Bombay HC – MMRDA cannot replace monetary compensation with TDR without consent, for the acquired land.
Judgment dated 30.1.2026 of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition (L) No.19414 of 2014 of Jyoti Baliram Thorat and others Vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and others with connected matter.
Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act 1974, – Specifying compensation by way of TDR instead of monetary compensation for acquisition of the land.
The petitioners are the legal heirs of the joint land owners of the land at Kurla. The respondent no.1 MMRDA had implemented road widening project for Santacruz Chembur Link road. As per the notification dated 1.3.2011 issued under section 32 of the MMRD Act, the possession of the subject land was taken on 19.5.2011. By operation of section 32(3) of the said Act, the said land vested absolutely in the Government on the date of publication of the final notification.
As per section 35 of the Act, the compensation was to be determined for the acquired land. However, the respondent no.1 unilaterally proceeded and determined compensation by providing TDR in lieu of monetary compensation vide award dated 15.12.2012.
Full Bench Judgment in the case of Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers, Nagpur Vs. State of Maharashtra and others ( 2022 (4) Mh LJ 739)
Thus, when the statutory provisions envisage compensation in the form of TDR in lieu of monetary compensation, the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid judgment requires consensus between the State Government and the landowner and it cannot be only at the option of the acquiring body i.e. the State Government.
we find that the petitioners cannot be deprived of their right to challenge the arbitrary and unreasonable act of the respondents, to unilaterally foist TDR, as a form of compensation, in violation of the statutory mechanism and procedure prescribed under the said Act.
We find that failure on the part of the respondents to determine monetary compensation under Section 35 of the said Act and unilaterally offering TDR, rendered the entire action of taking possession of the subject land without authority of law. This clearly violated the right of the petitioners under Article 300A of the Constitution of India.
Bombay HC held that unilateral grant of TDR in lieu of monetary compensation for the acquired land violates Section 35 of the MMRDA Act and Article 300A of the Constitution of India. TDR in lieu of Compensation for acquired land requires consensus, otherwise taking possession of the acquired land without compensation is without authority of law.
