Bombay High Court

JAYANT MANIKLAL LUNAWAT and ANR.versusPUNE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION

Decided: 16 September 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off

Holding

The cancellation of the eleven DRCs was illegal and without statutory basis, and the DRCs must be restored and allowed to be used under the 2005 regime, with the petitioner also permitted to apply for the remaining 220 sq mtrs.

Summary

The petitioner, Jayant Maniklal Lunawat, challenged the Pune Municipal Corporation's (PMC) cancellation of eleven Development Rights Certificates (DRCs) that were issued as compensation for surrendering his land for a sewage treatment plant. The petitioner argued that the DRCs were lawfully granted, that their cancellation was arbitrary, violated natural justice, and infringed his constitutional right to property under Article 300A. The PMC contended that the actual area possessed was less than the area for which DRCs were issued and that the cancellation was justified under municipal regulations. The Supreme Court had remanded the case for fresh measurement and to hear claims of the Central Railways and the State Irrigation Department, both of which later disclaimed any interest. The High Court, after considering the measurements, the lack of statutory authority to cancel DRCs, and precedents on compensation, held that the cancellation was illegal and restored the DRCs, allowing their use under the 2005 regime and permitting a fresh application for the remaining 220 sq mtrs.

Issues considered

The legality of the Pune Municipal Corporation's cancellation of the eleven DRCs issued to the petitioner.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to the balance 220 sq mtrs of DRCs.
Whether the municipal corporation had statutory authority under the Bombay Provisional Municipal Corporation Act to cancel DRCs.
Whether principles of natural justice and Article 300A of the Constitution were violated.
The effect of the Supreme Court's remand and the claims of the Central Railways and the State Irrigation Department on the dispute.

Legislation cited

Constitution of India — s. Article 226, Article 300A
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act — s. 126

Subjects

land acquisition
development rights certificates
transfer of development rights
compensation
natural justice
estoppel
municipal corporation
Supreme Court remand
Article 300A
delay and laches

Judgment

213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO.3816 OF 2004

Mr. Jayant Maniklal Lunawat ]
Address at 1206/B-22, Shivaji Nagar, ]
Pune : 411 004 ] …. Petitioner
Versus
1. Pune Municipal Corporation ]
A Statutory Corporation, ]
Incorporated under the Provisional ]
Municipal Corporation Act having its ]
at Shivaji Nagar, Pune ]

2. The Commissioner ]
Pune Municipal Corporation, ]
Incorporated under the provisions ]
of Bombay Provisional Municipal ]
Corporation Act having its office at ]
Shivaji Nagar, Pune ]

3. The City Engineer ]
Pune Municipal Corporation ]
A Statutory Corporation ]
Incorporated under the provisions of ]
Bombay Provisional Municipal Corporation ]
Act having its office at Shivajinagar, Pune ]

4. The Central Railways ]
Having its office at CSTM Compound ]
Dr. D.N. Nagar, Fort, Mumbai-400 001 ]
And Divisional Office at Pune Railway ]
Station, Sassoon Road, Camp, Pune-411 001 ]

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 1/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

5. State of Maharashtra ]
Through the Secretary, Department of ]
Irrigation, having its office at Mantralaya, ]
Mumbai-400 032. ]

6. Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development ]
Corporation, Sinchan Bhavan, Barne Road, ]
Pune-411 011. ]… Respondents

…..
Mr. Naushad Engineer, Senior Advocate a/w Mr. Sharad Bansal Mr.
Krishkumar A. Jain and Mr. Kalpesh Bandre i/b Ritesh K. Jain for the
Petitioner.

Mr. Abhijit P. Kulkarni a/w Ms. Sweta Shah & Mr. Abhishek Roy for
Respondent No.1 to 3-P.M.C.

Ms. Nisha Valani for Respondent No.4.

Mr. A.I. Patel, Addl. G.P. a/w Ms. D.S. Deshmukh, A.G.P. for
Respondent No.5-State.

Mr. Nitin Gaware Patil a/w Mr. Shivkumar S. Jangwad and Mr.
Yogesh Bhandarkar (Asstt. Engineer Grade-I, Khadakwasla Cannel
Division Sub-2) for Respondent No.6.
…..

CORAM: M.S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.

RESERVED ON : 3rd SEPTEMBER 2026
PRONOUNCED ON : 16th SEPTEMBER 2026

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 2/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

JUDGMENT (Per Sandesh D. Patil, J.) :

1. By the present writ petition, the Petitioner is challenging the

order passed by Respondent No.2, i.e. Municipal Commissioner of

the Pune Municipal Corporation, dated 8 th July 2005, the

communication letter dated 9th December, 2005 issued by the

Respondent No.3, i.e. City Engineer, Pune Municipal Corporation

cancelling the 11 Development Rights Certificates (DRCs),

aggregating to 3,690.01 sq. mtrs. The Petitioner is also seeking

issuance of DRCs for the deficit area of 220 sq. mtrs. (hereinafter

referred to as (“the deficit area” )

2. The case of the Petitioner is that on 16th September, 2000,

measurement was carried out in respect of the property in question

bearing survey number 6A/1 at Bopodi, Pune (hereinafter referred to

as “the subject plot”). The Respondent No. 1 (hereinafter referred to

as the PMC) issued a notice to the predecessor in title of the

Petitioner under Section 77 of the Bombay Provisional Municipal

Corporation Act for the purpose of acquisition of the subject plot for

the purpose of construction of the Sewage Treatment Plant

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 3/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

(hereinafter referred as “STP”). Pursuant to the said notice the

Respondents were approached and the land was offered on the

condition that TDR in respect of 13,117 sq. mtrs. would be made

available to the Petitioner. In accordance to the agreement reached

between the parties, the Respondent No. 1 on 17 th October, 2000

issued two possession receipts, both dated 17th October, 2000, for the

area admeasuring about 13,117 sq.mtrs. and 220 sq.mtrs,

respectively, aggregating to 13,337 sq.mtrs. The Respondent No. 1 on

16th November, 2000, simultaneous to execution of the possession

receipt, issued 27 DRCs in favour of the Petitioner, bearing serial

numbers 2667 to serial number 2693, aggregating to 13,117 sq.

mtrs.

3. Respondent No.1 addressed a letter to the Tashildar to include

its name in the 7/12 extract to the extent of 13,117 sq. mtrs and 220

sq. mtrs., respectively. The name of the Respondent no. 1 was

accordingly reflected in the 7/12 extract of the plot admeasuring

about 13,117 sq. mtrs and the plot admeasuring about 220 sq. mtrs.

The Petitioner learnt that the Corporation had issued an internal

communication/circular directing withholding of use of TDR in

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 4/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

respect of 11 DRCs out of the total 27 DRCs. The Petitioner

contended that till that juncture no notice was issued to the

Petitioner. However, since the Petitioner became aware of the same,

the Petitioner immediately, through his advocate, addressed a letter

to respondent No. 1 calling upon Respondent No. 1 to withdraw the

said communication and to permit utilization of the TDR covered

under the 11 DRCs as lawfully granted. The notice was sent by the

Petitioner on 7/4/2003. The Petitioner further addressed a letter to

the corporation on 18th September, 2003 stating that the corporation

could not insist on construction of the retention wall by the

Petitioner as a condition for allowing the use of balance 11 DRCs

and clarified that he was under no obligation to construct a retention

wall and that his obligation was limited to handing over the property

with fencing, which had already been done by him. The Land

Acquisition Department of the PMC in its communication dated 23 rd

October, 2003 to the Additional Municipal Commissioner of PMC,

expressly acknowledged that the area of the land of which possession

has been taken on 17th October, 2000 for the Sewage Treatment

Plant was 13,117 sq. mtrs. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner

submitted that the Petitioner, for the reasons that the 11 DRCs were

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 5/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

withheld, filed a Present Writ Petition on 18th April, 2004.

4. It is the contention of the Petitioner that thereafter the City

Survey Officer carried out the survey dated 06 th August, 2004 as per

the application of the Petitioner, wherein it was observed that the

wall constructed by the Respondent No. 1 does not coincide with the

subject plot acquired by PMC from the Petitioner and that the area

falling outside the wall does not form part of the riverbed. The

Municipal Commissioner of the Respondent No. 1 on 08 th July, 2005

passed an order whereby a decision was taken to cancel the 11 DRCs,

admeasuring about 3690.01 sq.m., granted to the Petitioner in lieu of

surrender of his land. The Respondent No. 1, according to the

Petitioner, further issued a letter communication on 09 th December,

2005, mentioning that the 11 DRCs bearing numbers 2667, 2676,

2677, 2680, 2686, 2687, 2688, 2689, 2691, and 2692, 2693,

admeasuring 3,690.01 sq.m., stood cancelled. It is the contention of

the Petitioner that no reasons were given in the said communication

dated 09th December, 2005 for cancellation of the said DRCs and no

hearing was given or any explanation was sought from the Petitioner

before issuance of the said communication.

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 6/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

5. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 18 th May, 2006, the

Tahsildar had submitted a report stating that the subject plot is 1

hectare 37 acres. The same coincides with the original survey record

of Survey No. 6A/1 and its boundaries. It was clarified that no

portion of the land was alluvial land. On 28 th January, 2016, the

Respondent No. 1 issued a notification modifying the Development

Control Regulations of 1997, including the provision on the

utilization of TDR. Regulation 8(a) of the notification stated that the

utilization of TDR shall be governed by the amended Development

Control Rights. On 02nd May, 2016, the Respondent No. 1 issued an

addendum to the notification dated 28th January, 2016, holding that

TDR could be utilized as per the old regime for a period of one year.

6. The Division Bench of this Court had heard this petition at

length and ultimately, on 01st August, 2023, allowed the said Writ

Petition by quashing and setting aside the impugned order dated 08 th

July, 2005 and 09th December, 2005. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied

with the judgment and order passed by this Court, both the

Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 filed Special Leave Petitions before

the Hon’ble Supreme Court challenging the order dated 01 st August,

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 7/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

2023. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, on 22 nd November, 2024,

appointed a Court Commissioner to conduct a fresh measurement of

the subject plot to re-verify the exact measurements at the site and

constituted a high-power committee comprising of the Court

Commissioner, City Survey Officer, Pune, Engineer of the PMC, and a

representative of the Petitioner for the purpose of fresh

measurement. In pursuance to this order passed on 07 th December,

2024, the Learned Court Commissioner carried out the survey and

submitted his report before the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 17 th

January, 2025. The Petitioner had filed his objection to the said

Commissioner's report. After considering the Commissioner's report

and hearing the parties at length, on 17 th February, 2025, the

Supreme Court passed an order and noted that, as per the Learned

Commissioner's report, an area of 9,948 sq. mtrs. had been utilised

by Respondent No. 1. It further noted that there was a dispute about

two strips of land situated on the north and north-west side of the

plot. It was observed during the course of the inspection by the Court

Commissioner that the Railway authorities had claimed that the

disputed land belonged to them but failed to produce any

documentary evidence in this regard. The Order also noted that the

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 8/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

Irrigation Department, on the other hand, claimed the land to be a

river bed. The Supreme Court observed that, since all these questions

were not considered by the High Court in its order dated 01 st August,

2023, the matter required reconsideration. The Supreme Court,

therefore, with the aforesaid observation, remanded the matter back

to this Court.

7. After the matter was remanded back to this court, the learned

counsel appearing for the State had submitted that it was the

Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation who should be

heard in this matter. Therefore, at his instance, the Petitioner was

directed to amend the petition to implead the Maharashtra Krishna

Valley Development Corporation as party No. 6. Notice was given to

the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent No. 6. The learned

counsel for the Respondent No. 6 appeared before this court

pursuant to the notice. The learned counsel appearing for the

Respondent No. 6 stated that said Respondent did not assert any

proprietary rights, title, or ownership claim over the portion of the

subject land. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.6

stated that Respondent No.6 has nothing to say in this petition and

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 9/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

that appropriate orders may be passed.

8. The learned counsel appearing for Respondent No.4-Central

Railways, Miss Nisha Valani, stated that the railway authorities do

not have any claim over the portion of land belonging to the

Petitioner and that she has filed an affidavit to that effect. Thus, after

the remand, both the Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development

Corporation (Respondent No. – 6) as well as the railways

(Respondent No. -4), who had contended before the Court

Commissioner appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that they

had got certain rights in the property, stated before us that they do

not have any rights over the said property. The learned counsel

appearing for the State Government, the Addl. GP, submitted that

even the State government does not claim to have any right, title, or

interest over the property in question and that it is the Respondent

No. 1, the municipal corporation, who should deal with the

contentions raised by the Petitioner in the petition.

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 10/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR PARTIES

9. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner argued that

the cancellation of the 11 DRCs is ex facie arbitrary, illegal, unlawful,

and non est. He contended that the DRCs were issued to the

Petitioner towards compensation for the land that was surrendered

by the Petitioner to the corporation, and that the corporation, under

no circumstances, could take away that compensation after it was

already paid. Such an act, in his submission, amounts to a gross

violation of the Petitioner's right under Article 300A of the

Constitution of India. The Petitioner was not even given an

opportunity to contest the claim and put his stance before the

Respondent No. 1. The DRCs were cancelled unilaterally and without

observing the principles of natural justice. He submitted that there is

no provision in the Municipal Corporation Act that allows Municipal

Commissioner to cancel the DRCs. In the absence of such a provision,

the act of cancellation of the DRCs, is ex facie illegal.

10. The learned counsel for the Petitioner further contended that

he is entitled to DRCs in respect of the balance 220 sq. mtrs. He

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 11/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

stated that the PMC had issued DRCs only in respect of an area

admeasuring about 13,117 sq. mtrs., and that Respondent No. 1 had

not paid the DRC to the extent of 220 sq m. He stated that, since the

possession of the land which was surrendered included the area of

land admeasuring about 220 sq. mtrs. and that the possession receipt

was issued to the extent of 220 sq.mtrs also, the Petitioner is entitled

to the deficit area of DRCs of 220 sq. mtrs. He submitted that the

Petitioner had surrendered the land in favor of Respondent No. 1 and

that the right to receive compensation in the form of DRCs got

crystallized in favor of the Petitioner on 17th October 2000, the day

on which the land was surrendered. The DRCs were issued by the

PMC in favor of the Petitioner on 16 th November, 2000. Respondent

No. 1 cancelled 11 DRCs in 2004-2005. The cancellation of such

DRCs was arbitrary, illegal, and unlawful and if it was not for the

cancellation, the Petitioner would have utilized the DRCs as per the

regime that prevailed in the year 2004- 2005. Therefore, once the

cancellation of 11 DRCs is found to be illegal, the Petitioner ought to

be permitted to utilize them as per the regime prevailing in 2004-

2005. In order to substantiate his contention, he placed reliance on

the judgment of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation vs.Vijay

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 12/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

Nagar Apartment, reported in 2026 SCC Online SC 904.

11. The Learned Counsel Mr. Kulkarni appearing for Respondent 1

to 3 – PMC, submitted that the petition was not maintainable. He

argued that the possession of the property was taken on 17 th

November 2000, DRCs were issued thereafter. The contentions of the

Petitioner is that the petitioner was entitled to the DRCs of the entire

area of land is contested by the Respondent No. 1. He submitted that

it was the consistent stand of the PMC that the initial possession

receipt and the subsequent DRCs were issued on the basis of the area

reflected in the 7/12 extract without actual physical measurement of

the area. He relied upon the demarcation annexed to the petition,

which is at page no. 146 of the petition. He submitted that upon

subsequent physical verification and Plain Table Survey, the PMC

found that the area which was actually taken into possession and

utilised for the STP was substantially lesser, than the entire area of

survey numbers on the basis of which the DRCs had originally been

generated. It was recorded in the PMCs Plain Table Survey carried

out in the year 2004 that the actual area utilised for the STP was 9,

218.96 sq. mtrs., which was inside the barbed wire compound and

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 13/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

the said survey further recorded that the remaining area fell outside

the compound. The said area was towards the river bed and was not

in actual and physical possession of the Respondent No. 1. He drew

our attention to the possession receipt to argue that it showed that

the possession has been taken for construction of the STP and thus

the area which actually came in possession has been utilised for the

construction of the STP. He stated that the area which was actually

utilised for the construction of the STP was 9,218.96 sq. mtrs. only.

He relied upon the Ld. Court Commissioner's report dated 17 th

January, 2025, which was prepared pursuant to the directions of the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in its order dated 22 nd November, 2024 to

buttress his contention. He argued that the Ld. Court Commissioner

had visited the site, along with the person/officers mentioned in the

order dated 18th December, 2024 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court, and upon verification of the boundaries physically, prepared

and placed on record a detailed report. The Court Commissioner had

further identified another parcel of land admeasuring about 671 sq.

mtrs. which was, though outside the compound wall, was also found

to be in possession of the Municipal Corporation and is stated to be

owned by the Petitioner. He contended that thus, according to the

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 14/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

measurements carried out by the learned court commissioner, the

total area of the Petitioner's land presently found to be utilised, and

possessed by PMC is 9,948 sq. mtrs. only. He argued that since the

Petitioner was not happy with the report of the Learned Court

Commissioner and therefore filed objections, which are seen from

the record of the court.

12. The learned counsel appearing for the Respondent –

Corporation invited our attention to the objections which were raised

by the Petitioner to the Court Commissioner's report. The sum and

substance of the objection, was that the Corporation had enclosed

only that part of the land which was acquired by it, leaving a portion

of the land outside the boundary wall. He contended that this alone

would make the Petitioner unworthy of compensation. An objection

was taken to the report of the Court Commissioner stating that it

erroneously excluded an area of 770 sq. mtrs. in their measurement

report, despite being part of the acquired land. These were, in a

nutshell, the objections which were raised by the learned counsel

appearing for the Petitioner.

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 15/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

13. After inviting our attention to all these objections, the learned

counsel appearing for the Corporation argued that this itself shows

that the entire land was not in possession of the Municipal

Corporation. He stated that, while setting aside the earlier judgment

and order passed by this court, the Hon'ble Supreme Court directed

fresh consideration of all the issues after impleading of the railway

authorities and the State of Maharashtra through the Irrigation

Department. This direction itself demonstrates that it was on the

basis of the Court Commissioner's report and the claim put forth by

the railway authorities as well as the irrigation authorities that the

case was remanded back for reconsideration. It was argued that the

Court Commissioner's report dated 17th January, 2025 constituted a

significant piece of evidence regarding actual physical possession and

utilization of the land to find out if there was any difference between

the area mentioned in the possession receipts and the actual area

which was in possession of the Corporation. He submitted that the

Municipal Commissioner rightly suspended the DCRs. He submitted

that the petition was never challenged initially for cancellation of

DCRs and that the petition was amended subsequently. He submitted

that the possession receipt were given without physical

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 16/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

measurements and thus reliance placed on the possession receipts is

totally misplaced. He argued that the burden cannot be discharged

by the Petitioner merely by producing possession receipts and upon

relying upon the earlier measurement, which was subsequently

found to require re-verification. He argued that the subordinate

officials of the Corporation had committed mistakes in issuing

possession receipts, and thereafter, upon satisfaction of his

conscience, the Municipal Corporation Commissioner, who was a

senior IAS officer, passed the final order cancelling the unutilized

DR14Cs. He argued that the entire land in the survey number falls in

the blue line, and the original owner therefore had no chance to

develop the said land, as it was in a no-development zone.

14. Mr. Kulkarni, the learned Counsel appearing for PMC argued

that the Commissioner's report assumes significant importance in

these proceedings, and it has to be considered while passing

appropriate orders. He further argued that there cannot be any

estoppel against statute. An administrative act contrary to the

statutory scheme cannot create a vested right, nor can it operate to

defeat or override an express provision of law. He thereafter relied

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 17/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

upon Rule N. 2.4.12 of the applicable Development Control Rules

and Regulation 11.2.4 (b) of the UDCPR in order to contend that the

DRCs were issued only after the reserved land is surrendered to the

Corporation free of cost and free of encumbrances after the owner or

lessee had leveled the land to the surrounding ground level, and he

has constructed a 1.5 m high compound wall with a gate at the cost

of the owner and to the satisfaction of the Commissioner. He further

submitted that the Corporation was required to incur an expenditure

of Rs. 16,80,025/- for construction of the compound wall as the

Petitioner merely handed over the land with barbed - wire fencing.

Thus, it was for the Petitioner to have constructed the compound

wall as per the Development Control Rules as well as the UDCPR in

order to be entitled to the balance DRCs. The Corporation contended

that the Petitioner has already utilized 21 DRCs for 9846.99 sq. mtrs.

as of 2022. The Corporation submitted that the PMC is in possession

of 9,948 sq. mtrs. of the land and thus the Petitioner can be granted

DRCs for the balance of 101.01. sq. mtrs. (9948 – 9846.99 =

101.01). In the end, he submitted that the writ jurisdiction under

Article 226 ought not be exercised in order to compel the PMC to

issue or recognize the DRCs in respect of the area whose physical

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 18/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

possession, legal character, acquisition, status, and eligibility for TDR

remained disputed. He prayed for dismissal of the petition.

REASONING AND ANALYSIS

15. We have heard the learned Senior Counsel Mr. Engineer

appearing for the Petitioner, Mr. Kulkarni, the learned counsel

appearing for the Pune Municipal Corporation, Mr. Patel, the learned

Additional Government Pleader for the State of Maharashtra, Ms.

Nisha Valani, the learned counsel appearing for the Railways, and Mr.

Nitin Ghaware Patil, the learned counsel appearing for the

Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation.

16. We have perused the documents on record. We have gone

through the judgment and Order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme

Court dated 17th February, 2025, whereby the matter was remanded

back to this court. Before proceeding forward, we must note that the

Hon’ble Supreme Court had specifically observed that effective

adjudication would not be possible unless the Railway authorities

and the State of Maharashtra through the irrigation department are

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 19/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

accorded a reasonable opportunity to produce their case before the

High Court.

17. In compliance to that order, the State of Maharashtra was

heard. The Railway authorities were also heard. The learned

Counsel, Ms. Valani, appearing for the Railways, had filed an

affidavit stating that the Central Railways had got no concern with

the subject property. The learned Counsel appearing for the State of

Maharashtra, Addl. Government Pleader Mr. Patel, contended that

even the irrigation department does not have any claim over the

property in question and that it would be in the fitness of things if

Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation is made a

party to this petition. Accordingly, we directed the Petitioner to make

Maharashtra Krishna Valley Development Corporation a party to the

petition. The notices were issued to the said respondent. Mr. Nitin

Ghaware Patil, learned counsel, appeared on behalf of the said added

Respondent made a submission that he had got no claim to the

property in question and that he was not even objecting that the

property lay within the blue line. He contended that this was a

dispute purely between the Petitioner and the Respondent No. 1, i.e.

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 20/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

the Pune Municipal Corporation, and that Respondent No.6 does

not claim any right, title, or interest over the property in question.

18. This court vide judgment and order dated 01/8/2023, Coram :

(Sunil B. Shukre and Rajesh S. Patil, JJ) had allowed the petition.

Both the parties were not happy with the judgment and therefore,

the Petitioner as well as the Respondents 1 to 3, had preferred SLPs

before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. While hearing the SLP, the

Supreme Court felt that, since the controversy was regarding the

measurement of the land, hence it was necessary to appoint a Court

Commissioner to resolve the factual controversy. Accordingly, Mr.

Shreeyash U. Lalit, learned advocate of the Supreme Court, was

appointed as the Court Commissioner vide order dated 22nd

November 2024. The learned Court Commissioner submitted his

report, dated 17th January, 2025 to the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The

observations of the Supreme Court in paragraph numbers 10 to 13 of

order dated 17th February, 2025 are very important to decide the

issue in controversy, and the same are quoted as under:

“10. It emerges from the detailed survey/site plan prepared by
the learned Court Commissioner that the land shown in pink

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 21/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

colour, within the compound wall, is in physical possession of
PMC. The area of that plot is 9,277 sq. mtrs. According to
learned Court Commissioner, there is another parcel of land
measuring 671 sq. mtrs., which is, though not included within
the compound wall, also under the possession of the PMC. That
land is also owned by the cross-appellant - land owner. In this
manner, according to learned Court Commissioner, land
measuring 9,948/- sq. mtrs. of the cross-appellant - land owner
has been utilized by the PMC.

11. There is, however, a serious dispute between the parties
in respect of a strip of land, which falls within the Railway
Bridge and the Compound Wall. Another part of the land in
dispute is also a strip on the North-West side where four
manholes are stated to be in existence. It is pointed out by
learned Court Commissioner that during the course of inspection
by him, Railway Authorities came forward and raised their claim
over this disputed land, however, no documentary proof in
support of the ownership rights was produced. Similarly, officers
of the Irrigation Department of the Government of Maharashtra
claimed that the aforesaid land is, in fact, a riverbed. If that is so,
we doubt whether such land can 4 be utilized for any public
purpose as it might be required to be maintained as an open area
being the riverbed.

12. Since none of these questions find answers in the
impugned order of the High Court, for the reason that the
Railway or State of Maharashtra through its Irrigation
Department were not party respondents, we are of the view that
the matter requires reconsideration by the High Court.

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 22/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

13. It goes without saying that the effective adjudication will
not be possible unless the Railway Authorities and the State of
Maharashtra through Irrigation Department are accorded a
reasonable opportunity to produce their records before the High
Court.”

19. The Learned Court Commissioner had given a report that about

9,948 sq. mtrs. of the land has been utilized by the Pune Municipal

Corporation. However, according to the Supreme Court, there was a

serious dispute between the parties in respect of strip of land which

fell within the railway bridge and the compound wall. There was also

a dispute regarding the strip on the North-West side where four

manholes were stated to be in existence. The Court relied upon the

report of the Court Commissioner that during the inspection, the

railway authorities came forward and raised their claim over this

disputed land. However, no documentary proof in support of

ownership rights was produced. Similarly, officers of the Irrigation

Department of the Government of Maharashtra claimed that the

aforesaid land was in fact a riverbed. The Supreme Court, in light of

all these observations, felt that it was necessary to hear the Irrigation

Department as well as the Railway Autho21rities.

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 23/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

20. It is very significant to note that the Irrigation Department as

well as the Railway Department at one stage raised a claim over the

strip of land, which is the subject matter of this dispute. After they

were made parties pursuant to the order passed by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court, they filed an affidavit stating that they do not claim

to have any right over the property. We are also surprised by the

submission made by Mr. Patel, learned Additional Government

Pleader, who now stated that it is not the Irrigation Department, but

it is the Krishna Valley Development Corporation, which is a

necessary party. It is pertinent to note that this submission was never

made when the objection was recorded before the Court

Commissioner appointed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

21. Turning to the issue in hand, the land in question was acquired

by the PMC by an agreement and ultimately on 17 th October, 2000,

two possession receipts both dated 17 October, 2000, of area

admeasuring at about 13,117 sq. mtrs. and 220 sq. mtrs., both

aggregating to 13,337 sq. mtrs. were issued. The PMC does not deny

issuing such possession receipts. The only contention of the PMC is

that merely issuance of the possession receipt would not mean that

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 24/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

the possession of that said land was taken. Another contention of the

Respondent is that the Respondent had constructed a boundary only

to the extent of 9,948 sq. mtrs. and the same was in possession and

utilization of the Sewage Treatment Plant. The contention of the

Respondent was that possession of a lesser area was taken. Although

possession receipt was issued in respect of the land admeasuring at

about 13,337 sq. mtrs. Factually the possession was of much lesser

area. In the entire argument of the learned counsel appearing for

PMC, who has also tendered written submission, it is not pointed out

as to why the area of 13,337 sq. mtrs. was entered by the

Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 in the 7/12 extract of the said property. The

Respondent PMC not only issued the possession letter to the extent

of 13,337 sq. mtrs., but also issued DRCs on 16/11/2000 in favor of

the Petitioner bearing serial number 2667 to 2693 (27 DRCs)

aggregating to 13,117 sq. mtrs. Thereafter, we have also perused that

there is an internal note of the Respondent no. 1 to 3 dated 16 th

November, 2000 which clearly stated that the total area under

reservation for STP was 21,850 sq. mtrs. and out of this possession of

area admeasuring about 13,117 sq. mtrs. had already been taken.

Not only that, the Respondent no. 3, had addressed a letter to

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 25/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

Tahsildar to include the name of the corporation in the 7/12 extract

to the extent of 13,117 sq. mtrs. and 220 sq. mtrs., aggregating to

13,337 sq. mtrs. This letter was written on 2 nd November, 2001.

Accordingly, the name of the municipal corporation was reflected in

the 7/12 extract of the plots admeasuring about 13,117 sq. mtrs. and

220 sq. mtrs., aggregating to 13,337 sq. mtrs.

22. This being the position, it can hardly be heard from the

Corporation that the area which was in fact surrendered by the

Petitioner was far less than what was mentioned in the possession

receipts. One can understand that the possession receipts were issued

by inadvertence or there were typographical or arithmetical mistakes

while issuing the said possession receipts. But the act of the

corporation in asking the Tahsildar to mutate their names to the

extent of 13,337 sq. mtrs. in respect of the 7/12 extract means that

Petitioner's land was acquired. It is nobody's case that after 17 th

October, 2000, the Petitioner was using the land in question. The

Petitioner had surrendered the possession of the land to the

Corporation on 17th October, 2000, and thereafter the Petitioner was

issued 27 DRCs. Not only that, the Petitioner utilised the DRCs till

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 26/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

the time when the DRCs in question were suspended by the

municipal corporation. All this happened in the year 2003.

23. It is further pertinent to note that at the time of surrendering

the possession of the land and at the time when the names of the

Respondent corporation were entered into the 7/12 extract of the

property in question, and further at the time when the measurement

was carried out of the property in question, the Respondent

corporation never raised a contention that the land to the extent of

13,337 sq. mtrs. was not acquired. As a matter of fact, the City

Survey Officer had carried out measurement of the land in presence

of the representatives of the Respondent no. 1 to 3 on 16 th

September, 2000, wherein it was stated that as per the measurement,

the total area of the plot bearing survey number 6A/1 was 13,880 sq.

mtrs. The Petitioner, however, is not raising his claim to the extent of

13,880 sq. mtrs., but is limiting his claim only to the extent of the

area ad measuring at about 13,337 sq. mtrs.

24. The Land Acquisition Department of the corporation, in the

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 27/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

communication dated 23rd October, 2003, which is on record and

annexed to the petition, addressed to the Additional Municipal

Commissioner of the Respondent corporation, expressly

acknowledged that the area of the land whose possession had been

taken for the STP was 13,117 sq. mtrs. and not 9218.96 sq. mtrs. as

is now sought to be contended by Respondent no. 1 to 3. The

Assistant Engineer of the corporation, in an internal communication

addressed to the Deputy Commissioner on 19th November 2005,

acknowledged that the area of the Petitioner's land of which

possession has been taken was 13,117 sq. mtrs. as per the possession

receipt. It is further recorded that this possession was in accordance

with the joint measurement plan prepared by the PMC and DILR

Office, Pune. The Assistant Engineer of the Respondent PMC also

confirmed that he has checked all the measurements of the land

acquired, and it tallied with the area mentioned in the 7/12 extract.

This crucial document of the officer of the Respondent no. 1 to 3,

who happens to be a very responsible officer, cannot be ignored in

any circumstances. Interestingly enough, the corporation has offered

no explanation to this document. The Tahsildar in its report dated

18th May 2006 has also confirmed that the area of survey No. 6A/1 is

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 28/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

13,700 sq. mtrs.

25. The reliance of the Counsel for the Respondent no. 1 to 3 on

the report of the Commissioner for the purpose of contending that

there was an area outside the boundary wall and therefore the entire

area of 13,337 sq. mtrs. was not acquired by the corporation,

without any materials on record to substantiate the claim, is totally a

figment of imagination. The measurement of the court commissioner

was carried out in the year 2024. The property in question was

acquired on 16th September, 2000. Even going by the report of the

commissioner as it stands, it is clear that all that the court

commissioner had contended that there was an area of the land

which was outside the boundary which was constructed by the

Petitioner. The area outside the boundary cannot, in any

circumstances, be considered to be the area of the Petitioner.

26. We had put a specific question to the learned counsel

appearing for the Petitioner as to whether he claims any area outside

the boundary wall to which, on instructions, it is categorically stated

that the position was that the land was already acquired in the year

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 29/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

2000 and that he had delivered the possession of the same to the

corporation. Therefore, he is not claiming any right over the land

which is outside the boundary of the STP and which was acquired by

the Corporation. Coupled with this fact, it was the irrigation

department of the State of Maharashtra and the Railways

department which had claimed their right in respect of the said

property. It was never the Petitioner who had claimed right over the

said property. Today, also the Petitioner admits that he has got no

right over the property.

27. This being the position, it would be inequitable to deny the

rights which the Petitioner has got to utilize the DRCs. The Petitioner

had surrendered the property in question. There was admittedly no

acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act, and that the acquisition

was by agreement. Accordingly, 27 DRCs were issued in favor of the

Petitioner and that land admeasuring at about 13,337 sq. mtrs. was

acquired by the corporation. In view of the said fact, it was for the

corporation, who had validly acquired the land and issued possession

receipt on 17th October, 2000, to ensure that the area of the land

which was acquired coincides with the possession notice. As a matter

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 30/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

of fact, the corporation is estopped today from contending that the

possession receipts were bad in law and that they were not in

conformity with the actual area which was handed over to the

corporation. The act of the corporation, as noted above, coupled with

the measurements which were carried out by the officers of the

corporation itself, clearly shows that the total area of land which was

handed over to the corporation was 1337 sq. mtrs.

28. In this premise, it would be equitable, just, fair and proper to

quash and set aside the order of the Municipal Commissioner

whereby the 11 DRCs were cancelled by the municipal corporation.

As far as the issuance of DRCs to the extent of 220 sq. mtrs., we must

add at this junction that the corporation has utilized the said area

and the possession which was handed over to the corporation

included the area admeasuring at about 220 sq. mtrs. The DRC was

however issued only to the extent of 13,117 sq. mtrs. It would

therefore be appropriate for the Petitioner to prefer a fresh

application to the corporation for the purpose of getting DRCs to the

extent of 220 sq. mtrs.

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 31/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

29. The next question which falls for consideration is that since the

DRCs are cancelled what would be the position of the DRCs after

they are restored. The learned counsel appearing for the Corporation

stated that assuming the order is passed restoring the 11 DRCs which

were cancelled, it would be appropriate to direct the Petitioner to use

the said DRCs as per rules prevailing on the day on which the DRCs

are restored. The learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner

however strongly objected for the same. The learned counsel for the

Petitioner contended that if the DRCs were issued in the year 2000

and were cancelled in the year 2005 then the DRCs should be

permitted to be used as per the regime of 2000 or at the highest

2005 and not as per the current regime. He pointed out that it was

without any mistake of the Petitioner that the DRCs were cancelled

and that if this court comes to a conclusion that the corporation was

wrong in cancelling the said DRCs then the equitable consideration

would follow. The DRCs should be permitted to be used as per the

regime which stood at the time of its cancellation.

30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Judgment of Brihanmumbai

Municipal Corporation and Others Vs. Vijay Nagar Apartments and

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 32/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

Others reported in 2026 SCC online SC 904 in paragraph number

17.6 and 37 has observed as under -

17.6. Regarding the application of DCPR, 2034, they have argued
that right to receive additional amenity TDR under Section 126 of
the MRTP Act accrued in favour of the Landowner way back in
2002 when the DCR, 1991 was applicable and as such, it cannot
be said that coming into force of the DCPR, 2034 had any effect
on the rights of the Landowner which had already crystallized.
Reliance is again placed on the judgment in Kukreja Construction
(supra).

37. Most recently, the claim for additional TDR against
construction of amenity on land surrendered by the landowner
under Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act was the subject matter
of dispute before this Court in Kukreja Construction (supra). This
round of litigation was initiated after the judgment of this Court
in Godrej and Boyce I (supra). Several writ petitions were filed
before the High Court by landowners, claiming grant of 100%
additional TDR in respect of the amenity developed on the land
surrendered by them under Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act.
Most of the writ petitions were dismissed on the ground of delay
and laches, while in some cases the High Court allowed the claim.
All those judgments of the High Court were challenged, either by
the Corporation or by the respective landowners in a batch of
special leave petitions which were disposed of by this Court in a
common judgment. By this time, the DCR, 1991, specifically
Regulation 34 thereof, was amended by the State, issuing a
notification dated 16.11.2016, which amended the mechanism for

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 33/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

grant of additional TDR against construction or development of
amenity. The Corporation endeavoured to prove that the said
amendment could be made operable retrospectively and sought to
apply it to the case of the landowners in that case, it was also
contended that the judgment in Godrej & Boyce I (supra) was in
fact per incuriam, since it did not notice Regulations 33 of the
DCR, 1991. Ultimately, this Court analysed various judgments and
held that delay and laches could never be the ground to defeat
the claim for additional TDR against construction of an amenity
by the landowner on the land surrendered. The Corporation was
directed to consider the case of the landowners in light of the
judgment of this Court in Godrej & Boyce I (supra) and that it
shall release the balance of FSI/TDR within a period of three
months from the date of the judgment. Relevant portion of the
said judgment is quoted herein for reference:

“69. In all these cases, we find that the writ
petitioners/appellants herein had surrendered the reserved
land and had also been granted 25% TDR and a
representation for additional TDR was made after the
judgment of this Court in Godrej & Boyce (1) [Godrej &
Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 5 SCC
24 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 368] and in some cases, the
representation was made early but in other cases, the
representations were made after some time. It is also noted
in Civil Appeal No. 1748 of 2015, in Natvar Parikh
[Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai v. Natvar Parikh & Co.
(P) Ltd., (2024) 14 SCC 644], this Court had stated that the
decision in Godrej & Boyce (1) [Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 34/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 5 SCC 24 : (2009) 2
SCC (Civ) 368] could not be revisited inasmuch as the
Mumbai Municipal Corporation could not seek to reargue
the matter. Also, the facts in each case on the questions of
delay was to be considered as observed by this Court. The
issue of abandonment of claim has also been considered and
negatived in the judgment of this Court in Godrej & Boyce
(2) [Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of
Greater Mumbai, (2023) 15 SCC 110].

70. We have referred to the decisions of this Court where the
question of delay and laches would not arise in matters such
as the present cases. When relief in the nature of
compensation is sought, as in the instant case, once the
compensation is determined in the form of FSI/TDR, the
same is payable even in the absence of there being any
representation or request being made. In fact, a duty is cast
on the State to pay compensation to the land losers as
otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of
the Constitution. As rightly contended by the learned Senior
Counsel for the writ petitioners/appellants herein, the
respondent Mumbai Municipal Corporation has not
established that owing to a short delay even if it has
occurred in any of these cases owing to uncertainty in law,
the Corporation has been prejudiced by the same or that the
third-party rights had been created which could not be
disturbed owing to delay or laches. The calculation of period
of delay in the table submitted by the learned Senior Counsel
for the Mumbai Municipal Corporation is not acceptable in

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 35/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

view of our discussion above. The decisions referred to by us
above would clearly indicate that neither the doctrine of
delay and laches nor the principle of abandonment of claim
or waiver would apply in these cases. Rather the delay has
occurred on the part of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation
in complying with the Regulations insofar as these appellants
are concerned.

71. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we hold that the
Bombay High Court was not right in dismissing [Apurva
Natvar Parikh & Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2018
SCC OnLine Bom 6436], [Starwing Developers (P)
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 13411],
[Arvind Kashinath Dadarkar v. Municipal Corpn., Greater
Mumbai, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 11962] the writ petitions on
the ground of delay and laches. Hence, those portions of the
impugned order of the High Court are set aside.

72. We also do not find any merit in the three appeals filed
by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation. Having regard to the
earlier judgments of this Court, we find that the reasoning of
the High Court on merits in the three impugned
decisions [Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 6436], [Starwing
Developers (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC
OnLine Bom 13411], [Arvind Kashinath
Dadarkar v. Municipal Corpn., Greater Mumbai, 2022 SCC
OnLine Bom 11962] discussed above is just and proper
which would not call for any interference by this Court.

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 36/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

73. Consequently, the civil appeals filed by the writ
petitioners/appellants herein are allowed as under:

73.1. Those portions of the impugned order dated 18-12-
2018 [Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. (P) Ltd. v. State of
Maharashtra, 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 6436] by which the
writ petitions were dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches are set aside and the respondent Mumbai Municipal
Corporation is directed to consider the case of those writ
petitioners/appellants herein in light of the judgments of this
Court in Godrej & Boyce (1) [Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co.
Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 5 SCC 24 : (2009) 2
SCC (Civ) 368] and release the balance FSI/TDR to the
appellants.

73.2. However, in the case of the appellant Kukreja
Construction Company and others, the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation is directed to consider the nature of the
amenities constructed and thereafter to consider their case
for additional FSI/TDR.

73.3. The said exercise shall be carried out as expeditiously
as possible and within a period of three months from today.

74. The civil appeals filed by the Mumbai Municipal
Corporation are dismissed and the cases of the respondents
in those civil appeals shall be considered in terms of the
judgments of this Court in Godrej & Boyce (1) [Godrej &
Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, (2009) 5 SCC
24 : (2009) 2 SCC (Civ) 368] and the balance FSI/TDR shall

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 37/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

be released to the respondents therein within a period of
three months from today.”

(Emphasis supplied)

31. Taking into consideration the law laid down by the Supreme

Court in the judgment of Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation vs.

Vijay Nagar Apartment (supra), we are constrained to observe that

once the compensation for the acquisition of the land was in the form

of FSI/TDR/DRC in the case, the same was payable to the party as

per the regime prevailing on the date on which the said cancellation

was made. Once we have expressed our opinion that the cancellation

of the DRCs was totally illegal without any basis of law, then the

logical consequences must follow. The Petitioner should be allowed

to use the DRCs which were cancelled in the year 2005, as per the

regime prevailing in the year 2005. There is no reason why the

Petitioner who is without any fault should be put to a loss, and

directed to use DRCs as per the current regime.

32. We therefore have no hesitation in allowing the Petition.

Hence, the following Order -

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 38/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

: ORDER :

(1) The Writ Petition is allowed.

(2) The DRCs which were issued by the Pune
Municipal Corporation bearing DRCs number
2667, 2676, 2677, 2680, 2686, 2687, 2688,
2689, 2691, 2692, 2693 to the petitioner in lieu
of acquisition of his land bearing survey number
6A/1 situated at Bopodi, Pune are hereby
restored. The impugned letter communication
dated 9th December, 2005 and the impugned
order dated 8th July, 2005 are quashed and set
aside.

(3) Since the DRCs could be utilized by the
Petitioner within one year from the date of such
issuance of DRCs in accordance with clause 8
(a) of the notification dated 28th January, 2016
and addendum dated 2nd February, 2016, the
said DRCs which now stand restored, are
permitted to be utilised as per the regime which
stood in the year 2005. Accordingly, the restored
DRCs be utlised within a period of one year
from today as per the regime applicable on the
date of its cancellation.

(4) The Petitioner is at liberty to apply for the DRCs
to the extent of 220 sq. mtrs. Such an
application be made within a period of 8 weeks

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 39/40
213. WP 3816-2004(F).doc

from the date of passing of this order. After such
application is made, the Respondent No. 1–
Pune Municipal Corporation to decide the
application within a period of further eight
weeks from the date of making of such
application.

33. Writ Petition is disposed of in the above terms. No order as to
costs.

34. We make it clear that this Court has not gone into the question

of claim of the Corporation regarding sharing of the expenditure for

construction of compound wall and all rights and contentions in this

regard are kept open.

(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M.S. KARNIK, J.)
Digitally signed
RAJESH by RAJESH
VASANT
VASANT CHITTEWAN
CHITTEWAN Date: 2026.09.16
19:25:53 +0530

RaJesh Chittewan, PS 40/40

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…