Mumbai, Feb 07: The Bombay High Court has ruled that a property owner cannot claim rights over flats constructed on a separate parcel of land merely because transferable development rights (TDR) generated from a disputed property were used there, clarifying the legal character of TDR and limiting the scope of civil suits involving such rights.
Trial court order partly set aside
Justice Sandeep Marne, in an order dated February 3 — made available late Friday night — partly set aside a Thane trial court’s decision that had allowed adjoining landowners to be added as defendants in a long-pending civil suit and permitted amendments seeking ownership claims over flats built on their land.
Dispute over land and generation of TDR
The dispute stems from a civil suit in which the plaintiff, Vinod Anand, claims ownership over land bearing Survey No. 29/6 in Thane. A substantial portion of this land — 7,964.67 square metres of the total 12,538.29 square metres — was surrendered to the municipal corporation under a development reservation, generating TDR in favour of a developer.
TDR used on neighbouring land
That TDR was later used for construction on neighbouring land owned by the petitioners, Abdul Aziz Bharmar, who had independently granted development rights to the same developer in exchange for constructed units.
Claim over flats challenged
Arguing that the flats built using the TDR were linked to the disputed land, Anand sought to implead the neighbouring landowners and claim rights over 41 flats allotted to them. The trial court permitted this, prompting the landowners to approach the High Court.
Court examines legal nature of TDR
Calling the matter an “interesting issue,” Justice Marne examined whether the use of TDR on another property creates a transferable ownership interest connected to the original land. The court answered in the negative, holding that once TDR is separated from land, its legal character changes.
“When TDR is detached from a piece of land and utilised on another piece of land, it loses the characteristic of immovable property and also loses connection with the land in respect of which the same is generated,” the judge observed.
Proper remedy lies against developer
The court stressed that “mere utilisation of TDR generated out of part of the suit property cannot be a reason for impleadment of the owner of the land on which such TDR is loaded.” If Anand believes the TDR was wrongly used, the proper remedy would be to seek recovery of its monetary value from the developer, and not to pursue ownership claims against third-party landowners.
Impleadment quashed, suit partly continues
Rejecting the claim over the 41 flats, the court noted that these units were allotted as contractual consideration for development rights granted by the adjoining landowners and were not directly traceable to the disputed TDR.
Also Watch:
Holding that the trial court had erred in law, the High Court quashed the impleadment of Bharmar and barred amendments concerning their property, while allowing the remaining aspects of the suit to continue.
To get details on exclusive and budget-friendly property deals in Mumbai & surrounding regions, do visit: https://budgetproperties.in/
