Mumbai: The Bombay High Court on Thursday ruled that landowners cannot be compelled to accept Transferable Development Rights (TDR) or Floor Space Index (FSI) instead of monetary compensation for land acquisition. A bench of Justices Girish Kulkarni and Advait Sethna emphasised that unless there is an explicit agreement, the landowner must be compensated monetarily.
The court was hearing a petition filed by Purnima Talkies, a Dahanu-based cinema, challenging the Dahanu Nagar Parishad’s refusal to provide compensation for acquiring its land for road widening. Instead, the municipal body insisted on granting TDR/FSI.
The petitioner, owned by Hemant Mali, operates on 3,027 sq. meters of land, originally granted through a sanad in 1939. Over time, structures like a compound wall and a stall were built. In 2019, Mali’s nephew applied for permission to start an auto service station, but the request was never processed. Meanwhile, Dahanu was designated an ecologically fragile area in 1991, restricting industrial development.
In August 2022, the municipal body issued a notice stating Mali’s land was required for road widening. Despite multiple representations, requests for compensation were ignored. He also filed an RTI application, but claimed crucial documents were withheld.
Mali then approached the Dahanu Civil Court in 2023, seeking an injunction against the demolition of his compound wall. The court rejected his plea in January 2024, and shortly after, the municipal body demolished the wall under police protection. In response, Mali amended his suit to seek Rs 4.85 lakh in damages and reconstruction of the demolished structures.
In May 2024, the trial court partly ruled in his favor, directing authorities to reconsider his compensation request. However, at a July 2024 hearing, the municipal body upheld its stance, following which leading approached the HC.
Mali’s Advocate, Yogita Deshmukh, argued that under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, land acquisition must involve an agreement before offering TDR/FSI. She contended that, in its absence, compensation must be provided under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.
The government’s counsel conceded that TDR/FSI could not be imposed without consent. The court ruled in Mali’s favor, stating that TDR/FSI cannot replace compensation unless agreed upon. It also said that demolition without compensation violated Article 300A, which protects the right to property. Further, it added that fair compensation is essential in land acquisition.
“We are constrained to observe that instead of taking recourse to lawful acquisition of land, the respondents in the present case have gone ahead to demolish the compound wall… that too without payment of any compensation to the petitioner. Thus, the respondents have acted contrary to and in the teeth of the provisions of law… which has also infringed the constitutional right of the petitioner guaranteed under Article 300A,” the court concluded.
