Advertisement
When should a housing society in Mumbai start considering re...
From GST on JDAs to SEBI’s REIT reclassification and the S...
Stay ahead in the world of real estate with our daily podcas...
Stay ahead in the world of real estate with our daily podcas...
The Bombay High Court has held that the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) cannot unilaterally impose Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in lieu of monetary compensation when acquiring land for public infrastructure, directing the authority to pay cash compensation instead. The ruling arose from a petition by a Kurla resident whose 630 sq m parcel was acquired for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road (SCLR) project, and who had challenged an earlier award granting only TDR. A division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram Shirsath determined that the statutory framework of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 clearly contemplates monetary payment for land acquisition, and that offering TDR without mutual agreement falls outside the Act's provisions. The court directed MMRDA to determine and pay just monetary compensation within six months, rejecting the authority's contention that TDR could substitute for cash compensation under the legislation.
The Bombay High Court has ruled that the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) cannot force landowners to accept Transferable Development Rights (TDR) as the sole mode of compensation for acquired land, and must instead determine and pay monetary compensation under the statutory scheme. The decision was delivered by a division bench of Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram Shirsath in a case concerning land acquired for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road (SCLR) project in Kurla, Mumbai. Advertisement
The land in question, measuring approximately 630 square metres, was acquired by MMRDA for road expansion, with a final acquisition notification issued in the early part of the previous decade and possession taken soon after. In December 2012, an award was issued granting compensation in the form of TDR, rather than cash. The petitioners, represented by advocate Neeta Karnik, immediately sought monetary compensation, but their request was not positively addressed, and a communication from MMRDA in 2024 maintained that the original award could not be modified.
In its judgement, the bench noted that the relevant provisions of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 — particularly Section 35 — contemplate monetary compensation calculated according to a specified formula. The court observed that offering TDR as compensation, without a clear mutual agreement between the authority and the landowner, exceeds the authority granted by the statutory framework and is beyond the "four corners" of the Act. It distinguished cases under other legislation where TDR might be available under explicit statutory provisions, explaining that the MMRDA Act lacks any mechanism for unilateral imposition of TDR in place of cash.
The bench rejected the MMRDA's argument that the petition was barred by delay given the passage of years since the original award, emphasising that a continuing violation of statutory rights cannot be excused on such grounds. Referencing Article 300A of the Constitution, which protects the right to property, it held that failure to pay lawful monetary compensation renders acquisition procedures deficient in law. The court accordingly directed MMRDA to reassess and pay just monetary compensation within six months from the date of the judgement.
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
