After taking land for road widening in 2001 without compensation, PMC ordered to grant double-area TDR and pay ₹10 lakh costs

The petitioner owned land admeasuring approximately 400,969 sq. ft. at CTS No. 39, Final Plot No. 392/1, Gultekadi, Pune. An area of 1,310 sq. m. was reserved for widening Shankarsheth Road into a 36-metre Development Plan road.

In 1999–2001, the Pune Municipal Corporation (“PMC”) requested the petitioner to surrender the land for road widening, offering additional FSI/TDR as compensation, with monetary compensation as an alternative. The petitioner elected to receive TDR and handed over possession of 1,310 sq. m.; PMC accepted possession and its name was subsequently mutated in the property card.

The petitioner applied for a Development Rights Certificate (“DRC”) under Regulation N-2.4 of the 1997 Development Control Regulations.

A subsequent order dated 12 July 2011 again rejected the TDR claim but acknowledged that no compensation had been paid and proposed that monetary compensation be considered under the land-acquisition provisions. The writ petition challenging that order was admitted on 15 December 2011.

During the pendency of the petition, the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 was repealed by the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, Sections 126 and 127 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”) were amended, and the Unified Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2020 (“UDCPR”) replaced the earlier Pune DCR.

PMC later assessed monetary compensation at Rs.76,31,655 as of 2001 and Rs.1,35,19,000 as of 2011, but did not pay the amount. The petitioner also sought appointment of a Court Receiver over the acquired land through Interim Application No. 13461 of 2025.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to TDR/DRC for the 1,310 sq. m. of land surrendered to PMC for road widening, notwithstanding PMC’s contention that the permissible FSI of the original plot had already been utilised

Whether Regulation 11.2.4 of the UDCPR applied to land whose possession had been taken before the UDCPR came into force, where TDR had been promised but no DRC had been issued

Whether the rejection of the petitioner’s TDR claim, without payment of monetary compensation, violated the petitioner’s constitutional right to property under Article 300A of the Constitution

Whether PMC could, after taking possession in 2001, defer compensation by proposing future acquisition proceedings instead of granting the promised TDR or paying compensation

Article 300A of the Constitution protects the right to property and prohibits deprivation of property except by authority of law and through due process, with reasonable or adequate compensation being payable where the State exercises its power of eminent domain; the Court relied on Vidya Devi v. State of Himachal Pradesh, Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, and Bernard Francis Joseph Vaz v. Government of Karnataka.

Sections 125 and 126 of the MRTP Act recognise acquisition of land reserved for public purposes through agreement, FSI/TDR, or compulsory acquisition, while Section 127 governs compensation for reserved land.

Regulation N-2.4 of the erstwhile Pune DCR entitled an owner surrendering reserved land free of cost and encumbrances to FSI/TDR in the form of a DRC.

Regulation 11.2.1 of the UDCPR treats TDR as compensation in the form of FSI/development rights; Regulation 11.2.2 includes land reserved for roads and road widening among cases eligible for TDR; Regulation 11.2.3 excludes cases where compensation or FSI has already been granted; and Regulation 11.2.4 provides for TDR based on the surrendered land, irrespective of the FSI or development potential of the land surrendered, including cases where possession was taken earlier with a commitment to grant TDR but the DRC was not issued.

The Court considered Naiknavare & Associates, Pune v. State of Maharashtra, 2008 (5) Mh.L.J. 335, but found PMC’s reliance on it inapposite on the facts.

The Court found that PMC had accepted possession of 1,310 sq. m. from the petitioner for road widening pursuant to an express representation that TDR/FSI would be granted in lieu of compensation.

No monetary compensation had been paid and no DRC had been issued. Therefore, the exclusions in Regulation 11.2.3—previous payment of compensation or prior grant of compensatory FSI—were not attracted.

The Court rejected PMC’s repeated reasoning that the plot’s FSI had already been consumed, holding that Regulation 11.2.4 expressly made entitlement to TDR independent of the permissible FSI or development potential of the surrendered land and the surrounding plot.

Since the petitioner had surrendered the land under the earlier promise of TDR and remained uncompensated, Regulation 11.2.4 applied notwithstanding that possession had been taken before the UDCPR came into force.

The Court further held that PMC’s proposal to initiate acquisition proceedings years after taking possession was impermissible and inconsistent with Article 300A, particularly when the Corporation had neither paid compensation nor delivered the promised development rights.

In view of PMC’s inability or unwillingness to release monetary compensation, the Court directed compensation through TDR calculated at twice the surrendered area—2,620 sq. m.—under the UDCPR.

It quashed the PMC orders dated 9 January 2009 and 12 July 2011 and the State Government order dated 9 January 2024.

PMC was directed to issue a DRC to the petitioner for 2,620 sq. m., representing twice the surrendered area, under Regulation 11.2.4 of the UDCPR, within four weeks of uploading the judgment.

PMC was also directed to pay costs of Rs.10 lakh to the petitioner Society within eight weeks.

The writ petition and Interim Application No. 13461 of 2025 were made absolute in those terms.