Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

28. Mr. Naphade, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the State of Maharashtra, countered the claim of the appellants and the petitioners by submitting that the circulars simply made clear the position that was implicit in the statutory provisions and would be clearly discernable on reading paragraph 6 of Appendix VII to the Regulations along with other relevant provisions. Apart from clarifying the statutory position, by introducing a graded scheme for grant of additional FSI or TDR the circular eliminated the possibility of any discriminatory or arbitrary action on the part of the authority competent to issue the development right certificate. The submission of Mr. Naphade is based on the premise that the law contemplated grant of further additional TDR commensurate to the value of the amenity constructed/developed on the surrendered land. Learned counsel pointed out that the definition of amenity covered vastly different public utilities like a school building or a road or even an open space. He further submitted that though both a single storied school building and a road built on plots of land equal in area may have more or less the same carpet area, the cost of construction of the school building will be much higher than the road. Hence, the grant of additional TDR for construction of all the different kinds of amenities equal to the area of the construction would be illogical, unreasonable and discriminatory. Further, in case the graded system was not followed it would be left in the hands of authority competent to issue the development right certificate to give additional FSI or TDR on a subjective basis. The circular, by introducing a graded scheme eliminated the subjective element and closed any possibility of arbitrary and discriminatory action on the part of the authority. Coming back to the basic argument that under the law the grant of additional TDR could only be commensurate to the value of the amenity constructed/developed on the surrendered land and not necessarily equal in area of the construction/development Mr. Naphade submitted that paragraph 6 of Appendix VII, unlike paragraph 5 didn't use the words `equal to the gross area of the reserved plot' or `equal in area'. Instead, paragraph 6 used the words `equivalent to the area of construction/development'. He further submitted that paragraph 6 of Appendix VII to the Regulations must be read with Section 126(1) (b), the relevant provision in the parent Act and paragraph 6 of Appendix VII must be controlled and must take its meaning from the provision of that section. Section 126(1) (b) used the words `against the area of the land surrendered' and `against the development or construction of amenity on the surrendered land'