### Statutory Compensation Under Section 126(1)(b) of MRTP Act Cannot Be Negated via Private Contracts or Delay

The Respondents (Landowners) owned 98,369.1 sq. mts. of land in village Anik, Chembur, which was reserved for a "garden" under the 1994 Development Plan.

In 2001, the Landowner applied for Transferable Development Rights (TDR) under Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act.

The Appellant (Corporation) issued a Letter of Intent (LOI) stipulating that the Landowner must develop the garden and maintain it for 20 years without claiming "Amenity TDR".

In 2002, the Landowner signed an undertaking and a Maintenance Agreement agreeing to these terms.

Physical possession was handed over in 2002, and the Landowner received TDR for the raw land only.

In 2016, following Lokayukta proceedings regarding public access, the Corporation took back actual possession.

In 2019, the Landowner claimed additional "Amenity TDR" for the development of the garden, which the Corporation rejected citing a 17-year delay and the contractual waiver in the LOI.

The High Court allowed the Landowner’s writ petition.

1. Whether the claim for additional amenity TDR is barred by delay and laches?

2. Whether the Landowner waived its right to claim additional amenity TDR under Section 126 of the MRTP Act by signing the LOI, Undertaking, and Maintenance Agreement?

Section 126(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act, 1966, which mandates compensation for acquired land via FSI/TDR and "additional" FSI/TDR for constructed amenities.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (Godrej I), which held that authorities cannot impose executive conditions or negotiate terms that derogate from a landowner's statutory rights under Section 126(1)(b).

Article 300A of the Constitution of India, property deprivation must be by "authority of law," encompassing the right to fair compensation.

The principle from Kukreja Construction Company v. State of Maharashtra established that delay and laches do not defeat a claim for statutory compensation like TDR unless third-party rights are prejudiced.

The Court rejected the Corporation’s argument of waiver, reasoning that the right to compensation under Section 126(1)(b) is a statutory entitlement derived from the Constitutional right under Article 300A.

Following the precedent in Godrej I, the Court held that the Corporation cannot use an LOI or Undertaking to "contract out" of the statute; any condition requiring a landowner to forfeit "Amenity TDR" as a prerequisite for receiving "Land TDR" is an illegal exercise of unequal bargaining power and economic duress.

Regarding the Maintenance Agreement, the Court found it to be a separate transaction that could not substitute or defer the statutory right to compensation.

On the issue of delay, the Court applied Godrej II and Kukreja Construction, noting that the law regarding amenity TDR was in "suspended animation" until clarified by the Supreme Court in 2009.

Since the Corporation failed to prove any prejudice or creation of third-party rights, the 17-year interval did not bar the claim for a continuing cause of action like constitutionally-backed compensation.

Statutory rights under the MRTP Act cannot be waived through executive contracts or undertakings that are in derogation of the law.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's judgment, directing the Corporation to grant the additional amenity TDR (100% of the area of construction) to the Landowner within two months.