. The Court also scheduled a follow-up hearing in February 2025 to report compliance with the judgment.
This ruling is a significant development for the real estate sector, ensuring that developers who have received proper permissions are not penalized by changes in regulations or delays by authorities. It underscores the importance of adhering to legal timelines and ensuring that developments are carried out within the framework of existing approvals.
