Additional TDR / FSI for Amenity Development – Section 126(1)(b) MRTP Act
Judgment dated 20.5.2026 of the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.11541 of 2024 of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and others vs. Vijay Nagar Apartments and others
Undertaking waiving such claim and right to additional TDR / FSI for Amenity Development and Delay in claiming such right is not fatal.
Statutory right of the land owner to additional TDR / FSI under Section 126(1)(b) cannot be defeated by contract, delay or municipal policy.
Additional TDR for Amenity Development
State cannot replace statutory TDR with contractual benefits
Additional TDR for Amenity Development is statutory compensation, not concession
Additional TDR for Amenity Development – Municipal Corporation cannot impose extra conditions to deny right and claim
A landowner who surrenders land and develops an amenity under Section 126(1)(b) MRTP Act is statutorily entitled to additional TDR/FSI, and such entitlement cannot be defeated by contractual waiver, delay, or subsequent regulatory changes
The Corporation issued the letter dated 13.12.2001 to the landowner that the Development Rights Certificate in lieu of transfer of the subject land reserved for garden, to the Corporation. It was mentioned that the land owner shall develop the garden as per the specifications of the Corporation and maintain it for a period of 20 years, in lieu thereof the land owner shall not claim any amenity TDR for development of the garden.
Accordingly, the TRD was released after development of the garden and physical possession given to the Corporation.
On 27.11.2002, the maintenance agreement for the garden was executed on an adoption basis for 20 years and in exchange the land owner shall not claim any amenity TDR / FSI.
However, the Corporation had demanded the possession of the garden in view of order of Lok Ayukta and same was given on 2.6.2016 without any demur or claim.
On 4.4.2019, the land owner claimed additional amenity TDR against the development of amenity of garden and same was denied.
Under the scheme of Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act, the compensation against surrendered land is in two parts: firstly, as FSI/TDR equal to the land surrendered and transferred and secondly, FSI/TDR equal to the area of amenity developed / constructed. The Landowner had been granted the first part of the compensation but denied the second part of the compensation by the Corporation.
Garden falls in the definition of “Amenity” under the DCR 1991 and also MRTP Act. The controversy relates to the Additional FSI / TRD for the development of the garden on the reserved land.
Regulation 34 of Appendix VII-A of the DCR 1991 provides-
- When an owner also develops the amenity on the surrendered plot at his cost and hands over the said developed amenity to the Commissioner, free of cost, he may be granted a further DR in the form of FSI equivalent to the area of the development done by him utilization of which, etc. will be subject to Regulations contained in this appendix.”
As such, under Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act, a unique form of compensation against the land and against the development / construction of an amenity by the landowner on the surrendered land, in form of an asset that is DRC, has been envisaged by the legislature, which is quite distinct from the usual monetary compensation by means of an agreement (which would fall within Section 126(1)(a) of the MRTP Act) or by means of acquisition proceedings under the relevant laws (which would fall within Section 126(1)(c) of the MRTP Act).
