Bombay High Court

ARJUN ASHOKKUMAR BHUTDA AND OTHERSversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS

Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: N B SURYAWANSHI VAISHALI PATIL JADHAV

Holding

The petitioners must first submit a proposal for TDR pursuant to the notice dated 26‑04‑2023 before any compensation can be considered.

Summary

The petitioners, Arjun Ashokkumar Bhutda and others, filed a writ petition seeking compensation, three times the market value of the land (TDR), and the RCC structure for land acquired by the corporation. The respondents (Corporation) contended that the petitioners' residential construction was unauthorized but failed to produce any notice establishing this claim. The petitioners argued that the required measurements were already in the respondents' possession and that they should not be burdened with further submissions. The respondents produced a notice dated 26‑04‑2023 asking the petitioners to submit a proposal for TDR, which the petitioners allegedly did not accept. The Court found that no prior notice of unauthorized construction had been served and that procedural compliance under the notice was required. Consequently, the Court disposed of the writ petition, directing the petitioners to submit a TDR proposal within four weeks of the order’s upload, after which the respondents must decide within eight weeks.

Issues considered

What procedural steps must the petitioners follow to claim compensation and TDR under the notice dated 26‑04‑2023?
Whether the respondents' claim of unauthorized construction is valid in the absence of a prior notice.

Subjects

land acquisition
compensation
TDR
unauthorized construction
notice requirement
writ petition
High Court

Judgment

2026:BHC-AUG:12336-DB

                                                        1
                          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                    BENCH AT AURANGABAD.

                               930 WRIT PETITION NO.10439 OF 2019

               Arjun Ashokkumar Bhutda and Others                        ..Petitioners
                      Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Others                       ..Respondents
                                                    …..
               Shri. Swapnil S. Rathi, Advocate for the Petitioners
               Shri. A. V. Lavte, AGP for the State.
               Shri. H. V. Patil, Advocate for Respondent No.2
                                                    …..

                                           CORAM :     N. B. SURYAWANSHI AND
                                                       VAISHALI PATIL – JADHAV, JJ.
                                           Dated    : MARCH 18, 2026

               FINAL ORDER :-

               .     By this Petition, the Petitioners seek direction to Respondent Nos.

               2 and 3 – Corporation to award compensation to them along with three

               times T.D.R. of the acquired land along with R.C.C. structure standing

               thereon.


               2.    Respondent Nos.2 and 3 filed Affidavit-in-reply contending that

               the construction of residential house and ownership of the Petitioners

               are not disputed, however they have stated that the said construction

               was unauthorized.


               3.    We called upon learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 to

               demonstrate as to on what basis it is claimed that the construction of the

               Petitioners was unauthoritsed. He is not in a position to substantiate the

               said contention on the basis of documents on record. Admittedly, no

               notice has been issued to the Petitioners that their construction is
                                         2
unauthorized.


4.    Learned Advocate for the Petitioners submits that although road

has already been constructed by Respondent Nos.2 and 3, they are

asking the Petitioners to submit measurements. According to him, the

measurements are already available with Respondent Nos.2 and 3 and

they should proceed on the basis of measurements available in their

records.


5.    Learned Advocate for Respondent Nos.2 and 3 has placed on

record copy of notice dated 26.04.2023, whereby the Petitioners were

called upon to submit a proposal seeking T.D.R.    According to him, the

said notice was not accepted by the Petitioners and endorsement to that

effect was made by serving person on 26.04.2023.


6.    In the light of the above facts, the Writ Petition is disposed of by

directing the Petitioners to approach Respondent Nos.2 and 3 pursuant

to the notice dated 26.04.2023 and submit a proposal claiming TDR. If

such proposal is submitted by the Petitioners within four (4) weeks from

the date of uploading of this order, the same shall be considered and

decided by Respondent Nos.2 and 3 within eight (8) weeks thereafter,

after hearing the Petitioners.




(VAISHALI PATIL-JADHAV, J.)                  (N. B. SURYAWANSHI, J.)


GGP

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…