PMC must issue TDR after correcting revenue records for surrendered land under UDPCR-2034.

The Petitioner had surrendered 6,889.13 sq. metres from Survey Nos. 127/2A/1, 127/2A/2 and 127/2B, situated at Dhayari, Taluka Haveli, District Pune, as shown in the layout dated 15 May 2013, and the surrendered land was in the possession of the Pune Municipal Corporation (“PMC”).

The Petitioner sought issuance of Transferable Development Rights (“TDR”) in the form of a Development Rights Certificate (“DRC”), instead of monetary compensation, without insisting upon mutation of the relevant 7/12 extract in favour of PMC.

PMC stated that it had no substantive objection to granting TDR, but the revenue records continued to show a portion of the surrendered land in the name of the Pune Metropolitan Region Development Authority (“PMRDA”), necessitating correction of the records to reflect PMC’s name.

The Petitioner’s interim prayers for provisional release of the DRC and for processing the claim on the basis of the existing PMRDA mutation were not pressed when the matter was taken up for final hearing.

1. Whether the Petitioner was entitled to issuance of TDR/DRC in respect of the surrendered land, despite the revenue records continuing to show PMRDA rather than PMC as the relevant holder.

2. Whether the revenue records should first be corrected to reflect transfer of the surrendered portion from PMRDA to PMC, and whether PMC should thereafter issue the TDR/DRC.

The Court applied the statutory and administrative framework governing TDR and DRC, under which TDR may be granted in lieu of monetary compensation for land surrendered for public purposes.

It directed that the grant of TDR be considered in accordance with the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 (“UDPCR-2034”).

The Court further applied the principle that accurate revenue records identifying the concerned public authority are a necessary administrative prerequisite for processing and issuing the DRC; accordingly, the records had to be corrected from PMRDA to PMC before issuance of the certificate.

No judicial precedent was cited or relied upon.

The Court found that the Petitioner had elected to accept TDR instead of monetary compensation and that PMC had no objection to granting the benefit.

The only impediment was the discrepancy in the revenue records, which continued to record PMRDA in respect of part of the surrendered land, although the land was in PMC’s possession.

Rather than direct immediate issuance of the DRC on the basis of incorrect records, the Court required PMRDA to ensure correction of the revenue entries in favour of PMC within 30 days.

Once the records were corrected, PMC was directed to issue the TDR certificate within a further 30 days, subject to consideration of the proposal under UDPCR-2034.

This resolved the administrative objection while preserving compliance with the applicable development regulations.

PMRDA was directed to ensure that the surrendered portion recorded in its name was shown as transferred to PMC in the revenue records within 30 days from the judgment.

PMC was thereafter directed to issue the TDR/DRC to the Petitioner within 30 days of correction of the records, with the proposal to be considered under UDPCR-2034.

The interim prayers in clauses (c) and (d) were not pressed, and Rule was made partly absolute.