Statutory finality of a town planning scheme bars extra FSI or TDR unless the scheme expressly provides it.

A finally sanctioned town planning scheme with statutory finality prevails over the general development control regulations. Where the scheme regulations and special provisions do not provide for transfer of development rights or additional FSI in lieu of compensation, those benefits cannot be claimed under general enabling provisions. State directions, correspondence, or a pending application do not create an enforceable right when they are conditional or not communicated as a binding decision. The legal position is that the scheme, once sanctioned, binds the parties, and any claim for additional development benefit must arise expressly from the scheme or the statute.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the appellants were entitled to additional FSI or TDR under the 1991 Development Control Regulations in respect of land covered by a finally sanctioned town planning scheme. (ii) Whether the State Government's directions, the correspondence exchanged between the parties, or the pending application created any enforceable right to such benefit notwithstanding the final scheme and the Arbitrator's award.

Issue (i): Whether the appellants were entitled to additional FSI or TDR under the 1991 Development Control Regulations in respect of land covered by a finally sanctioned town planning scheme.

Analysis: The statutory scheme under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 gave finality to the Arbitrator's award and to the Tribunal's decision, and the final scheme came into force only upon sanction under Section 86. Regulation 1(2) of the 1991 Regulations expressly provided that, in case of conflict, the scheme regulations would prevail in areas included in a finally sanctioned town planning scheme. The scheme itself, reinforced by Special Regulation No. 8, did not provide for TDR in lieu of compensation for the relevant original plots. The general enabling provisions in Regulations 33 and 34 and Appendix VII did not override the special scheme provisions.

Conclusion: The appellants were not entitled to claim additional FSI or TDR under the 1991 Regulations.

Issue (ii): Whether the State Government's directions, the correspondence exchanged between the parties, or the pending application created any enforceable right to such benefit notwithstanding the final scheme and the Arbitrator's award.

Analysis: The directions issued by the State were conditional and could not override the statute or the regulations. The correspondence between the parties did not mature into a binding and communicated decision conferring a legal right. The appellants, therefore, at best had a claim for consideration, not an accrued enforceable entitlement. Once the final scheme was sanctioned, the award and the scheme bound the parties, and subsequent equities could not displace the statutory position.

Conclusion: No enforceable right arose from the governmental directions, correspondence, or pending claim.

Final Conclusion: The statutory finality of the town planning scheme prevailed over the appellants' claim for additional development benefits, and no relief could be granted contrary to the scheme and the governing regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a special town planning scheme has attained statutory finality, its scheme regulations prevail over general development regulations, and no additional FSI or TDR can be claimed unless the scheme itself or the statute expressly creates such a right.

---