Supreme Court Judgment | Writ Jurisdiction & Town Planning

Supreme Court Holds High Court Should Not Have Dismissed Writ Petitions Merely for Delay and Laches

In Kukreja Construction Company & Ors. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., the Supreme Court held that the Bombay High Court was not justified in rejecting certain writ petitions solely on the ground of delay and laches where the petitioners sought implementation of the Court's earlier ruling on additional FSI/TDR for amenities constructed on surrendered land.

Background of the dispute

The writ petitioners held plots shown as reserved in the sanctioned development plan under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 for Development Plan Roads.

According to the petitioners, they constructed the Development Plan Roads at their own cost and voluntarily surrendered the reserved lands to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. In return, they were granted FSI and/or TDR in the form of Development Rights Certificates equal to the gross area of the land surrendered.

Additional FSI/TDR for construction of amenities

Under the then-prevailing Para 6 of Appendix VII to the DCR 1991, where an owner or lessee also developed or constructed an amenity on the surrendered plot at his own cost and handed over the completed amenity to the Municipal Commissioner, additional development rights were contemplated for the construction or development undertaken.

Circulars dated 9 April 1996 and 5 April 2003 had limited such additional development rights to 15 per cent and later 25 per cent of the area of the Development Plan Road constructed by the owner or lessee.

Effect of Godrej & Boyce decision

In Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 5 SCC 24, the Supreme Court interpreted the expression "equivalent" in Para 6 of Appendix VII and held that an owner or lessee who constructed the amenity at its own cost was entitled to FSI/TDR equivalent to 100 per cent of the area of the amenity constructed, rather than merely 15 or 25 per cent.

The writ petitioners later claimed that they were entitled to the balance additional TDR in accordance with that ruling.

2016 amendment to Regulation 34

By notification dated 16 November 2016, Regulation 34 of the DCR was amended and Appendix VII was substantially altered. This led to disputes over whether the amendment could operate retrospectively or retroactively against rights that had already accrued under the earlier regulatory regime.

Why delay and laches became an issue

Some of the writ petitions were dismissed by the Bombay High Court on the ground that the petitioners had approached the Court after substantial delay. The petitioners argued that their claims arose from the Supreme Court's authoritative interpretation of the DCR in Godrej & Boyce and that similarly situated parties had already received relief.

Supreme Court's decision on delay and laches

The Supreme Court held that the Bombay High Court was not right in dismissing the writ petitions on the ground of delay and laches. The relevant portions of the High Court order were therefore set aside.

The Court directed the Mumbai Municipal Corporation to consider the cases of the writ petitioners in light of the earlier judgments in Godrej & Boyce and release the balance FSI/TDR found due.

The Supreme Court concluded that the writ petitions could not, in the facts of the case, be shut out solely for delay and laches when the petitioners sought implementation of the legal position already declared by the Court.

Special direction in Kukreja Construction appeal

In the case of Kukreja Construction Company and the other appellants in the lead appeal, the Municipal Corporation was directed first to examine the nature of the amenities constructed and then consider the claim for additional FSI/TDR.

The Supreme Court directed that the exercise be completed as expeditiously as possible and within three months from the date of the judgment.

Municipal Corporation's connected appeals

The Supreme Court found no merit in the three connected appeals filed by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. It upheld the reasoning of the High Court on the merits in those matters and directed release of the balance FSI/TDR in accordance with the earlier Supreme Court rulings.

Legal significance of the judgment

The judgment does not create a general rule that delay can never defeat a writ petition. Delay and laches remain relevant discretionary considerations in proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution.

Its significance lies in the Court's application of that doctrine to the particular facts before it: where the claim involved implementation of a legal entitlement already clarified by binding Supreme Court precedent and similarly situated claims had been adjudicated, the High Court ought not to have rejected the petitions solely on delay.

Final directions

The civil appeals filed by the writ petitioners were allowed to the extent indicated by the Supreme Court. The portions of the High Court order dated 18 December 2018 dismissing the petitions for delay and laches were set aside, and the Mumbai Municipal Corporation was directed to reconsider and release balance FSI/TDR in accordance with the governing judgments.

The connected appeals filed by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation were dismissed.

Last reviewed and legally updated: 5 September 2026.