Bombay High Court
CHANDRASHEKHAR PANDURANG GADGILversusTHE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE CITY OF PUNE AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The court held that the municipal corporation must acquire the land in accordance with law, determine and pay monetary compensation, and may then take possession.
Summary
The petitioner sought a direction for the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) to complete acquisition of his land and to provide monetary compensation, rejecting the corporation's offer of floor space index (FSI) or transfer of development rights (TDR). The petition highlighted that PMC had initiated acquisition proceedings and communicated with the Special Land Acquisition Officer, but later offered non‑monetary compensation. The court noted that all respondents were represented and could therefore be directed. It ordered that if PMC requires the land for the designated DP road, it must acquire it either through negotiation or compulsory acquisition in accordance with law, determine the appropriate monetary compensation, and then take possession. The petition was consequently disposed with these directions.
Issues considered
- Whether the petitioner is entitled to monetary compensation instead of FSI or TDR for the acquisition of his land
- Whether the court can direct the municipal corporation to complete acquisition by negotiation or compulsory means and determine monetary compensation
Subjects
- land acquisition
- monetary compensation
- FSI
- TDR
- municipal corporation
- compulsory acquisition
- DP road
Judgment
11_WP_12492_26.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 12492 OF 2026
Chandrashekhar Pandurang Gadgil … Petitioner
vs.
Municipal Corporation of City of Pune and others … Respondents
Mr. Sagar A. Joshi for petitioner.
Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni a/w. Mr. Abhishek Roy and Mr. Shreyas R. Zarkar for
respondent No.1 – PMC.
Ms. G. R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3 – State
authorities.
CORAM : MANISH PITALE &
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ
DATE : 07th OCTOBER, 2026
P.C. :
. The petitioners have approached this Court seeking a direction
to complete the process of acquisition of the subject land. The said
prayer is based on documents filed along with the writ petition,
which indicate that the respondent No.1 – Pune Municipal
Corporation (PMC) had initiated a proposal for acquisition of the
subject land, by approaching respondents – State authorities.
Respondent No.3 – Special Land Acquisition Officer had even
communicated to the Municipal Corporation to deposit the amount.
It appears that thereafter, the respondent No.1 – PMC simply sent a
communication dated 08.07.2025, offering either FSI or TDR as
compensation to the petitioner.
2. The petitioner is not interested in compensation in the form of
FSI or TDR and he insists on monetary compensation.
Digitally signed
by PRIYA
PRIYA KAMBLI
KAMBLI Date:
2026.10.07
15:00:49 +0530
1/2
11_WP_12492_26.doc
3. Respondent No.1 – PMC is represented by Mr. Kulkarni,
learned counsel and respondent Nos.2 and 3 – State authorities are
represented by Ms. Raghuwanshi, learned AGP.
4. Since all the three respondents are represented by counsel
before this Court, the present writ petition can be disposed of by
issuing appropriate directions to the respondents.
5. In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of by
directing that in the event the respondent No.1 – PMC requires the
subject land for the purpose for which it is reserved i.e. DP road, it
shall proceed for acquisition of the same either by way of
negotiations or compulsory acquisition in accordance with law and
upon determination and payment of monetary compensation, the
said respondent can proceed to take possession of the subject land.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Priya Kambli
2/2
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.