Once FSI / TDR for Reserved Land Accepted, Claim for Compensatio
On 29th August 2013, the Land Acquisition and Management Department of the Respondent No. 3 – PMC called upon the Petitioners to hand over possession of the subject land. It was stated therein that due compensation will be paid in the form of additional Floor Space Index (FSI)/Transferable Development Rights (TDR)/Cash compensation in lieu of the subject land. 6. Pursuant thereto, by a Possession Receipt dated 9th June 2016, the Petitioners agreed to hand over the possession of the subject land admeasuring 1721.03 sq. mtrs. to Respondent No.3 PMC on the condition that compensation in the form of FSI/TDR will be given for the affected area of the subject land.
Thereafter, after almost 10 years, by a letter dated 10th February 2026, the Petitioners requested the Respondent No. 3 PMC to acquire the subject land and pay monetary compensation in accordance with law. According to the Petitioners, however, no further action was taken by the Respondent No.3 – PMC.
At the very outset, in our view, an interesting legal issue falls for our determination, revolving around a narrow compass. We are called upon to decide whether the claim of the Petitioners to insist on monetary compensation and not FSI/TDR, under the relevant statutory provisions, is sustainable in law.
A conjoint reading of the above documents, would clearly indicate that the communication dated 29th August 2013 is in the nature of an offer by the Respondent No.3 to the Petitioners. Such offer was accepted by the Petitioners vide the subsequent possession receipt dated 9th June 2016 issued, referring to Section 126 of the MRTP Act. Such acceptance in writing clearly records that the Petitioners would accept the admissible consideration in the form of FSI/TDR at the prevailing rates, in accordance with the extant Rules/Policy. Such offer, followed by the acceptance by the Petitioners vide the possession receipt dated 9th June 2016 by which the Petitioners voluntarily handed over possession of the subject land to the Respondent No.3 – PMC for the purpose of acquisition, would constitute a legally binding contract, even under the scheme and framework of the Indian Contract Act, 1872 (“Contract Act” for short).
In light of the above, in the event we accept the claim of the Petitioners for monetary compensation made for the first time in the year 2026 despite a concluded contract taking place on 9th June 2016, we are not stopping short of re-writing such legally binding concluded contract between the parties. Such recourse is held to be impermissible in law, in various decisions of the Supreme Court.
we find that the facts of the given case are such that the conditions under Section 126(1)(b) are duly fulfilled. In view thereof, the acquisition proceedings are undertaken clearly by consensus of both the Petitioners and the Respondent – Authorities, and not merely at the instance of the Respondent – Authorities. Accordingly, the reliance on the Full Bench decision (supra) by the Petitioners, is like carrying coal to New Castle, which does not take the case of the Petitioners any further.
Judgment dated 24.9.2206 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition No.5159 of 2026 of M/s L.B.Kunjir Thr. Its partner and others Vs. The State of Maharashtra and others
