The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd; at Naville House, Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400038 Vs The Monitoring Committee, The State of Maharashtra, The Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai, Mahapalika Marg, Mumbai-400 001 and Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Griha Nirman Bhavan, Bandra (E), Mumbai-400 051 <BR> Girni Kamgar Karmchari Niwara and Kalyankari Sangh Vs The Monitoring Committee and Others

Mohit S. Shah, C.J.@mdashThe petitioner in the first Writ Petition No. 977 of 2010, Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Limited (the Textile- Company or the Company) has two properties in the City of Mumbai viz.

(i) Textile Mill at Prabhadevi in Lower, and

(ii) Spring Mills at Dadar Naigaon in Wadala.

The land upon which the Mills are situate is free-hold land belonging to the Company. Spring Mills at Dadar was closed after obtaining necessary permission of the Commissioner of Labour, Maharashtra State vide order dated 25 November 2004 u/s 25-O(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("I.D. Act").

Since the lands of the Company were permitted to be used for running cotton textile mills, i.e. industrial user, ordinarily the lands could not have been used for development or redevelopment for commercial or residential purpose. However, several cotton textile mills in Mumbai were sick and/or closed and they were desirous of going for development or redevelopment of lands for commercial and/or residential user for generating funds. Similarly, the cotton textile mills which claimed that they wanted to go for modernization on the same lands also required funds for such modernisation and, therefore, they were desirous of using a substantial part of their lands for putting up constructions for commercial/residential user.

2. Development of land and use of land included in the development plans for the city of Greater Bombay are regulated by provisions of Chapter IV of Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 with the title "Control of Development for Use of Land included in Development Plans". There is no dispute about the fact that the lands of the two textile mills of the company in Mumbai are covered by the development plan made as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (the MRTP Act). In exercise of the powers conferred by the MRTP Act, the State Government has made the `Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991'' (''DCR''). These regulations apply to the construction activity and development work in the areas of the entire jurisdiction of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

3. The State of Maharashtra added Regulation 58 in the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 with a view to deal with the situation arising out of closure and/or unavailability of various cotton textile mills The deteriorating condition of the textile units and need to have open green spaces for public purpose and public housing/ housing for mill workers prompted the Government to have policy to free open mill lands for development and/or redevelopment. Under this policy, the cotton textile mills which were sick and/or closed or wanted to go for modernization were to be granted permission for development and/or redevelopment of its lands for commercial and/or residential user, subject to the condition that after excluding the lands occupied by the existing built up area (and also after excluding the lands becoming open upon demolition of the built up area which was in existence on the date of coming into force of Regulation 58), the remaining open lands would be shared with Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) for public housing/mill workers'' housing and with the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai for open green spaces like recreation grounds/ gardens/ play grounds.

4. As far as the lands of the petitioner textile-company are concerned, there is no dispute that after excluding the lands which had existing built up areas on the date of coming into force of Regulation 58, the Company has to share the remaining open lands of the textile mills at Prabhadevi (Lower ) and Spring Mill at Dadar, Wadala in the following proportion with MHADA and the Municipal Corporation:-

(Figures in sq.meters rounded off.)

5. The Textile-company accordingly submitted the lay out plans to the Planning Authority i.e. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai (`Municipal Corporation'') in respect of the lands of both the textile mills. The lay out plans were approved by the Municipal Corporation on 25.8.2005. As far as the lay out in respect of lands of Spring Mills at Dadar is concerned, it was subsequently amended and the amendment was approved on 16.12.2010. The company also applied to the Municipal Corporation for approval of the plans for constructing buildings with built up area 76,878 sq.mtrs. for commercial/residential user on the land of the textile mill at Prabhadevi (Lower ) and buildings with built up area of 1,29,199 sq.mtrs. for residential user on the land of Spring Mill at Dadar (Wadala). The Municipal Corporation also granted approvals as per the details given in the chart reproduced hereinafter.

6. Sub-regulation (9) of Regulation 58 of DCR provides for constitution of Monitoring Committee to oversee the due implementation of schemes for development or redevelopment of the lands of cotton textile mills sanctioned under Regulation 58. A retired High Court Judge is to be the Chairman of the Committee, with one representative each of the cotton textile mill owners, recognised trade union of cotton textile mill workers, the Commissioner and the Government as members. Accordingly, the Monitoring Committee headed by a retired High Court Judge is constituted.

7. At its 99th meeting held on 29 January 2010, when the Monitoring Committee called upon the representative of the company to state about the management''s commitment to surrender the land earmarked for the workers housing as well as recreation ground, the committee was informed that the management was ready to hand over necessary land, but they had submitted necessary plans which were yet to be approved. When inquired from the concerned officer of the Municipal Corporation, the Committee was informed that so far (29 January 2010) no such amended plans were received. The Monitoring committee then gave certain directions. The reasons for giving the directions and the directions are as under:-

Govt. of Maharashtra, Urban Development Department has already issued directives u/s 37(1) of M.R.& T.P.Act, 1966 to the Corporation to initiate modification of Regulation 58(1)(b) so that the lands earmarked for MHADA and R.G. could be handed over to the concerned Authority immediately after approval of layout. The formal procedure for the modification is going to take considerable time. However, the intention of the Govt. is clear from the directions that the concerned mills should hand over the lands earmarked for MHADA & R.G. after approval of their layouts. In the present case before starting the construction on both the properties already layouts have been submitted and both the layouts have been approved, in pursuance of which construction has also started. Therefore, in pursuance of the spirit of the directions given by the State Govt. there should be no difficulty for the Bombay Dyeing Units to hand over the respective portions earmarked to workers housing to MHADA and R.G. to MCGM shown in the 2 approved layouts. The Monitoring Committee, therefore, gives the direction that Bombay Dyeing Management should immediately hand over the earmarked lands in the respective layouts of the two units immediately without any further delay. Both MCGM as well as MHADA will start immediate action for taking advance possession after getting an undertaking from the Management to complete other formalities.

(emphasis supplied)

8. At the next meeting of the Managing Committee i.e. 100th Meeting held on 16 February 2010, the company submitted that it was not bound to hand over possession of the lands earmarked for the MHADA and the Municipal Corporation until the company crosses the limit of existing built up area + 30% of the balance FSI as stipulated under DCR 58(2). The Monitoring Committee did not accept the company''s contention and observed that on the one hand there is no progress so far as the workers housing is concerned, whereas the permitted construction on the company''s share of the land is going on which appears to be incongruous. The Monitoring Committee decided to issue stop work notice at both the places of the company for stopping the development work. The Monitoring Committee also noted thus:-

Last meeting Mr.Gunaji submitted that after amended plans are approved, land will be handed over to MCGM and MHADA. However, no such amended plans are submitted. Today, totally different plea is taken. Govt. has also issued order for changing the rule. It may take time. But, some urgency is necessary for solving the problem in totality and hence the stop work notice should be issued at both the places stopping the development of the work.

9. Accordingly, the Municipal Corporation issued stop work notice dated 26 March 2010 (Exhibit "V") calling upon the company to stop all the construction activities on the sites at Dadar Naigaon Division, Wadala as well as at Prabhadevi, Lower. The said decision of the Monitoring Committee and the stop work notice issued by the Municipal Corporation are challenged by the petitioner-company in Writ Petition No.977 of 2010 under Article 226 of the Constitution filed on 6 April 2010.

10. Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1134 of 2010 is filed by one of the Unions of Workmen of the two Mills of the textile company with a prayer that the company be directed to surrender the lands as per the ratio laid down in Regulation 58(1)(b) for public housing/mill workers'' housing to MHADA and to the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai for open green spaces.

11. Before proceeding further, we may refer to the Government Notification dated 24 August 2010. We may note that the modification of Regulation referred to in the minutes of the Monitoring Committee held on 29 January 2010 and 16 February 2010 was to the proposal contemplated for modification of DCR 58. After consulting the Director of Town Planning Maharashtra State and the suggestions and objections received on the said modification proposal by the Municipal Corporation, the State Government issued Notification dated 24 August 2010 u/s 37(1) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act,1966. The preamble to the Notification, inter alia, stated as under:-

And whereas, it has been brought to the notice of the Government that the cotton textile mills are closed but the lands which are required to be handed over to MHADA and MCGM under Regulation 58(1)(b) of the said modified Regulations are not made available for the required purposes.

The Notification then added the following Note VII to Regulation 58(1)

(b):-

(VII) Notwithstanding any thing above, the layout of mill land shall be submitted by the mill owner within six months of closure of the mill or within six months of this notification whichever is later and the lands earmarked for MHADA and Recreation Ground shall be handed over to the concerned Authority immediately after the approval of layout.

Contentions of the Textile-company

12. Mr. N.H.Seervai, learned senior counsel with Ms. Meena Doshi for the Textile-company has raised the following contentions :-

(i) The respondent authorities are invoking provisions of Regulation 58(1)(b) which apply to sick or closed textile mills but the petitioner company was granted permission for redevelopment of both the mills under Regulation 58(2) read with Regulation 58(6) of the DCR;

(ii) Regulation 58(2) specifically provides that with regard to the utilization of the existing built-up area, Regulation 58(1)(a) will apply. Therefore, if a party constructs/develops the land to the extent of existing built-up area and no more, Regulation 58(1)(b) itself is wholly inapplicable and consequently the question of applying Note-7 to Regulation 58(1)(b) to such a case cannot arise.

(iii) DCR 58(2) expressly provides " ..... ..... ......, if the development of open lands and balance FSI exceeds 30 per cent of the open land and balance FSI, the provisions of clause (b) of sub-regulation (1) of this Regulation shall apply.

Hence, the question of applying Regulation 58(1)(b) will arise only if and after the development of open land and balance FSI exceeds 30% of the open land and balance FSI. The expression "open land" has already been interpreted by the Apex Court in Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Others, as excluding the land available after demolition of the existing structure. The reports submitted by the Municipal Corporation on 30 January 2012 and 2 March 1012 make it clear that the construction put up by the company so far has not even reached the "existing built-up area" (BUA) i.e. to the extent of the structures which were demolished;

(iv) The judgment of Apex Court in the company''s own case cited above is a complete answer to the contentions being raised by the respondents. The Apex Court interpreted not only Regulation 58(1)(a) and (b) but also Regulation 58(2) of DCR.. Several owners of mills which moved the Apex Court were private textile mills which cases admittedly fall under Regulation 58(2) including the company and the Ruby Mills. In view of the judgment of the Apex Court, the issue has become res-judicata and the respondents are estopped from reopening or reagitating those issues;

(v) Similar issue was raised by the company in Writ Petition No.379 of 2009. When the said petition came up for hearing on 25 February 2009, this Court required the respondent authorities to decide the company''s representation. By letter dated 27 February 2009, the Urban Development Department of the State Government had replied in favour of the companyrelevant portion of which reads as under :

The regulation clearly states that the modernization of the lands of cotton textile mills the provisions of sharing of land to MHADA/MCGM/ under DCR 58(i)(b) will apply only when the development of open lands and balance FSI exceeds 30 percent of open land and balance FSI. As per the say of MCGM the development in petitioner''s land at both their units at Lower and Wadala is within the limit of existing built-up area plus 30% of balance FSI. Therefore, strictly as per the provisions of DCR 58(2) the petitioner is not obliged, at the present stage to hand over the land to MHADA/MCGM.

(vi) In the affidavit dated 17 April 2010 filed by the Assistant Engineer of the Municipal Corporation, a reference is made to the following statement:-

As the above said limit is not yet cross over, the developer is not liable to hand over share of lands to MCGM and MHADA at this stage.

(vii) In the affidavit of Ms. Elezabeth Saji Joseph, dated 27.2.2012 there is a report dated 14.2.2012 of the Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) City I and Executive Engineer (Building Proposal) City II of the Municipal Corporation wherein it is stated as under:-

19. Modernization of the Mill.

The regulation clearly states that in the modernization of the lands of cotton textile mills, the provisions of sharing of land to MHADA/MCGM under D.C.Regn.58(1)(b) will apply only when the development of open lands and balance F.S.I. exceed 30 percent of open land and balance F.S.I. As per the say of M.C.G.M., the development in units at Lower and Wadala is within the limit of existing built up area plus 30% of balance F.S.I. and hence question of handing over M.C.G.M. and MHADA share does not arise at this stage.

(viii) Once the State Government and the Municipal Corporation had also taken the same stand, it is not open to the respondents now to contend that the petitioner should surrender any land before petitioner completes construction on 30% open land and balance FSI;

Submissions on behalf of Respondents

13. Mr. Pakale, learned Counsel with Ms.Sharmila Modale for the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and Mr.Mattos, learned Counsel for MHADA have made the following submissions:-

(a) The expression "Development" in Regulations 58(1) and 58(2) cannot be read in isolation. Since Development Control Regulations are made in exercise of powers u/s 37 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act (`MRTP Act'' for brevity), the expressions used in the DCR have to be read in light of the definitions of the relevant expressions "development" and "development right" in clauses (7) and (9A) of Section 2 of the MRTP Act. As per the said definitions, "development" includes making layout and demolition of existing structures.

(b) In view of the above, the provisions of Regulations 58(1) and 58(2) apply as soon as the land owner submits lay-out plans which requires a plan to be submitted disclosing a statement indicating the total area of the site area utilised under roads, open spaces for parks, playgrounds, recreation spaces and development plan designations, reservations and other public places [DCR Regulation 5(3)(v)(f)]. A person is also required to furnish a separate building plan which he proposes to construct [Regulation 5(3)(vi) (6)]. A lay-out has to be approved prior to commencement of the construction of the buildings. It is for this reason that the amendment to the Development Control Regulations by Government Notification dated 24 August 2010 specifically provides that notwithstanding anything in Regulation 58(1), the layout of mill land shall be submitted by the mill owner within six months of closure of the mill or within six months of this notification, whichever is later and the lands earmarked for MHADA and Recreation Ground shall be handed over to the concerned authority immediately after the approval of layout.

(c) The owner is required to make an application for obtaining development permission under Regulation 5. The said application amounts to a representation made to the planning authority by disclosing various facts and information as required therein. In the said application, the information is also required to be provided in the form of plans. The said plans are in the nature of - (a) layout plan and (b) building plans. The layout plan discloses the various designations as are required to be maintained in accordance with Regulations. The same amounts to an acceptance by the applicant of the different parcels of land earmarked by the applicant himself and approved by the planing authority - land for MHADA (for public housing/mill workers housing), land for MCGM (for open green spaces) and land to be developed by the Textile Mill Co. itself.

(d) On receipt of the approval of the layout, the owner is required to give notice to start construction. Thus, it amounts to acceptance of the approval granted under Regulation 5 on the basis of representations made by the applicant;

(e) In the present case, the layout plan is submitted by the applicant on 1 May 2005. The same is approved in April 2007. The petitioner clearly earmarked and designated the areas to be handed over to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and/or to MHADA referable to 58(1)(b). On the basis of such representations and the plans, the layout is approved. It, therefore, necessarily means that the applicant/Textile-company has taken into consideration the totality of the development proposed by it on site and on that basis the information is provided in the form of representations. The Textile-company has thus taken into consideration, the applicability by reference of Regulation 58(1)(b) into Regulation 58(2) and has shown the areas earmarked for recreation ground and for public housing and has obtained the sanctions on such representations. The same is, therefore, necessarily on the assumption that it would be utilising the FSI on the open land beyond 30% as provided therein. Thus, on sanction of such layout, right is vested in Textile-company to utilise the development potential to the extent of more than 30% in accordance with Regulation 58, a corresponding right is simultaneously vested in the appropriate authority/ planning authority to receive, the areas earmarked for them. Thus, reaching the 30% limit is not at all dependent on the actual construction by the developer. The same is triggered at the inception when the sanction of the layout is obtained on the basis of representation by proposing such development. The owner was entitled at that time not to show such designations and retain it below 30%. The layout in such case could be different and as and when the owner proposes a development by involving 30% or more, the layout could have been altered at that stage. Having proposed the layout in this fashion, the owner itself had accepted a position about the designation in accordance with law. Thus, the planning authority is vested with the right to take possession simultaneously with the owner who is vested with the right to develop in accordance with the Regulation.

(f) In the facts of the case, in addition to what is stated hereinabove, the Company has obtained the sanction for layout plans, the Company has also obtained the sanction for building plans involving development on open lands and FSI of more than 30%. Therefore, the Textile-company cannot be allowed to argue that it will first construct at its own pace and then hand over the earmarked reserved areas after years, if not decades.

14. Mr. I. A. Sayed, learned counsel appearing for workmen union for Girni Kamgar Karmachari Niwara Kalyankari Sangh- petitioner in writ petition (L) No.1134 of 2010 has made the following submissions:-

(i) Since the company''s Spring Mill in Dadar, Naigaon Division is completely closed and the Labour Commissioner has also by order dated 29 November 2004 granted permission for closure u/s 25-O of the ID Act, 1947, the lands of the said mill are out of the purview of DCR 58(2) and the said lands are necessarily covered by DCR 58(1)(b).

(ii) If at all, the petitioner-company can invoke the arguments under Regulation 58 (2), it can only be in respect of its land at Lower but even at Lower, it is claiming that its new bleach works is working. Even at the 95th Meeting of the Monitoring Committee held on 2 July 2009, grievance was made on behalf of the workers that the main purpose for granting permission under Regulation 58(2) was modernization of textile unit but admittedly, only 67 workers were there in the textile unit and, thus, the very purpose of granting the development permission for modernization was defeated and on that ground alone, the permission for development deserved to be revoked. The reality is only idle wages are paid to about 67 workers to make believe that the textile mill at Prabhadevi (Lower Parel) is working but in reality only 7 workers are working on age old looms and it cannot be considered as a textile mill.

(iii) The very fact that out of total 1,238 sq.mtrs. of built up area which the petitioner company had at Prabhadevi (Lower ), the company has chosen to retain only about 10,000 sq.mtrs. of land for its so called industrial activity to be modernized, it is clear that the company does not really intend to go for modernization.

(iv) Respondent No.5 (petitioner in Writ Petition No.977 of 2010) i.e. Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Ltd. be called upon to state on the basis of its Annual Reports whether any modernization is going on.

(v) Consequently, the textile-company i.e. the petitioner in Writ Petition No.977 of 2010- Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. is bound to hand over the following areas of land to MHADA and to the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai as indicated in its layout plans approved by the Planning Authority under Regulation 58 and which are also indicated in the table in para 295 of the judgment dated 7 March 2006 of the Supreme Court in the case of this very petitioner-company reported in Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Others,

(vi) In case Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd. does not hand over possession of the above lands as earmarked in the layout approved by the Planning Authority, the MCGM and MHADA are entitled to hand over possession of such lands as indicated in the above table. 16 Of 61

15. Mr.S.K.Singhvi, learned Counsel with Ms.Jane Cox and Ms.Gayatri Singh appearing for interveners-Workmen have made the following submissions :-

I. Historical background of Regulation 58

(i) The Development Control Regulations, 1991 effected a general de- industrialization of the city of Mumbai under regulations 56 and 57 by allowing the industrial lands to be freely used for commercial and residential purposes except for land of Cotton Textile Mills, which covered almost 600 acres in the City of Mumbai;

(ii) Regulation 58 gave the same rights to cotton textile mills but with a restriction that in certain circumstances lands would be surrendered for environmentally friendly open spaces and for public housing. Hence, DCR 58 was not framed to give benefits to owners of cotton textile mills but rather to restrict their rights for redevelopment in comparison to other industries in Mumbai. There are historical and geographical reasons for this- the most important being that cotton textiles mills accounted for almost 600 acres in F and G Wards which are in the heart of Mumbai;

(iii) Regulation 57(1) was brought in 2000 which allowed all industrial lands to build offices. Regulation 57(a) was applicable even to cotton textile mills. In 2001 and after many valiant struggles of the cotton textile workers for re-opening of the mills and other benefits the government amended DCR 58 to reserve 50% of the land reserved for public housing for textile workers purely. It may be true that the 2001 amendment to DCR 58 gave further incentive to the owners of cotton textiles mills as compared to the original DCR 58 of 1991; however, the benefits of owners of cotton textile mills were still more restricted as compared to development rights available to owners of other industries. In this background, provisions of DCR 58 ought to be considered;

II. Difference between Regulation 58(1) and Regulation 58(2) : Since, by 2001, many of the mills in Mumbai had either closed down or been declared sick, the primary provision i.e. DCR 58(1) dealt with closed or sick cotton textile mills. The secondary provision i.e. 58(2) dealt with mills which were not closed or sick but which required modernization on the same land. The workers (interveners) submit that the basic reason why sub regulation (2) was separately made in Regulation 58 was that even those mill owners whose mills were not closed or sick but who wished to modernize on the same land would not escape the restriction of DCR 58, i.e. the requirement to surrender 2/3rd of the open land to the city. Sub regulation (3) of Regulation 58 further clarifies that cotton textile mills were to be encouraged to shift outside Mumbai. Hence, it is clear that the main purpose of Regulation 58(2) is to make sure that the share of the city is not evaded by the owner of the cotton textile mills.

III. Construction of Regulation 58(2) : Regulation 58(2) states that the condition that land will be surrendered to the city in accordance with Regulation 58(1) if 30% of the open land and balance FSI is developed is a condition governing the permission to be granted by the Commissioner. As such the condition must be held to be a pre-condition to granting permission;

IV. Applicability of Note-7 to Regulation 58(2) :

(a) Note-7 is merely explanatory. It does not amend the law but merely explains the position as it stood before hand. This is clear from the notification which brought Note-7 as an amendment to Regulation 58(1);

(b) In any case, Regulation 58(2) is an example of legislation by reference. Many judgments of the Apex Court have held that in the case of legislation by reference (as contrasted with legislation by incorporation), an amendment to the Act referred to will also act as an amendment to the referring Act. Hence, even if Note-7 were to be taken as an amendment to regulation 58(1), it would still become applicable to Regulation 58(2). The reference in Regulation 58(2) to the provisions of Regulation 58(1)(b) is by way of legislation by reference and not legislation by incorporation. Relying on the decision of Apex Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. M.V.Narasimhan (AIR-1975-SC-1835), it is submitted that the amendment to Regulation 58(1)(b) by insertion of Note-7 has to be read into provisions of Regulation 58(2) as well.

(c) The object of making the above amendment is also specifically indicated in the notification in the following words :-

AND WHEREAS it has been brought to the notice of the Government that Cotton Textile Mills are closed, but the lands which are required to be handed over to MHADA and MCGM under Regulation 58(1)(b) of the said Regulations are not made available for the required purposes.

15A. Learned counsel for all the respondents submitted that if the petitioner''s interpretation were to be accepted, the Textile-company would never complete construction of the existing built-up area and 30% of the open land and balance FSI frustrating the entire object of Regulations 58(1) and 58(2) i.e. sharing of lands of textile mills in the heart of the city for public housing/mill workers housing and making available green open spaces to the residents of Mumbai.

Statutory Provisions

16. It is necessary to set out relevant provisions of MRTP Act and Regulation 58 of the DCR.

The words "Development" and "Development Right" are defined in clauses (7) and (9A) of Section 2 of the MRTP Act, respectively, as under:-

S.2(7) - Development : "Development" with its grammatical variations means the carrying out of buildings, engineering, mining or other operations in, or over, or under, land or the making of any material change, in any building or land or in the use of any building or land or any material or structural change in any heritage, building or its precincts and includes demolition of any existing building structure of erection or part of such building, structure or erection; and reclamation, redevelopment and lay-out and sub-division of any land; and "to develop" shall be construed accordingly

(emphasis supplied by the respondents)

S.2(9A) - Development Right" means right to carry out development or to develop the land or building or both and shall include the transferable development right in the form of right to utilise the Floor Space Index of land utilisable either on the remainder of the land or partially reserved for a public purpose or elsewhere, as the final Development Control Regulations in this behalf provide.

Chapter IV containing sections 43 to 58 lay down restrictions on the development of land and use of land in the development plans. Section 43 provides that no person shall institute or change any use of land or carry out any development of land (falling within the development plan sanctioned u/s 31) without the permission in writing of the Planning Authority (Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai). Section 44 provides that the person intending to carry out any development on any land shall make an application in writing to the Planning Authority for permission. Section 45 provides for power of the Planning Authority to refuse the permission or to grant permission unconditionally subject to such general or special conditions as may be imposed by the previous approval of the State Government. Such permission is to be contained in a commencement certificate in the prescribed form. Section 46 provides that before considering such application for permission, the Planning Authority shall have due regard to the provisions of any draft or final plan or proposals published by means of notice submitted or sanctioned under the Act. Section 51 confers power upon the Planning Authority i.e. the Municipal Corporation to revoke or modify the permission to development plan. Section 52 provides for penalty for unauthorised development or use otherwise than in conformity with the development plan. Section 53 confers power upon the Planning Authority to require removal of unauthorised development and Section 54 confers power upon the Planning Authority to stop unauthorised development.

The impugned notice dated 26 March 2010 (at Exhibit `V'' to the petition) appears to have been issued under Regulation 54.

17. In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 37(1) of the MRTP Act, the State Government has made Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 as specified in the schedule to the notification dated 20 February 1991.

Regulation 58 of Development Control Regulations, 1991 as amended

58. Development or redevelopment of lands of cotton textile mills;

(1) Lands of sick and/or closed cotton textile mills.- With the previous approval of the Commissioner to a layout prepared for development or redevelopment of the entire open land built-up area of a sick and/or closed cotton textile mill, and on such conditions deemed appropriate and specified by, and as a part of a package of measures recommended by the Financial Institutions and Commissionerate of Industries for the revival/ rehabilitation of a potentially viable sick and/or closed mill, the Commissioner may allow;

(a) the existing built-up areas to be utilized -

(i) for the same cotton textile or related user subject to observance of all other Regulations;

(ii) for diversified industrial users in accordance with the industrial location policy, with office space only ancillary to and required for such users, subject to and observance of all other Regulations;

(iii) for commercial purposes, as permitted under these Regulations;

(b) Open lands and balance FSI shall be used as in the Table below:-

Notes:

I. In addition to the land to be earmarked for recreation ground/garden/playground or any other open user as in column (3) of the above Table, open spaces, public amenities and utilities for the lands shown in columns (4) and (5) of the above Table as otherwise required under these Regulations shall also be provided.

II. .........................................

III. The owner of the land will be entitled to Development Rights in accordance with the Regulations for grant of Transferable Development Rights as in appendix VII in respect of lands earmarked and handed over as per column (4) of the above Table. Notwithstanding anything contained in these Regulations. Development Rights in respect of the lands earmarked and handed over as per column (3) shall be available to the owner of the land for utilisation in the land as per column (5) or as Transferable Development Rights as aforesaid.

IV. Where FSI is in balance but open land is not available, for the purposes of column (3) and (4) of the above Table, land will be made open by demolishing the existing structures to the extent necessary and made available accordingly.

V. .....................

VI. It shall be permissible for the owners of the land to submit a composite scheme for the development or redevelopment of lands of different cotton textile mills, whether under common ownership or otherwise upon which the lands comprised in the scheme shall be considered by the Commissioner in an integrated manner.

Inserted by Notification dated 24 August 2010 [VII. Notwithstanding anything above, the layout of mill land shall be submitted by the mill owner within six months of closure of the mill or within six months of this notification whichever is later and the lands earmarked for MHADA and Recreation Ground shall be handed over to the concerned Authority immediately after the approval of layout.]

(2) Lands of cotton textile mills for purpose of modernisation.-

With the previous approval of the Commissioner to a layout prepared for development or redevelopment of the entire open land and/or built-up area of the premises of a cotton textile mill which is not sick or closed, but requiring modernisation on the same land as approved by the competent authorities, such development or redevelopment shall be permitted by the Commissioner, subject to the condition that it shall also be in accordance with scheme approved by Government provided that with regard to the utilisation of built-up area, the provisions of clause (a) of Sub-Regulation (1) of this Regulation shall apply and, if the development of open lands and balance FSI exceeds 30 per cent of the open land and balance FSI, the provisions of clause (b) of subregulation (1) of this Regulation shall apply.

NOTE :

(i) The exemption of 30 per cent as specified above may be availed of in phases, provided that, taking into account all phases, it is not exceeded in aggregate.

(ii) In the case of more than one cotton textile mill owned by the same company, the exemption of 30 per cent as specified above may be permitted to be consolidated and implemented on any of the said cotton textile mill lands within Mumbai provided, and to the extent, FSI is in balance in the receiving mill land.

(3) Lands of cotton textile mills after shifting.-

If a cotton textile mills is to be shifted outside Greater Bombay but within the State, (shifting outside the state to be regarded as closure and to be dealt with as such) with due permission of the competent authorities, and in accordance with a scheme approved by Government, the provisions of sub-clauses (a) and (b) of sub-regulation (1) of this Regulation shall also apply in regard to the development or redevelopment of its land after shifting.

(6) With the previous approval of the commissioner to a layout prepared for development or redevelopment of the entire open land and/or built-up area of the premises of a cotton textile mill which is either sick and/or closed or requiring modernisation the Commissioner may allow:-

(a) Reconstruction after demolition of existing structures limited to the extent of the built up area of the demolished structures, including by aggregating in one or more structures the built up areas of the demolished structures.

(b) Multi-mills aggregation of the built up areas of existing structures where an integrated scheme for demolition and reconstruction of the existing structures of more than one mill, whether under common ownership or otherwise, is duly submitted, provided that FSI is in balance in the receiving mill land.

9.(a) In order to oversee the due implementation of the package of measurers recommended by the Board of Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (BIFR) for the revival/rehabilitation of a potentially sick and/or closed textile mill, or schemes approved by Government for the modernisation or shifting of cotton textile mills, and the permissions for development or redevelopment of lands of cotton textile mills granted by the Commissioner under this Regulation, the Government shall appoint a Monitoring Committee under the chairmanship of a retired High Court Judge with one representative each of the cotton textile mill owners, recognised trade union of cotton textile mill workers, the Commissioner and the Government as members.

(b) and (c) ...................

(d) The Monitoring Committee shall have the powers of issuing and enforcing notices and attendance in the manner of a Civil Court.

(e) Every direction or decision of the Monitoring Committee shall be final and conclusive and binding on all concerned.

(f) The Monitoring Committee shall determine for itself the procedures and modalities of its functioning.

(10) Notwithstanding anything stated or omitted to be stated in these Regulations, the development or redevelopment of all lands in Greater Mumbai owned or held by all cotton textile mills, in respective of the operational or other status of the said mills or of the land use zoning relating to the said lands or of the actual use for the time being of the said lands or of any other factor, circumstance or consideration whatsoever, shall be regulated by the provisions of this Regulation and not under any other Regulation.

However, the lands reserved for public purposes which is owned or held by Cotton Textile Mills, shall not be regulated by the provision of this regulations and the reserved lands shall be handed over to the MCGM or the Appropriate Authority in lieu of TDR or shall be developed as per the provisions laid down under Regulation 9 (Table-4)

(emphasis supplied)

DISCUSSION

18. Having gone through the MRTP Act particularly section 2 and Chapter IV thereof and the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 including DC Regulation 58 therein, we find that a company running a cotton textile mill in the city of Greater Mumbai which is using the land for industrial purposes, is not entitled to use the land for development or redevelopment for commercial or residential purpose, unless the Municipal Commissioner grants such permission either under Clause (1) or Clause (2) of Regulation 58. Having carefully gone through the other sub-clauses of Regulation 58, we find that Clause (3) empowers the Municipal Commissioner to grant such permission if the cotton textile mill is to be shifted outside Greater Mumbai but within the State (shifting outside the State to be regarded as closure and to be dealt with as such) provided due permission is granted by concerned competent authorities in accordance with a scheme approved by the Government. Sub-clause (6) of Regulation 58 empowers the Municipal Commissioner to allow reconstruction after demolition of existing structures by aggregating in one or more structures the built up areas in demolished structures and also to allow multi mills aggregation of the built up areas of existing structures where an integrated scheme for demolition and reconstruction of the existing structures of more than one mill, whether under common ownership or otherwise, ON THE SAME LAND is duly submitted.

19. In the background of these Regulations and having carefully examined the permissions granted to the company, we find that by letter dated 10 November 2003 the Government of Maharashtra sanctioned the scheme of modernization of textile activity by the company in respect of the properties at Dadar Naigaon Division at Wadala and of Lower Division purportedly under Regulation 58(2) read with Regulation 58(6)(a) and (b) of DC Regulations. It is necessary to note that when the above permission was granted on 10 November 2003, neither of the two mills of the company was closed. At least no permission for closure was granted u/s 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act.

20. It was thereafter on 8 October 2004 that the petitioner company applied to Commissioner of Labour, Mumbai to grant permission to the company to close down completely textile activity on the company''s lands at Spring Mills at Dadar-Naigaon division u/s 25-O(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Commissioner of Labour granted such permission on 25 November 2004 subject to condition about payment of VRS dues of 511 employees who had opted for VRS and to transfer remaining 86 employees who had not opted for VRS to the textile mill at Prabhadevi. In light of the above subsequent development, the State Government by letter dated 23 June 2005 (Exhibit `D'' page 52) conveyed "Government concurrence/approval to completely close down textile activity in the lands at Dadar Naigaon Division and to allow partial closure of textile activity on the lands at Lower subject to the following conditions :-

(a) If the development of open land and balance FSI exceeds 30% of the open land and balance FSI in respective units the provisions of clause (b) of sub-regulation (1) of DCR 58 shall apply.

(b) The sharing of the company''s mill land coming under the purview of Regulation 58 of DCR 1991 BETWEEN MCGM/MHADA/Owner or as when it becomes applicable shall be shared as per the modified Regulation 58 of DCR 1991.

(c) The modernization shall continue to be executed as per the approval of Textile Department, Govt. of Maharashtra at Lower unit.

(d) The above permission shall be given subject to the compliance with the orders passed by the Supreme Court and High Court in Writ Petition No. 482 of 2005.

21. It is again necessary to note that layout submitted in 2005 was approved by the Municipal Corporation as Planning Authority in April 2007, earmarking the lands as per Regulation 58(1)(b).

The amended layout was approved in December 2010. Details of sharing of lands are already indicated in chart in para 4 of this judgment. The company thereafter completely demolished its entire 79,998 sq. mtrs of existing built up area of the Spring Mills at Dadar Naigaon (Wadala) and obtained approval of the Municipal Commissioner for construction of residential towers with built up area of 1,29,199 sq. mtrs. out of which 27,377 sq.mtrs. is already constructed with occupancy certificate granted and commencement certificate is already granted for another 59,492 sq.mtrs. The company still refuses to hand over possession of lands to MHADA and Municipal Corporation to the extent of 26,556 sq.mtrs and 25,775 sq. mtrs. respectively for public housing/mill workers'' housing and for open green spaces on the ground that even the land of Spring Mills at Dadar, Naigaon (Wadala)- a closed textile mill - is not covered by Regulation 58(1)(b) and that Note VII to the said Regulation does not apply to the said mill land.

22. The very fact that the Government referred to the Labour Commissioner''s order dated 25 November 2004 u/s 25-O of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in respect of the textile mill at Dadar in Dadar Naigaon Division in its subsequent order dated 23 June 2005 quoted above clearly means that the State Government was exercising the powers under Regulation 58(1) in so far as the Dadar unit of the Petitioner company (Spring Mills) is concerned, because it is only clause (1) of Regulation 58 which empowers the Municipal Commissioner to permit a closed cotton textile mill to use its open lands and balance FSI to put up construction for residential/ commercial user. Sub-regulation (6) by itself does not provide for development/redevelopment of the entire open land and/or built up area of the premises of a cotton textile mill which is either sick and/or closed nor does it provide for such permission for modernization on the same land. Sub-regulation (6) does not refer to different mill lands -

(i) owned by a sick or closed textile mill and

(ii) owned by cotton textile mill requiring modernization/ on different parcels of land.

Sub-regulation (6) permits aggregation of one or more structures on the same land or demolition or reconstruction of the existing structures of more than one mill on the same land. Hence, the sanction granted by the State Government to the petitioner company for development/ redevelopment on the lands at Dadar Naigaon (Wadala) division for residential user is traceable only to sub-regulation (1)(a) and (b) of Regulation 58.

23. It is, therefore, difficult to see as to how the petitioner company can dispute the applicability of Regulation 58(1)(b) to the lands of Spring Mills at Dadar Naigaon (Wadala). The very fact that the petitioner company submitted its layout plan for the said mill in the year 2005 and the notification dated 24 August 2010 came into force on 24 August 2010, Note VII to Regulation 58(1) became operational and since in the meantime, the layout plan was approved in 2007, with effect from that date, the lands earmarked for MHADA for public housing/ mill workers'' housing were required to be handed over to MHADA and the lands earmarked for open green spaces were required to be handed over to the Municipal Corporation.

24. While the case of the workmen of the Textile mills of the company that permission granted to the company to develop or redevelop its lands of the Spring Mills at Dadar, Naigaon Division (Wadala) can only be traced to regulation 58(1) is unanswerable, as discussed above, some debate took place about the status of the company''s textile mill at Lower (Prabhadevi) Division.

25. According to the workmen, though hardly about 67 workmen are on the roll of the company textile mills at Lower (Prabhadevi), only about 6 to 8 workmen are actually asked to operate two looms for the name sake only to pretend that the said mill is running. It is submitted that no modernization whatsoever has been brought about by the Company at the above mill. It is also pointed out that out of 1,05,238 sq.mtrs. of built up area which the company had on the date of coming into force Regulation 58, only 21,669 sq.mtrs. has been retained by the company and rest of the structures were demolished after approval of the layout. On the other hand, the company has already obtained approval for constructing buildings with built up area of 76,878 sq.mtrs. for commercial and residential user. From the particulars placed by the Municipal Corporation on record, it is pointed out by the learned counsel for the workmen that out of 21,669 sq.mtrs of built up area retained by the company, about 11,000 sq.mtrs is for office use / godown and only about 10,000 sq.mtrs is for so-called industrial activity on total land of the company admeasuring 1,00,498 sq.mtrs. It is, therefore, submitted that the permission granted to the company for development/ redevelopment of the land of the textile mill at Lower (Prabhadevi) must also be treated as permission granted to the closed or sick mill under subsection (1) of DCR 58.

26. On the other hand, Mr. Seervai, learned counsel for the textilecompany has vehemently opposed the above submission and submitted that since no writ petition is filed by any party for challenging the status of the textile mill at Lower (Prabhadevi), it is not open to any party to raise any such challenge at this stage.

27. In the judgment dated 7 March 2006 rendered by the Supreme Court in appeal filed by this very petitioner textile-Company, the Supreme Court held that in Regulation 58, "a closed mill would mean in respect whereof closure has been effected in accordance with law. Such closure can be effected in accordance with law in terms of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. Before effecting a closure under the Industrial Disputes Act, notice has to be given to the State and in certain cases its prior permission is also required to be obtained." (para 179)

28. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we do not propose to dilate on this issue any further as, in our view, in absence of any permission for closure u/s 25-O of ID Act, 1947 the permission granted to develop/redevelop the company''s lands at Lower (Prabhadevi) may, for the purposes of this petition, be treated as permission under Regulation 58(2), but even then Note VII to Regulation 58(1) applies to the permission granted under Regulation 58(2) also, as discussed hereinafter.

As far as sanction granted for development or redevelopment on the land at Prabhadevi in Lower division is concerned, according to the company, the company is going for modernization and as per the approved layout has retained 21,699 sq. mtrs out of 1,05,238 sq. mtrs of existing built up area which the petitioner company had on the date of coming into force of Regulation 58. The remaining built up area i.e. 83,539 sq. mtrs of built up area of the textile mill at Prabhadevi (Lower ) has already been demolished and the company has obtained approval for constructing buildings for commercial/residential user with built up area of 76,878 sq.mtrs., out of which the petitioner has already constructed and obtained Occupancy Certificate for commercial buildings with built up area of 31,131 sq.mtrs. and has also obtained Commencement Certificate for other commercial buildings with built up area of 23,828 sq.mtrs.

29. Considerable debate has taken place on the interpretation of the following words in Regulation 58(2):-

If the development of open lands and balance FSI exceeds 30% of the open land and balance FSI, the provisions of clause (b) of sub-Regulation 1) of this Regulation shall apply.

30. Since the interpretation of Regulations 58(1) with note 7 and 58(2) read with 58(6) and 58(9) has come up for our consideration, we do not think it necessary to refer to the interpretation placed on those provisions in some executive orders passed by some officers of the State Government or the Municipal Corporation. The interpretation of statutory regulations must be done in light of the settled legal principles without being fettered by the interpretation placed by one party or another. The interpretation placed by some officers of the State Government in February 2009 cannot hold the field after statutory amendment made in August 2010. In any view of the matter the Monitoring Committee (respondent No.1 in Writ Petition No.977 of 2010) appointed under Regulation 58(9) for overseeing due implementation of schemes sanctioned under Regulation 58, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) and the workers'' unions which have been permitted to intervene have never accepted the interpretation as canvassed by the Textile-company. Hence we have independently examined the statutory regulations and proceeded to interpret the same without being fettered by the interpretation placed by some officers of the Municipal Corporation who have not cared to read Note 7 inserted by Government Notification dated 24th August, 2010.

31. Of course, we have taken into consideration the decision of the Supreme Court in the appeal filed by this very petitioner-company rendered in March 2006 prior to amendment of Regulation 58 by notification dated 24 August 2010. The said decision is discussed hereafter.

32. The Development Control Regulations are framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers conferred by section 37(2) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. Hence, while interpreting Regulation 58 of the Development Control Regulations, we have to take into consideration the definitions contained in section 2 of the MRTP Act and also other relevant provisions of the said Act. Section 2(7) defines development, development authority, development plan and development rights as under:-

(7) "development" with its grammatical variations means the carrying out of buildings, engineering, mining or other operations in or over or under, land or the making of any material change, in any building or land or in the use of any building or land or any material or structural change in any heritage; building or its precinct and includes demolition of any existing building, structure or erection or part of such building, structure or erection; and reclamation, redevelopment and layout and sub-division of any land; and "to develop" shall be construed accordingly];

[9A) "development right" means right to carry out development or to develop the land or building or both and shall include the transferable development right in the form of right to utilise the Floor Space Index of land utilisable either on the remainder of the land partially reserved for a public purpose or elsewhere, as the final Development Control Regulations in this behalf provide;

33. The expression "development" therefore, includes layout and subdivision of any land. It also includes demolition of any existing building or structure, part of such building or structure. Hence, the expression "development" or "redevelopment" in Regulation 58(1) as well as in 58(2) must be understood in light of the definitions contained in clause (7) of section 2 of the MRTP Act. Therefore, the expression "the development" in the development of open lands and balance FSI in Regulation 58(2) must also be understood in light of the said definition.

34. Since the development as defined in section 2(7) of the MRTP Act, 1966 under which these Development Control Regulations have been made, includes submission of lay out plan, in our view, the above quoted words in Regulation 58(2) would make sense only by interpreting the word "development" as meaning submission of layout plan and seeking approval for construction of buildings as per the Development Control Regulations. The following sequence of events as contemplated by the Development Control Regulations must be appreciated in the first place:-

(i) Submission of layout plan by the land owner;

(ii) Approval of lay out plan by the Planning Authority i.e. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai.

(iii) Submission of notice by the land owner to the Municipal Corporation to erect the building;

(iv) What is known as Intimation of Disapproval (IOD), that is permission granted in negative terms to erect the building;

(v) Commencement certificate to be issued by the Municipal Corporation granting permission to commence the construction of the building;

(vi) Building completion certificate be granted by the Municipal Corporation after the construction is complete and found to be in accordance with IOD (iv) and commencement certificate (v).

(vii) Occupation certificate to be granted by the Municipal Corporation after the building is provided with water connection and drainage connection.

35. According to the company, the underlined words of Regulation 58(2) operate qua the actual construction of the building. Hence only when the actual construction on the mill land exceeds 30% of the open lands (after excluding the land which had structures which came to be demolished as explained earlier), implementation of the provisions of Regulation 58(1)(b) requiring the mill owner to share the open lands with Municipal Corporation (for open green spaces) and with MHADA (for public housing / mill workers housing) will arise.

36. The argument, obviously, puts the cart before the horse. The actual construction cannot start without the mill owner first submitting a lay out plan, approval of the lay out plan by the Municipal Corporation, notice being given by the mill owner to erect the building, the Municipal Corporation issuing the IOD and thereafter the commencement certificate. As to how much open land and balance FSI will be available to the MHADA for public housing / mill workers housing and to the Municipal Corporation for the open green spaces has, therefore, necessarily to be decided at the time of submitting the layout plan.

37. That is precisely what the petitioner company did while submitting the layout plan to the planning authority (i.e. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai) in the year 2005. The Municipal Corporation then granted approval to the said layout plan in April 2007 and thereafter, the petitioner company submitted notice for permission to erect the building and thereafter, the Municipal Corporation granted permission in the negative terms i.e. intimation of disapproval.

38. The legislative intent that for the purpose of Regulation 58 also development will commence with submission of layout plan by the land owner and approval thereof by the Planning Authority is now made clear beyond any shadow of doubt by the statutory amendment as contained in notification dated 24 August, 2010 adding Note VII to Regulation 58(1). Note VII reads as under:

(VII) Notwithstanding any thing above, the layout of mill land shall be submitted by the mill owner within six months of closure of the mill or within six months of this notification whichever is later and the lands earmarked for MHADA and Recreation Ground shall be handed over to the concerned Authority immediately after the approval of layout.

39. We may now consider the question whether Note VII to Regulation 58(1)(b) which is admittedly applicable to sick and/or closed textile mills is also applicable to a cotton textile mill, which is not sick and/or closed, but requiring modernisation on the same land and which has been granted permission for development and/or redevelopment under subregulation (2) of Regulation 58.

40. Mr. Seervai, learned counsel for the textile-mill submits that the said Note would not apply to cotton textile mill requiring modernisation, firstly, because Note VII was intended to apply only to a closed mill and secondly, a reference to Regulation 58(1)(b) in sub-regulation is a legislation by incorporation and not a legislation by reference.

Mr. Seervai has placed strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Bharat Co-Operative Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. Vs. Co-Operative Bank Employees Union, .

41. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-authorities as well as the Workers-Union and the intervenors have submitted that Note VII is as much applicable to sub-regulation (2) as it is applicable to subregulation (1). Strong reliance has been placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in The State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. M.V. Narasimhan, .

42. It is true that in case of a cotton textile mill going for modernization on the same land, there will be no question of closure of the mill, but Note VII provides following two dates:

within six months of closure of mill

or

within six months of this notification (dated 24 August, 2010), whichever is later.

As far as a closed mill is concerned, the date on which the Commissioner of Labour would grant permission u/s 25-O (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would be the date of closure of the mill, but in other cases there would no specific date with reference to which the liability to submit layout plan to the Planning Authority can arise. Hence, for all other cases the time limit of six months from the date of notification is stipulated in Note VII.

43. Coming to the question whether amendment of sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 58 by insertion of Note VII by notification dated 24 August, 2010 would also apply to a case covered by sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 58 involves answering the question whether reference in subregulation (2) : "the provisions of clause (b) of sub-regulation (1) of this Regulation (Regulation 58) shall apply" is a legislation by reference or legislation by incorporation.

44. In State of Madhya Pradesh v. M.V. Narsimhan (supra), the Supreme Court laid down the following propositions:-

16........ Where a subsequent Act incorporates provisions of a previous Act then the borrowed provisions become an integral and independent part of the subsequent Act and are totally unaffected by any repeal or amendment in the previous Act. This principle, however, will not apply in the following cases:

(a) where the subsequent Act and the previous Act are supplemental to each other;

(b) where the two Acts are in pari materia;

(c ) where the amendment in the previous Act, if not imported into the subsequent Act also, would render the subsequent Act wholly unworkable and ineffectual; and

(d) where the amendment of the previous Act, either expressly or by necessary intendment, applies the said provisions to the subsequent Act.

45. In Bharat Co.op. Bank (Mumbai) Ltd. (supra) the Supreme Court has observed as under:-

15. Before adverting to the said core issue, we may briefly notice the distinction between the two aforementioned concepts of statutory interpretation viz. a mere reference or citation of one statute in another and incorporation by reference. Legislation by incorporation is a common legislative device where the legislature, for the sake of convenience of drafting incorporates provisions from an existing statute by reference to that statute instead of verbatim reproducing the provisions, which it desires to adopt in another statute. Once incorporation is made, the provision incorporated becomes an integral part of the statute in which it is transposed and thereafter there is no need to refer to the statute from which the incorporation is made and any subsequent amendment made in it has no effect on the incorporating statute. On the contrary, in the case of a mere reference or citation, a modification, repeal or re-enactment of the statute, that is referred will also have effect on the statute in which it is referred. ......

In the same decision, the Supreme Court referred to the subsequent decision''s after M.V.Narsimhan''s case and held as under:

20.....It is, therefore, clear from the aforenoted decisions that if there is a mere reference to a provision of one statute in another without incorporation, then, unless a different intention clearly appears, the reference would be construed as a reference to the provision as may be in force from time to time in the former statute. But if a provision of one statute is incorporated in another, any subsequent amendment in the former statute or even its total repeal would not affect the provision as incorporated in the latter statute.

21. However, the distinction between incorporation by reference and adoption of provisions by mere reference or citation is not too easy to highlight. The distinction is one of difference in degree and is often blurred. The fact that no clear-cut guidelines or distinguishing features have been spelt out to ascertain whether it belongs to one or the other category makes the task of identification difficult. The semantics associated with interpretation play their role to a limited extent. Ultimately, it is a matter of probe into legislative intention and/or taking an insight into the working of the enactment if one or the other view is adopted. Therefore, the kind of language used in the provision, the scheme and purpose of the Act assume significance in finding answer to the question. The doctrinaire approach to ascertain whether the legislation is by incorporation or reference is, on ultimate analysis, directed towards that end. Thus, the question for determination is to which category the present case belongs.

(emphasis supplied)

46. Applying the aforesaid principles to the provisions of Regulation 58, we must first note that sub-regulations (1) & (2) of Regulation 58 are provisions of the same Regulation made by the same authority and are supplemental to each other. In Sub-Regulation (2) "if the development exceeded 30% of open land the provisions of Clause (b) of sub-regulation (1) of this Regulation shall apply." Thus, sub-regulation (2) merely contains a reference to Clause (b) of sub-regulation (1) of Regulation 58 and since there is no different intention appearing, the reference has to be construed as reference to the provisions of Clause (b) in sub-regulation (1), as may be in force from time to time. It is clear that sub-regulation (1) and sub-regulation (2) are parts of the same scheme of development or redevelopment of lands of cotton textile mills, whether they are sick and/or closed textile mills or whether they are textile mills requiring modernisation, the legislative intention is clear that in stead of being tied down to industrial use of the land, the textile mills are permitted to put up construction in excess of the existing structures, ( even by demolition of existing structures and constructing new building on that land) by putting up additional construction to assist the textile mills to generate additional funds, to tide over the financial crisis, to pay the creditors and workers their dues and also to make lands available to a public authority like MHADA to meet the crying need for public housing/mill workers housing and also to make open green spaces available to the residents of Mumbai by handing over some lands to the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai to provide recreation ground, play ground etc. The above legislative intent would, therefore, be applicable to all cotton textile mills, seeking and obtaining permission to develop/redevelop their lands under Regulation 58.

47. There is no indication, and there is no reason to hold, that Regulation making Authority did not intend to apply Note VII to sub- regulation (2) of Regulation 58. In fact, Note III to Regulation 58(1)(b) provides that owner of the land will be entitled to development rights in accordance with the Regulation for grant of development rights in respect of land earmarked and handed over to MHADA for public housing/mill workers housing. The same Note further provides that the development rights in respect of land earmarked and handed over to the Municipal Corporation shall be available to the owner of the land for utilisation in the land to be developed by the mill owner as under Regulation 58(1)(b) or as transferable development rights. It is not the case of the petitioner-textile company that it is not going to take advantage of these transferable development rights available under Note III in respect of the lands which are earmarked for MHADA and Municipal Corporation in the layout plans submitted by the petitioner-textile company itself to the Planning Authority (Municipal Corporation), which plans have also been approved long back. The textile-company cannot, therefore, be permitted to blow hot and cold by claiming the transferable development rights available under Note III and trying to wriggle out of the liability under Note VII to share the lands on 24 August, 2010 or atleast within six months thereof.

48. The legislative intent is, therefore, clear that the submission of the layout plan by the textile company indicating the lands available for sharing under Regulation 58(1)(b) and lands on which the textile-company proposes to put up construction and indicating built-up-areas proposed to be constructed would be sufficient to trigger the operation of Regulation 58(1) (b), whether the textile mill in question is sick and/or closed or whether the cotton textile mill is going for modernization, irrespective of the question of actual construction.

49. In view of the above discussion, we are of the view that for applicability of Note VII to Regulation 58(1), it makes no difference whether the permission is granted under Regulation 58(1) or 58(2) or 58(6) of the Development Control Regulations because when permission for development or redevelopment is granted, even for modernization of a Cotton Textile Mill which is not sick or closed, the provisions of Regulation 58(1)(b) for sharing of open lands and balance FSI would apply as soon as the land owner submits layout plan wherein the mill owner proposes development of open lands and balance FSI exceeding 30% of the open land and balance FSI.

50. In the facts of the present case, the petitioner company did submit separately the layout plans in the year 2005 for its mills at Prabhadevi, Lower (Spring Mills) and its textile mill at Wadala, Dadar for development of 40% and 33% of the open lands to be shared at the above two mills respectively, and the plans have been approved by the Planning Authority i.e. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai.

51. The Municipal Corporation granted IOD for construction of seven residential buildings on the land of Spring Mills at Dadar by 4 June 2007. Thus, the Municipal Corporation had granted IOD for total built up area of 1,29,199.14 sq.mtrs. on the land of the company''s Spring Mills at Dadar Naigaon (Wadala) even before 24 August, 2010.

52. Similarly, after approving the layout in April 2007, by 21 April 2007, the Municipal Corporation granted IOD for construction of two commercial buildings and one residential building on petitioner company''s land at Lower for construction of total area aggregating to about 78,879 sq.mtrs. of land. The existing buildings retained by the petitioner company for commercial and textile user aggregate only to 21,669 sq.mtrs at Prabhadevi, Lower Parel.

53. CHART - 1 LANDS All figures in sq. mtrs. (rounded off)

Aggregate of Cols. 4+5 = Col.1.

Note 1 = As explained in the Mun. Corpn. Exe. Engr. note dt. 30.1.12, total area of the plot of Spring Mills at Dadar is 1,96,319, but plot for residential development and chawl and land leased out to Govt.for grain godown is excluded. Hence, balance area is 1,38,255.77 sq.mtrs.

Note 2 = Out of 25,775 sq.mtrs. of land earmarked for development by petitioner-co., 5% land is to be deducted for public amenities as per DCR.

Petitioner Co''s argument is that lands earmarked for MHADA and Mu.Corp. as per Col. 3(b) and 3(c) are to be handed over to them after commencement certificates are issued for the below mentioned limits :

54. Mr. Seervai, learned counsel for the petitioner textile-company vehemently submitted that the entire controversy which is the subject matter of the present petitions is already concluded by the decision of the Supreme Court in the appeal of this very petitioner company reported in Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Others, .

55. Before proceeding further, it is necessary to refer to following settled principles, as to when and how a decision should be relied upon. In Ashwani Kumar Singh Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission and Others, , the Supreme Court has observed as under :-

10. Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are not to be read as Euclid''s theorems nor as provisions of the statute. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear. Judgments of Courts are no to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of statute, it may become necessary for Judges to embark into lengthy discussions, but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes.

12. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper.

In the above decision, the Supreme Court followed the following observation of Lord Morris in Herrington v. British Railway Board,

There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or a judgment as though they were words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case.

56. In State of Orissa v. Sudhansu Sekhar Mishra, AIR1968 SC, page 647, the Supreme Court laid down the following principle on the theory of precedents; A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. What is of the essence in a decision is its ratio and not every observation found therein nor what logically follows from the various observations made in it. On this topic, this is what Earl of- Halsbury. LC said in Quinn v. Leathem, 1901 AC 495

Now before discussing the case of Allen v. Flood, (1898) AC 1 and what was decided therein, there are two observations of a general character which I wish to make, and one is to repeat what I have very often said before, that every judgment must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved, or assumed to be proved, since the generality of the expressions which may be found there are not intended to be expositions of the whole law, but governed and qualified by the particular facts of the case in which such expressions are to be found. The other is that a case is only an authority for what it actually decides. I entirely deny that it can be quoted for a proposition that may seem to follow logically from it. Such a mode of reasoning assumes that the law is necessarily a logical Code, whereas every lawyer must acknowledge that the law is not always logical at all.

It is not a profitable task to extract a sentence here and there from a judgment and to build upon it.

(emphasis supplied)

57. What the Supreme Court examined in March 2006 was interpretation of the expression "open lands and balance FSI" in Regulation 58(1)(b) which is also referred to in Regulation 58(2). The controversy had arisen in the context of the background as follows:-

58. DCR 58 for Greater Mumbai was first made in 1991. The relevant portion of Regulation 58(1) till the year 2000 read as under:-

With the approval of the Commissioner to a layout prepared for development or redevelopment of the entire open land builtup area of the premises of a sick and/or closed textile mills......................, the Commissioner may allow-

(a) The existing built-up areas to be utilised.

(i) for the same cotton textile or related user.

(ii) For diversified industrial users.

(iii) for commercial purposes as permitted under these regulations.

Provided.....................

(b) Open lands and lands after demolition of existing structures in case of a redevelopment scheme to be used as in the table below:

(emphasis supplied)

59. The Government, however, found that out of several mills, only 5 mills opted for sick permission under the above regulation. Hardly any development took place. Thus, most textile mills continued with status-quo. Closed mills remained closed, workers were not paid their wages, banks and financial institutions did not receive back their dues. Even the statutory dues and taxes continued to mount. The structures might have become more dilapidated, and ten years went down the line in the aforementioned scenario. (para 132 of SCC, Page 494).

60. In view of the above, the State Government amended Regulation 58(1) and made the following amendment:-

61. The controversy before the Supreme Court was that according to the PIL petitioners, even after amendment of 2001, `open lands'' of the textile mills included "the lands after demolition of existing structures" which were deleted by the amendment. The main thrust of the writ petitioners was to ensure open spaces for the city and to provide for the crying need of space for public housing, it was asserted by the NGO that in terms of the 1991 Regulations, the residents of Mumbai would have got 165 acres of green areas, whereas under the new Regulations (2001), they would get 32 acres of greens (284 SCC 529). The High Court accepted the above contention and held that in amended DCR 58(1)(b), ''open lands'' would include lands after demolition of structures, which were existing on the date of coming into force of DCR 1991. The High Court also gave certain other findings against the textile mills with which we are not concerned in the present petition. Hence, the textile-Companies including the present petitioner-company carried the matter before the Supreme Court.

62. After hearing the parties at length, the Supreme Court rendered the judgment dated 7 March 2006 reported in Bombay Dyeing and Mfg. Co. Ltd. Vs. Bombay Environmental Action Group and Others, and after observing that drastic changes have been made in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of DCR 58., interalia by deleting the words, "after demolition of existing structure in case of redevelopment scheme" held that the expression "open lands" in DCR 58(1)(b) is meant to connote lands other than the lands available after demolition of existing structures. (para 169 of SCC).

63. It is necessary to note that the Supreme Court specifically indicated the areas of the lands to be handed over to the Municipal Corporation and to MHADA from out of the lands of as many as 26 textile mills including the two mills of the present petitioner textile-company. These figures are given in para 295 of the judgment (SCC P. 530-531). The relevant portion of para 295 reads as under:-

295. However, the area available for MCGM and MHADA for the proposals approved under modified DCR 58 of 2001 for total/partial redevelopment are as under:-

64. In the present proceedings, no party has disputed the aforesaid figures and the figures given in the chart in para 4 are also the same but fractions have been rounded off. When no party has disputed the areas of lands required to be handed over by the petitioner-textile company to Municipal Corporation and to MHADA as per the above details, and the only controversy is at what point of time such lands are required to be handed over by the petitioner textile-company to the above two public bodies, and the said controversy was never before the Supreme Court while rendering the judgment dated 7 March 2006, the petitioner textile-company is not justified in contending that the said decision of the Supreme Court is a complete answer to the contentions of the respondents.

65. In the course of rendering the above decision, the Supreme Court interpreted the provisions of Regulation 58 and particularly Regulation 58(1)(b) which "expressly provides for sharing of land as specified in the table therein. The question, however, is as to what would be the extent of open land available on the spot." (para 138)

66. We may now refer to those paragraphs in the Supreme Court judgment:-

133. The effect of amendment in clause (b) must be seen from the table appended thereto. In terms of the old regulation in respect of land covering more than 10 hectares, for green area 33% land was to be set apart, and for MHADA 37% thereof, whereas the owner retained 30% land. Under the new DCR 58, admittedly the owner of the mill at least obtains construction rights over 63% of the land as the land in terms of column (3) gets loaded in column (5). The mill-owner furthermore even according to the writ petitioners gets TDR of 37%. Open land in clause (b) is what is not covered by the built-up area. The balance FSI, indisputably, is not open area.

134. The meaning of "open land" must be construed as land other than land required to sustain the built-up area. We may now attempt to understand the effect of FSI having regard to a concrete example. If the area of a plot is 1000 sq.m, applying FSI of 1.33, a person will be entitled to construct a built-up area of 1330 sq.m. If he intends to build a twostoreyed building, he will utilise 665 sq. m of land whereas in a case of ground plus four-storeyed building, he will be using 266 sq.m. Of land and in case of nine-storeyed structure, he will be using only 133 sq.m.

135. The greater the height of the building, the more lands will be available either by way of public greens or private greens as also for MHADA. However, in such a case, the plinth area will vary significantly. Whereas in the first case, it would be 665 sq.m, in the third case, it would only be 133 sq m although the built-up area remains the same.

136. Taking the illustration as mentioned hereinbefore, the open land in each case shall vary. Thus, open land would not mean land occupied by the plinth but would mean land other than that is necessary to sustain the built-up area.

.................

138. DCR 58(1)(a) deals with a case of non-sharing of a land as is evident from the fact that no sharing percentage is provided therein. It, therefore, envisages change of user for the three purposes mentioned therein, in the event the existing built-up area is utilised. In terms of the said provision, the internal area of such structure remains the same although it can be redesignated or reconstructed. The only benefit conferred by reason thereof is grant of change of user indicated therein. The State while making this regulation contemplated that the change of user would enable earning of additional sums of money from the assets which were unproductive. Clause (b), however, expressly provides for sharing of land as specified in the table therein. The question, however, is as to what would be the extent of open land available on the spot.

139. Existing built-up area, in our view, would not be open land. We have also to take note of the fact that the newly built-up area, as existing in the old clause (a) of sub-regulation (1) of DCR 58 has been omitted, the effect whereof would be noticed a little later.

........

148. The expression "balance" would mean "apart from" which in turn would mean apart from the area for which protection has already been given.

149. Balance FSI would, thus, mean FSI which is available for construction after excluding the FSI relatable to one already consumed by the existing built-up structure.

150. ........................... The word "balance" is crucial which would naturally mean FSI which is available to be utilised upon open land. Such balance FSI must be apart from the existing FSI. Indisputably, the built-up area had consumed some FSI and, thus, when the expression "balance FSI" is used, the same would mean additional built-up area. It contemplates that where the entire plot has been used by existing built-up area of the plot additionally unconsumed FSI could be used. It is in that sense separate. It is true that DCR 58(`1) uses the words "entire land" but the said expression is followed by the expression "built-up area". "Balance FSI" in the aforementioned situation would not mean the FSI which is involved for the purpose of construction of structures not only on the open land which had been existing but also the land which had become open by reason of the demolition of the existing structures. It is only in that sense, as would be amplified from the discussions made hereinafter that the State intended to give additional protection to the mill-owners. If open land is given its natural or dictionary meaning, no distinction could be made in between DCR 58(1)(b), which ex facie would lead to an anomaly.

152. The words "built-up area" find their source from the definition of existing building, as noticed hereinbefore. The existing built-up area was not to be shared and the same if read with the word "existing", it may be contrasted with a builtup area additionally but separate and distinct from the old existing built-up area. The existing built-up area, thus, was sought to be protected which would mean that it was sought to be protected from non-shareable land component thereof. It is thus possible to come to the conclusion that the obligation to share was intended to be absent only so long as no additional built-up area was created.

153. In a case where the existing structure is demolished in part, the balance FSI would be available but in relation to the entire open lands, FSI has to be calculated taking into account the area of open land appurtenant to the existing structures. Thus, no basic change had been effected in drafting the regulation to segregate newly built-up areas from existing built-up areas. It cannot be denied that the State intended to give more benefits to the mill-owners by reason of the 2001 Regulations and, thus, if after demolition of the entire structure the whole plot is treated to be open land and FSI is calculated on the basis thereof the purport and object of the amendment will be defeated. The fact that the State intended to consider the matter relating to amendment having regard to the fact that there had hardly been any takers for the 1991 scheme as it failed to provide sufficient incentives, cannot be ignored.

162. In terms of DCR 58(1)(a), there could be no demolition and only the existing structures, namely, those which were existing prior to coming into force of the said Regulation could be developed by utilising the existing structure which could not either be demolished or reconstructed or relocated.

169. It is, thus, clear that the expression "open lands" is meant to connote lands other than lands available after demolition of existing structures. (See Lennon v. Gibson, AC at p. 711, Craies on Statute Law, 7th Edn., p. 141 and G.P.Singh''s Principles of Statutory Interpretation, 9th Edn., p. 258.)

67. A perusal of the judgment of the Supreme Court clearly indicates the focus of the controversy before the Supreme Court. Mr. Seervai, learned counsel for the petitioner textile-company, however, vehemently relied on the following observations in para 152 of the judgment:-

It is thus possible to come to the conclusion that the obligation to share was intended to be absent only so long as no additional built-up area was created.

68. The contention raised by Mr. Seervai cannot be accepted for several reasons.

69. In the first place, as held by the Supreme Court, it is not a profitable task to extract a sentence here and there from a judgment and to build upon it.

70. The Supreme Court was really concerned with the question as to the whether the open lands in Regulation 58(1)(b) as amended would include lands which became available as open lands after demolition of the old structures. The contention of the PIL petitioners and workmen in that case was that the lands which became open upon demolition of the old structures would also have to be shared by the mill owner for the purpose of earmarking and handing over to Municipal Corporation for recreation ground/garden/play ground (open green spaces) and for earmarking and for the purpose of earmarking and handing over for development by MHADA for public housing / mill workers'' housing alongwith user of the remaining land for development by the mill owner for residential or commercial user. In other words, "what are the open lands available for sharing under Regulation 58(1)(b)" was the only question which fell for consideration of the Supreme Court.

71. Secondly, the sentence in para 152 of the Supreme Court judgment upon which Mr.Seervai has heavily relied, has to be read in the context of the discussion as set out in all the paras quoted in para 67 of this judgment. The sentence in question only indicates that if the textile mill owner did not propose to put up any additional built up area (BUA), over and above the existing BUA (which existing BUA could be demolished and new buildings would be constructed only to the extent of the demolished BUA), then there was no question of sharing the other open lands with Municipal Corporation and MHADA.

72. That is, however, not the situation in the present case. The facts in the present case are as summarized in the table signed by the officer of the Municipal Corporation.

73. The very fact that the petitioner-textile company has submitted layout plans to the Planning Authority (i.e. Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai) indicating the areas on which the company proposed in 2005 to put up construction of commercial and residential towers in excess of the existing built up area the petitioner textile company even obtained approval from the Planning Authority (the Municipal Corporation) to construct residential buildings with built up area of 1,29,199 sq.mtrs. as against the existing BUA of only 79998. 95 sq.mtrs. rounded off to 80,000 sq.mtrs. Hence, after demolition of the existing BUA of 80,000 sq. mtrs., the petitioiner-company can construct new buildings of built up area of 80,000 sq. mtrs. under Regulation 58(1)(a) and further 61,962 sq,ntrs, of built up area under Regulation 58(1)(b). The petitioner company gets not only existing BUA of 79998 sq.mtrs. i.e. 80,000 sq. mtrs., but has obtained approval from the Planning Authority (Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai) to construct of residential buildings with total built up area of 1,29,199 sq. mtrs.. That means, the approval obtained by the petitionercompany is for additional built up area of 49,120 sq.mtrs. also. This 49,199 sq.mtrs. as well as open land of 25,775 sq.mtrs on which the petitionercompany is going to construct these buildings is certainly in excess of 30% of the open land and balance FSI referred to in Regulation 58(1)(b). The petitioner''s contention is that it is only after the petitioner will actually complete construction of 79,998 sq.mtrs. plus construction on 30% of land to be shared that the question of sharing land under Regulation 58(1)(b) will arise.

74. The contention cannot be accepted. Not only it runs counter to the scheme of Regulation 58 which was specifically amended on 24 August 2010, but it also makes nonsense of the entire object of Regulation 58 made in public interest to balance the claims of cotton textile mill companies as well as mill workers and residents of Mumbai who need public housing as well as open green spaces. The entire 79,999 sq.mtrs. of construction which was existing on the date of coming into force of DCR 58 and which was relatable to 60,149 sq.mtrs. of land has been completely demolished by the petitioner-company. Hence, the approval obtained by the petitioner -company is not only for redevelopment after demolition of existing 79,999 sq.mtrs. of BUA but also of additional 49,120 sq.mtrs. of BUA. The petitioner has already got approval to develop 25,775 sq.mtrs. of open land over and above 60,149 sq.mtrs. of land which was covered by the existing built up area. This 25,775 sq.mtrs. is definitely in excess of 30% of the open lands to be shared i.e. more than 30% of 78,106 sq.mtrs. of land to be shared from out of the land of Spring Mills at Dadar, Naigaon (Wadala). Similarly, this additional 49,199 sq.mtrs of BUA (over and above the existing 80,000 sq. mtrs.) is also more than 30% of the 61,962 sq.mtrs. of built up area which is permissible for the petitioner-company to put up on the land to be retained by it [(i.e. land on which there was existing construction which has been demolished plus the land which is available to the petitioner-company for sharing under Regulation 58(1)(b)].

75. Similarly, the petitioner textile-company has already obtained approval for construction of 76,878 sq.mtrs. of buildings for commercial/residential user which are in the process of being constructed on the lands at Prabhadevi (Lower ). The petitioner has already earmarked 40% of the open lands to be shared under Regulation 58(1)(b) which is also in excess of 30% limit stipulated in Regulation 58(1)(b).

76. Thus, the real controversy is not about the area of the lands to be shared which were already determined in para 295 of the Supreme Court decision rendered on 7 March 2006 but the question is when the textile company is required to hand over possession of the lands earmarked for MHADA for public housing/mill workers housing and for Municipal Corporation for open green spaces.

77. It is rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent- Municipal Corporation, MHADA and the workers that once the textile mill company has clearly expressed its intention to develop land exceeding 30% of the lands to be shared and the mill company has accordingly not only submitted a layout on that basis but has also thereafter obtained approval for building plans which includes plans for constructing buildings on the land coming to the share of the textile company under Regulation 58(1)(b) and which open lands are in excess of 30% of the open lands to be shared, it is obvious that the textile company must hand over possession of the remaining portion of the open lands as per the percentage already specified in the table to Regulation 58(1)(b).

Conclusions

79. In view of the above discussion, our conclusions are as follows:-

(A) Approval granted to the petitioner-company on 10 November 2003 to develop/redevelop the land of Spring Mills at Dadar-Naigaon in Wadala purporting to be under Sub-Regulations (2) and (6) of Regulation 58 of Development Control Regulations must be read in light of the subsequent order of closure dated 25 November 2004 of Commissioner of Labour, Maharashtra State u/s 25-O(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Hence, subsequent approval of layout by the Planning Authority i.e. Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and approval of the Building Plans in the form of IOD and Commencement Certificate, must all be read as governed by Regulation 58(1) of the Development Control Regulations, 1991, as amended by Government Notification dated 24 August 2010.

(B) The approval granted by the State Government to the petitioner-company to develop/redevelop the land of its textile-mill at Prabhadevi in Lower purporting to have been granted under Sub- Regulations (2) and (6) of Regulation 58 of the Development Control Regulations is also governed by Note-VII to Regulation 58(1)(b) as inserted by Government Notification dated 24 August 2010;

(C) In view of Note-VII to Regulation 58(1)(b), the petitioner company has already become liable to hand over the following lands earmarked for MHADA (for public housing/mill workmen''s housing) and for Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (for open green spaces, such as Recreation Ground) to MHADA and Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai respectively which areas are also mentioned in para 295 of the Supreme Court decision in (2006) 3 SCC page 531.

(D) On correct interpretation of provisions of Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 read with Regulation 58 of the Development Control Regulations, 1991 as amended by Government Notification dated 24 August 2010, the challenges raised in Writ Petition No.977 of 2010 must fail.

78. In view of the above conclusions, Writ Petition No.977 of 2010 of the petitioner textile-company is dismissed. Interim relief stands vacated. Writ Petition of workers i.e. Writ Petition (Lodging) No.1134 of 2010 is disposed of in terms of the above conclusions and with directions to the respondents to follow and implement the same.