Kukreja Construction Company & Others vs State of Maharashtra & Others

Held: Not correct – Question of delay and laches would not arise in present cases – Once the compensation is determined in the form of FSI/TDR, the same is payable even without any representation or request being made, as otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution – Respondent did not establish that owing to a short delay even if it had occurred in any of these cases owing to uncertainty in law, it was prejudiced by the same or that third-party rights were created which could not be disturbed owing to delay or laches – Neither the doctrine of delay and laches nor the principle of abandonment of claim or waiver would apply in these cases – Rather, the delay occurred on the part of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation in complying with the Regulations insofar as the appellants are concerned – High Court not right in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches, impugned order set aside to that extent – However, reasoning of the High Court holding that the 2016 notification amending Regulation 34 of the 1991 DCR would not apply retrospectively or retroactively to a land reserved under the development plan which is surrendered and amenity is developed on the said land by the owner or lessee thereof at his own cost prior to the amendment, not interfered on merits – Respondent to consider the case of writ petitioners-appellants herein in light of Godrej & Boyce I case and release the balance FSI/TDR to the appellants however, in the case of appellant – Kukreja Construction company and others, the respondent to consider the nature of the amenities constructed and thereafter consider their case for additional FSI/TDR. [Paras 4.8, 18, 20]