Judgment Anoop V. Mohta, J. 1. Rule, returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2. The petitioner who is in business of construction and development of land has prayed to direct Respondent Nos.2 and 3 (the Municipal Corporation for Greater Mumbai and its Executive Engineer) to forthwith grant additional Transfer of Development Rights (for short TDR) / Development Right Certificate (for short, DRC) for the balance 75% area as set out in the Schedules annexed to the petition. Admittedly, the Respondents granted 25% TDR/DRC in lieu of the construction of the specified D.P. Road at village Borla, Dist. Ghatkopar Mankhurd Link Road, M/East Ward, Mumbai-400 003, on 11.7.2006 and 18.8.2007, mainly because there is no dispute and/or any challenge raised and/or made by the Respondents about the actual work done at the relevant time, in this regard. On the contrary, these facts are confirmed even by the Respondents in an affidavit dated 22.10.2010. 3. The Apex Court on 6.2.2009, in case of Godrej and Boyce Manufacturing Company Limited Vs. State of Maharashtra & ors. (2009) 5 SCC 24 ), after considering the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional & Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP) and the Development Control Regulations for Grater Bombay, 1991 (the Regulations) while dealing with the additional Floor Space Index (for short, FSI) or TDR and measure of determining equivalence for grant of additional FSI, observed that the Municipal executive instructions/circulars of Municipal Authorities are in no way override and/or supersede the statutory provisions, and thereby directed to grant 100% TDR, since the construction of the road was a condition for grant of 100% TDR. 4. The judgment/decision (supra) squarely covered and governed the undisputed facts on record so far as construction of road and the surrendered land for the same as recorded above. There is no dispute with regard to the provisions of law and the facts of providing 25% TDR as recorded above. The petitioner, therefore filed the petition on 3.2.2010, after 11 months. However, the submission is made by the learned senior advocate appearing for the Respondents-Corporation that no relief can be granted in view of delay and laches, apart from trying to reopen the issues on facts about the construction of DP Road, though the first affidavit so recorded above reflects no such ground and/or reason to deny the reliefs as contended before the Court first time. 5. 5. There is nothing on record to show that they have challenged and/or taken any action and even revoke the order of 25% TDR already granted. We, therefore, not permitted the Respondents-Corporation to reagitate the issue on facts. Merely because the Respondents' Officers now for the first time tried to reopen the issue and/or challenge the grant of TDR/DRC in the year 2006/2007 by filing additional affidavit dated 25.01.2012, basically, also for the reasons that those applications were disposed of long back as recorded above. We are proceeding, at this stage, in view of the admitted position on record with regard to the grant of 25% TDR. 6. The question only remains is entitlement of the petitioner of remaining 75% of TDR/DRC as prayed. Having once granted benefit of 25% based upon the interpretation given by the Respondents, after verifying the factual position and the record and after issuing a completion certificate to deny remaining 75%, inspite of the Supreme Court judgment Godrej (Supra), is unacceptable. The fact that the Respondents have granted 25% of TDR itself justified and proved the case that the Petitioner developed the amenities on the surrendered land at its own cost and is entitled to additional amenities of the TDR for the same. 7. It is relevant to note that affidavit dated 22nd October 2010 filed by the Respondents and the averments made therein have never withdrawn and so also the action of grant of 25% TDR as recorded above. The Respondents unable to deny and/or distinguish the judgment Godrej (Supra) so declared about the grant of 100% TDR in lieu of construction of DP Road and of surrendered land as recorded above. The submission in this regard, about the alleged non-construction of road as recorded above, therefore, even if, tried to make for the first time in this writ petition without invoking their own action, is not acceptable and as it is clear from the affidavit so recorded above that it is afterthought and intend to deny the entitlement of the petitioner. The Respondents-Corporation are bound by their own affidavit and their own earlier orders/action. The Respondents-Corporation are bound by their own affidavit and their own earlier orders/action. There is nothing on record to show that except the self destructive averments made in affidavit/submission in the pending writ petition and during the course of argument, they have raised earlier the issue of “Petitioner has not built upon the amenity” as contemplated under Regulation 34 Appendix VII Clause 5 and 6. We are inclined to observe that the opposition of the Corporation is untenable and unacceptable, as it is contrary to the record. The rights of the Petitioner as crystallized on the basis of above admitted position on record and now even confirmed by the Supreme Court Judgment Godrej (Supra), just cannot be taken away, though claimed since long. The cause of action in our view is still continuing. There is no question of any delay and/or laches as contended. We are inclined to accept the submission made by the senior advocate appearing for the Petitioner based upon the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. I.T.C. Limited (AIR 1993 Supreme Court 2135)that the approach of a person/ party soon immediately and/or after coming to know about the judgment of the Supreme Court cannot be stated to be guilty of any laches to claim/reliefs so prayed and/or is barred by the limitation in the present case as recorded above. After the Supreme Court judgment in case of Godrej (supra) on 6.2.2009, the Petitioner vide its letter dated 6.7.2009 requested the Respondents to grant the TDR/DRC in question. The reminder was sent on 11.9.2009. The petition, therefore, so filed on 10 February 2010, as the Respondents did not grant reliefs, in no way can be stated to be beyond limitation and/or suffers from any laches or delay. 8. There is also no force in the contention that the proposal for modification to Clause 6 of Appendix VII of Regulation 34 of DCR 1991 as contemplated under Section 37(1) of MRP already submitted to the State Government and the final sanction under section 37(2) is still awarded, therefore, no relief can be granted as prayed. The judgment of the Apex Court so referred above, as stand need to be followed by all including the Respondents based upon the present position of law. There is no bar even expressed in the Judgment. The judgment of the Apex Court so referred above, as stand need to be followed by all including the Respondents based upon the present position of law. There is no bar even expressed in the Judgment. The rights also created in favour of the Petitioner based upon above undisputed position on record, confirmed from the Respondents completion certificate in respect of construction/development of the DP Road, garden and RCG. 9. The judgments cited by the learned senior advocate appearing for the Respondents to oppose the prayers are also of no assistance, in view of above position of law and of the facts on record. We are not concerned about the suit for monetary claim as sought to be contended including of any compensation or damages. The rights so crystallized based upon the existing provisions of law, the Respondents by circulars/administrative instructions cannot deny. They left with no option but to follow the mandate of law. The submissions of alternate remedy is also in no way sufficient to deny the rights so claimed by the Petitioner in the present facts and circumstances of the case. Even the judgment in case of Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. & anr. vs. Municipal Corporation of Gr. Mumbai (2012 (1) Bom. C.R. 110), so cited by the learned senior advocate appearing for the Respondents though based upon similar provisions, but it was related to construction/development of a garden. We are concerned with the admitted development of D.P Road. The facts and circumstances of the cases so cited by the Respondents are totally distinct and distinguishable. 10. The Respondent-Corporation, in view of above, is under obligation to grant the benefits/reliefs as prayed having once factually completed requisite formalities by the Petitioner for the same. In our view, the issues in the present case, therefore, stand concluded in favour of the Petitioner as reiterated even by the judgment (supra) which further followed and approved in The Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay & Anr. Vs. Yeshwant Jagannath Vaity & Ors. ( AIR 2011 S.C. 1916 )“for other amenity” also. Therefore the Petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as prayed. 11. Vs. Yeshwant Jagannath Vaity & Ors. ( AIR 2011 S.C. 1916 )“for other amenity” also. Therefore the Petitioner is entitled for the reliefs as prayed. 11. For the above reasons, the following Order: ORDER a) The Petition is allowed in terms or prayer clause (a), which reads thus: a) that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to issue a Writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ order of direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India directing Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to forthwith grant the additional TDR for the balance 75% area admeasuring: i) 2146.12 sq.mts.with respect to D.P. Road-I, more particular details whereof D.P. Road-I have been set out in the First Schedule of the Schedules annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit “A”; ii) 1699.87 sq.mts.with respect to D.P. Road-II, more particular details of D.P. Road-II have been set out in the Second Schedule of the Schedules annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit “A”; and iii) 622.50 sq.mts.With respect to D.P. Road-III, more particular details of D.P. Road-III have been set out in the Third Schedule of the Schedules annexed hereto and marked as Exhibit “A”. b) Rule made absolute in above terms. c) There shall be no order as to costs.