Statutory sanction powers under town planning law permit modification with conditions, and promissory estoppel cannot defeat the statute.

Under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, the State Government may sanction a proposed modification with or without changes and on conditions it deems fit, so it was competent to add words restricting TDR use to the same plot while granting approval. The provision did not require a fresh public notice or hearing at the sanction stage, and the earlier view denying that power was unsustainable. The Court also held that review could not be based on a later understanding of the Corporation's practice, because there was no error apparent on the record and there can be no estoppel against statutory rules. The review petitions therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, the State Government could modify the proposed development control rule while according sanction and add the words restricting use of TDR to the same plot. (ii) Whether the earlier judgment could be reviewed on the ground that the Corporation had acted differently for a period and that promissory estoppel should prevent enforcement of the later interpretation.

Issue (i): Whether, under Section 37 of the Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966, the State Government could modify the proposed development control rule while according sanction and add the words restricting use of TDR to the same plot.

Analysis: The sanctioning power under Section 37(2) is expressed in clear terms and permits the State Government to sanction a modification with or without changes and on such conditions as it deems fit, or to refuse sanction. The provision does not require a fresh public notice or hearing at the stage of sanction. The development control rules, framed under statutory authority, have the force of law, and the State Government was therefore competent to alter the proposal while granting sanction. The earlier view that the State lacked such power was held to be unsustainable.

Conclusion: The State Government was competent to introduce the additional words while sanctioning the modification, and the challenge to that power fails.

Issue (ii): Whether the earlier judgment could be reviewed on the ground that the Corporation had acted differently for a period and that promissory estoppel should prevent enforcement of the later interpretation.

Analysis: Review lies only where there is a material error apparent on the face of the record or a similar grave defect. The Court found no such error in the earlier judgment. It also reiterated that development control rules framed under statutory power operate as law, and there can be no estoppel against a statute. The fact that the Corporation had earlier sanctioned some constructions on a different understanding could not justify review of the final judgment.

Conclusion: No ground for review was made out, and the plea based on promissory estoppel was rejected.

Final Conclusion: The review petitions failed on merits, and the earlier judgment stood undisturbed, with only the recorded assurance regarding already sanctioned constructions in specified categories.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute expressly authorises sanction of a proposed modification with or without changes, the sanctioning authority may lawfully alter the proposal while granting approval, and statutory rules cannot be displaced by promissory estoppel.

---