M/S. GANDHI AUTOLINESversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTA THR SEC. URBAN DEV. DEPT. AND ORS

2026:BHC-KOL:8292-DB

                                                                       28-WP-11193-2025(C).doc


                             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                      CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR
                                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 11193 OF 2025

               M/s. Gandhi Autolines                                      ...Petitioner
                         Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Others                        ...Respondents

                                                ——————
               Mr. Ajay A. Joshi, for the Petitioner.
               Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye a/w Mr. Shantanu Gurav for Respondent No.3.
               Mr. Siddheshwar B. Kalel, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                             ——————

                                                CORAM :        SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH &
                                                               NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ.

                                                DATE       :   AUGUST 29, 2026.

               P. C. :

               1.        The Petition questions the action of the Respondent -Pandharpur

               Municipal Council in commencing the work of road widening, affecting

               the Petitioner’s property, without taking recourse to the provisions of

               the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,

               Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”).

               2.        Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner, submits

               that in lieu of acquisition of the Petitioner’s property, the Respondent-

               Municipal Council offered FSI/TDR in lieu of the acquisition, which was

               not acceptable to the Petitioner and was duly communicated on 11 th



               Jamadar-SL                         1 of 4
                                                       28-WP-11193-2025(C).doc


July, 2025 to the Municipal Council respectively. He submits that the

position is no longer res integra and has been settled by the Full Bench

decision of this Court in the case of Shree Vinayak Builders and

Developers, Nagpur v. State of Maharashtra and others 1. He submits

that the Municipal Council is required to take recourse to the 2013 Act

and there cannot be any compulsory acquisition.

3.       Per contra, Mr. Aradhye, learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent Municipal Council would contend that the Petitioner can

avail the benefit of the FSI/TDR by utilizing the same in the open

market. He submits that the Municipal Council has already offered the

FSI/TDR and there are financial constraints on the part of the Municipal

Council which should not affect the road widening project, which is a

public interest project.

4.       We have considered the submissions and perused the record.

5.       The Petition questions the offer of FSI/TDR by the Municipal

Council vide notice dated 25th April, 2025.

6.       There is no dispute about the fact that in view of the acquisition,

the Municipal Council offered FSI/TDR, which has been refused by the

Petitioner, who is now claiming compensation under the 2013 Act.

7.       The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Shree Vinayak Builders

and Developers, Nagpur (supra) considered the issue as to whether the

1    2022(4) Mh.L.J. 739


Jamadar-SL                         2 of 4
                                                             28-WP-11193-2025(C).doc


modes of acquisition provided under Section 126(1)(a) and (b) of the

Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (‘MRTP Act’) are at

the choice of either of the parties or only of the acquiring authority. The

Hon'ble Full Bench considered the statutory provisions and held in

paragraph 17 as under:

       “17. While concurring with the above proposition, we would like to
       emphasize that the mode of acquisition of land under Section 126(1)(a)
       and (b) of the MRTP Act is by an “agreement”. The word agreement
       connotes offer and acceptance and signifies that the agreement is not
       an unilateral act but a bilateral act which is concluded with
       communication of acceptance of the offer. Thus, Acquisition of land
       reserved for public purpose under Section 126(1) (a) and (b) cannot be
       by any unilateral proposal of the Acquiring Authority to acquire the land
       with an offer of compensation or FSI/TDR. It is a mutual agreement
       between the Acquiring Authority and the land owner whereunder the
       land is acquired by the concerned authority by agreement either by
       paying an amount agreed to or by granting, in lieu of any agreed
       amount, FSI or TDR against the area of land surrendered free of cost,
       and free of all encumbrances. That being so, the modes of acquisition of
       land under Section 126(1)(a) and (b) of the MRTP Act, can be resorted to
       only when there is a consensus between the parties; when the parties
       are ad idem and not when there is dissension; not when they are at
       variance. That means these modes of acquisition are essentially at the
       choice of either of the parties and not just the acquiring authority, and
       are taken to their logical end when the consensus is arrived at between
       these parties. In the absence of such concord, the only option available
       to the Acquiring Authority is to take recourse to Section 126(1)(c) of the
       Act and make an application to the State Government under the
       provisions 2013 Act.”



8.     Considering the enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Full Bench, in

the event, there is a refusal on the part of the Petitioner to accept

FSI/TDR, the only recourse available to the Municipal Council is under

Section 126(1)(c) of the MRTP Act, that is, by making an application to



Jamadar-SL                            3 of 4
                                                     28-WP-11193-2025(C).doc


the State Government for acquiring such land under the 2013 Act.

9.     The issue is no longer res integra stands settled in view of

decision of this Court in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers,

Nagpur (supra) and, in view thereof, the impugned notice dated 25th

April, 2025 is hereby quashed and set aside.

10.    The Respondent Municipal Council is directed to adopt the course

as set out in Section 126(1)(c) of the MRTP Act for acquisition of the

Petitioner’s property for the purpose of road widening.

11.    The Petition is allowed in the above terms.




 [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.]                    [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.]




Jamadar-SL                       4 of 4