SALIMHUSAIN FAZALEHUSAIN BOHARIversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH SECRETARY AND ORS

2026:BHC-KOL:8290-DB

                                                                     21-WP-1206-2025(C).doc


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

                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 1206 OF 2025

               Shakirhussain Shaftakhusain Bohari and Others           ...Petitioners
                         Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Others                     ...Respondents

                                                WITH
                                    WRIT PETITION NO. 1185 OF 2025

               Salimhusain Fazalehusain Bohari                         ...Petitioner
                         Versus
               The State of Maharashtra and Others                     ...Respondents

                                                ——————
               Mr. Ajay A. Joshi, for the Petitioners.
               Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye a/w Mr. Shantanu Gurav for Respondent Nos.3 & 4.
               Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State.
                                               ——————

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

                                              DATE       :   AUGUST 29, 2026.

               P. C. :

               1.        As the Petitions raise common issues and common submissions

               were advanced by the parties, with consent, the Petitions are disposed

               of by this common order.

               2.        Both these Petitions question the action of the Respondent -

               Pandharpur Municipal Council in commencing the work of road


               Jamadar-SL                       1 of 4
                                                      21-WP-1206-2025(C).doc


widening, affecting the Petitioners' properties, without taking recourse

to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in

Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013

Act”).

3.       Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submits

that in lieu of acquisition of the Petitioners’ properties, the Respondent-

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

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

December, 2024 to the Municipal Council. 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 others1. He submits that the

Municipal Council is required to take recourse to the 2013 Act and there

cannot be any compulsory acquisition.

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

Respondent - Municipal Council would contend that the Petitioners 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.

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


Jamadar-SL                        2 of 4
                                                              21-WP-1206-2025(C).doc


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

6.     The Petitions question the offer of FSI/TDR by the Municipal

Council vide notices dated 21st October, 2024 and 25th November, 2024.

7.     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

Petitioners, who are now claiming compensation under the 2013 Act.

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

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

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


Jamadar-SL                            3 of 4
                                                                 21-WP-1206-2025(C).doc


         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.”



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

the event, there is a refusal on the part of the Petitioners 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

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

10.      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 notices dated 21st

October, 2024 and 25th November, 2024 are hereby quashed and set

aside.

11.      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 Petitioners' properties for the purpose of road widening.

12.      The Petitions are allowed in the above terms.




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




Jamadar-SL                              4 of 4