27-WP-6714-2010.DOC Rekha Patil IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6714 OF 2010 Balaji Promoters And Developers …Petitioner Versus State of Maharashtra and Anr. …Respondents Mr. Anil Anturkar, Senior Advocate a/w Niranjan Bhavake, Drishti Madhani, Swamini Thakur, Anurag Ramekar i/b Niranjan Bhavake, for the Petitioner. Ms. Kavita N. Solunke, Addl. G. P. with Ms. M. P. Thakur, AGP, for the Respondent No.1-State. Mr. Deepak R. More a/w Shivram Gawade, for the Respondent No.2. CORAM: SUMAN SHYAM & S. M. MODAK, JJ. DATED: 4th DECEMBER, 2025. PC:- 1. Heard Mr. Anturkar, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Niranjan Bhavake, appearing for the Writ Petitioner. Also heard Mr. More, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2 and Ms. Solunke, learned Addl. G. P. appearing for the Respondent No.1-State. 2. The Petitioner was the owner of the land bearing Survey No. 310/19 (part), situated at Pimpri, Taluka Haveli, District-Pune. The said plot of land was reserved by the Respondent No.2 for play ground vide Reservation No. 173. Page 1 of 3 4th December, 2025 REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Digitally signed by REKHA PRAKASH PATIL Date: 2025.12.05 11:09:32 +0530 27-WP-6714-2010.DOC 3. It is the case of the Petitioner that as per the DCR, the Petitioner was entitled to 1.0 TDR index, which was to be utilized on some other property. However, by the impugned order dated 2nd August, 2010, only 0.5 TDR index was granted to the Petitioner by withholding the balance, thus, depriving the Petitioner of the full TDR, as applicable in this case. 4. By referring to the materials on record, Mr. Anturkar, learned Senior Advocate has argued that by the own showing of the Respondent No.2, as projected in the affidavit, other similarly situated plots were given 1.0 TDR, whereas, in case of Petitioner, only 0.5 TDR has been allocated. 5. It is also the submission of Mr. Anturkar that the minor modification, relied upon by the Respondent No.2, has been declined by the General Body of the Corporation and, therefore, the TDR Committee was not justified in law, to continue with its recommendation of withholding the balance portion of TDR, to which the Petitioner is legally entitled to. By highlighting the long lapse of time since 0.5 TDR was allocated to the Petitioner. Mr. Anturkar has argued that this is a fit case where a direction ought to be issued to the Respondent No.2 to allocate the balance TDR to the Petitioner without any further delay. 6. Mr. More, learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent No.2, has controverted the submissions made by by the Petitioner’s Counsel by contending that there were genuine reasons for withholding the balance TDR. He submits that such grounds have been disclosed in the Affidavit-in-Reply. However, the learned Counsel has submitted in his usual fairness, that in view of the 4th December, 2025 27-WP-6714-2010.DOC rejection of the minor modification by the General Body, the Corporation would have to take a final decision on the balance portion of the TDR, as may be applicable to the Petitioner, under the relevant DCR. 7. After hearing the arguments made at the bar, we are of the view that the Petitioner has made out a good case for issuing direction to consider its claim for allocation of the balance TDR as per the norms existing on the date on which the land was reserved. It appears from the record that the adjoining plots have been allocated 1.0 TDR. Therefore, denying similar treatment to the Petitioner, in our considered opinion, would amount to violation of rights of the Petitioner guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 8. We, therefore, quash and set aside the impugned order dated 2nd August, 2010 (Exh. ‘T’ to the Writ Petition). The matter is remanded back to the Respondent No.2, with a direction to consider the entitlement of the Petitioner for allocating the balance 0.5 TDR, in the light of the observations made herein above, by taking note of the DCR applicable on the relevant date. Necessary order in respect thereof be issued by the Respondent No.2, as expeditiously as possible, but not later than eight weeks from today. 9. The Writ Petition stands disposed of accordingly. (S. M. MODAK, J.) (SUMAN SHYAM, J.) { 4th December, 2025