Bombay High Court
L B KUNJIR THR ITS PARTNERversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
The petitioners are bound by the concluded contract for FSI/TDR compensation and cannot claim monetary compensation; the writ petition is dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, owners of 1721.03 sq. m of land earmarked for an 18‑metre DP road widening in Kharadi, Pune, handed over possession of the land to the Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) on 9 June 2016 under a possession receipt that stipulated compensation in the form of additional FSI/TDR. After ten years, they sought monetary compensation instead of the agreed FSI/TDR, alleging that the acquisition was illegal and that no binding contract existed. The respondents argued that the 2013 communication and the possession receipt constituted a concluded contract for FSI/TDR compensation under Section 126 of the MRTP Act and the Indian Contract Act. The Court examined the nature of the agreement, relevant statutory provisions, and precedent on contract enforcement, concluding that a valid contract existed and the petitioners could not unilaterally alter its terms. Consequently, the Court dismissed the writ petition, directing the petitioners to submit a proposal for FSI/TDR compensation as per the existing procedure.
Issues considered
- The existence of a concluded contract for compensation in the form of FSI/TDR between the petitioners and the PMC.
- Whether the petitioners can claim monetary compensation in lieu of the agreed FSI/TDR under the MRTP Act and the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.
- Whether the court can rewrite or vary the terms of a contract that the parties have freely entered into.
Legislation cited
- Indian Contract Act, 1872 — s. 10, 2(a), 2(b), 2(d)
- Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act, 1949
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 — s. 126(1)(a), 126(1)(b)
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 — s. 40
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- FSI
- TDR
- contract law
- MRTP Act
- municipal corporation
- monetary compensation
- writ petition
- Section 126
- Right to Fair Compensation Act
Judgment
1 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
PALLAVI
MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR
Digitally signed by
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
PALLAVI MAHENDRA
WARGAONKAR
Date: 2026.09.24
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
19:42:00 +0530
WRIT PETITION NO. 5159 OF 2026
1. M/s. L.B. Kunjir Thr. Its Partner
Shri. Amit L.Kunjir,
Age – 47, Occupation – Business,
2. Shri. Laxman Bhausaheb Kunjir,
Age – 74, Occupation – Business,
3. Sau. Kusum Laxman Kunjir,
Age – 74, Occupation – Business,
Above all residing at – B – 107,
Pelican Building, Raheja Woods,
Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411 046. ...Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Maharashtra
The Principal Secretary,
Urban Development Department,
Government of Maharashtra, Mantralaya,
Mumbai – 400 032.
2. The Collector of Pune,
Pune – 411 001.
3. The Pune Municipal Corporation,
Shivajinagar, Pune – 411 005,
through its Municipal Commissioner ...Respondents
-----------------
Dr. Ramdas P. Sabban a/w Mr. Pravin Sabban, Mr. Shrikant
Kompali, Mr. Rohit Chitiken for the Petitioners.
Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, GP a/w Mrs. Shruti D. Vyas, Addl. GP, Mrs.
P.J. Gavhane, AGP for State Respondent Nos.1, 2 – State.
Mr. Rishikesh M. Pethe, for Respondent No.3.
-----------------
Pallavi/Mayur 1/22
2 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
CORAM : MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI, CJ. &
ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.
RESERVED ON : 10th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
PRONOUNCED ON : 24th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
-----------------
JUDGMENT (Per : Advait M. Sethna, J.) :-
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith, with the consent of
the parties.
3. This instant Petition is preferred for the following
substantive reliefs:-
“(a) This Hon'ble High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ
of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or
order, directing the Respondents to acquire & pay
compensation with all the statutory benefits, for the
petitioner's owned said land admeasuring area
1721.03 sq. mtrs. reserved for 18 mtr. D.P. Road
widening, situated at Survey No. 56/6C/1, 566C/2,
56/6C/2/2, 56/6C/2/3, 56/6C/2/4 & 56/6C/2/5 at
Kharadi, Pune, on which the Respondent Municipal
Corporation has forcibly/ illegally constructed the said
18 mtr. wide D.P. Road widening, without following due
process of law of land acquisition.”
I. Factual Matrix:-
4. The Petitioners claim to be the owners of land admeasuring
1721.03 sq. mtrs., bearing Survey Nos. 56/6C/1, 566C/2,
56/6C/2/2, 56/6C/2/3, 56/6C/2/4 and 56/6C/2/5 at Kharadi,
Pallavi/Mayur 2/22
3 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
Pune, which is reserved for widening of an 18 Mtr. D.P. Road
(“Subject Land” for short).
5. On 29th August 2013, the Land Acquisition and Management
Department of the Respondent No. 3 - PMC called upon the
Petitioners to hand over possession of the subject land. It was
stated therein that due compensation will be paid in the form of
additional Floor Space Index (FSI)/Transferable Development
Rights (TDR)/Cash compensation in lieu of the subject land.
6. Pursuant thereto, by a Possession Receipt dated 9 th June
2016, the Petitioners agreed to hand over the possession of the
subject land admeasuring 1721.03 sq. mtrs. to Respondent No.3 -
PMC on the condition that compensation in the form of FSI/TDR
will be given for the affected area of the subject land.
7. Thereafter, after almost 10 years, by a letter dated 10 th
February 2026, the Petitioners requested the Respondent No. 3 -
PMC to acquire the subject land and pay monetary compensation
in accordance with law. According to the Petitioners, however, no
further action was taken by the Respondent No.3 - PMC.
8. The Petitioners, therefore, approached this Court by filing
the present Petition on 13th March 2026. By an order dated 7 th
May 2026, this Court directed Respondent No.3-PMC to take a
decision regarding payment of compensation to the Petitioners in
Pallavi/Mayur 3/22
4 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
accordance with the applicable rules/policy.
9. Pursuant thereto, on 22nd July 2026, the Respondent No.3 –
PMC filed an Affidavit-in-Reply. It is stated therein that the
Municipal Commissioner, upon considering the entire file in
relation to the execution of the Possession Receipt dated 9 th June
2016 rejected the Petitioners' claim for monetary compensation
and held that the Petitioners were entitled to compensation in the
form of FSI/TDR, as stipulated therein. The Petitioners were
accordingly at liberty to submit a proposal for TDR/FSI in
accordance with the prescribed procedure, so as to enable the
Respondent No. 3 - PMC to consider the same expeditiously.
II. Rival Contentions:-
A. Submissions of the Petitioners :-
10. Mr. Sabban, learned Counsel for the Petitioners would
submit that the Petitioners have been deprived of their valuable
property rights in violation of Articles 14 and 300-A of the
Constitution of India.
11. Mr. Sabban would submit that the subject land is required to
be acquired under Section 126(1)(a) of the Maharashtra Regional
and Town Planning Act, 1966 (‘MRTP Act’ for short) and that the
Respondents cannot deprive them of the subject land without
Pallavi/Mayur 4/22
5 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
following the due process of acquisition and compensation under
the provisions of the Maharashtra Municipal Corporation Act,
1949 and MRTP Act. According to him, the Respondents cannot,
merely by offering additional FSI/TDR, compel them to part with
their property without following the statutory procedure for
acquisition and without payment of compensation in accordance
with law.
12. Mr. Sabban would then submit that a co-ordinate Bench of
this Court vide Order dated 7th May 2026 directed Respondent
No.3- PMC to take a decision for payment of compensation to the
Petitioners as per rules. However, the Respondent No.3 - PMC took
a contrary stand by rejecting Petitioners’ claim for monetary
compensation.
13. Mr. Sabban would further submit that the Possession
Receipt dated 9th June 2016 would not constitute a concluded
contract between the Petitioners and the Respondents, with
respect to giving possession of the subject land against additional
FSI/TDR compensation. In the absence of such concluded
contract, the Respondents cannot treat the Petitioners’ willingness
for receiving FSI/TDR as an agreed consideration for acquisition
in accordance with law.
Pallavi/Mayur 5/22
6 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
14. Mr. Sabban would contend that acquisition by agreement
under Section 126(1)(a) or (b) requires a joint consensus and
cannot rest upon a unilateral offer by the acquiring authority. In
this regard, reliance is placed upon the decisions in Shree
Vinayak Builders and Developers, Nagpur v. State of
Maharashtra and Others1, Pundalik Sharanbasappa Patil v.
State of Maharashtra2 and Niyojit Siddhivinayak
Gruhnirman Sanstha Marjewadi v. The State of
Maharashtra3. The Full Bench in Shree Vinayak Builders and
Developers, Nagpur (supra) has, in particular, recognised that
that the offer of additional FSI/TDR is not binding upon the
landowners and that the authorities cannot unilaterally insist on
the same.
15. Mr. Sabban further placed reliance on the decisions of co-
ordinate Bench of this Court in Makarand Sharad Pande & Ors.
v. State of Maharashtra4; Lata Balaso Patil Through Power of
Attorney Holder v. State of Maharashtra and Ors 5; Sushant
Sureshrao Charjan v. The State of Maharashtra6; and
Minakshi Pramod Sonar v. The State of Maharashtra 7. This to
1 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 1562
2 Writ Petition No.9003 of 2021 dt. 14.07.2022
3 Writ Petition No.5391 of 2025 dt. 25.11.2025
4 2026 SCC Online Bom 1432
5 2026 SCC Online Bom 6939
6 WP No.7119 of 2016 decided on 17 th March 2020
7 2024 SCC Online 1220
Pallavi/Mayur 6/22
7 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
support his contention that the Respondent cannot compel the
Petitioners to accept the compensation in form of FSI/TDR only,
by refusing to accept the Petitioners’ plea/prayer for monetary
compensation in the given factual matrix. Accordingly, the
Petitioners are entitled to 80% advance compensation and 75%
additional compensation as provided under Section 40 of the
Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.
16. According to Mr. Sabban, there is a continuing cause of
action and that delay/laches is irrelevant, placing reliance on the
Supreme Court’s decisions in Tukaram Kana Joshi & Ors Thr.
Power of Attorney Holder v. M.I.D.C. & Ors 8. and Sukh Dutt
Ratra v. State of Himachal Pradesh9.
17. In light of above, he would urge that the Petition be allowed.
B. Submissions on behalf of Respondent No.3 – PMC :-
18. Per Contra, Mr. Rishikesh Pethe, learned for the Respondent
No.3 would submit that the Petition is completely misconceived,
devoid of merit, and deserves to be dismissed.
19. He would first invite the attention of this Court to
communication dated 29th August 2013 addressed by the Deputy
8 (2013) 1 SCC 353
9 (2022) 7 SCC 508
Pallavi/Mayur 7/22
8 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
Commissioner, Land Acquisition and Management Office, Land
and Properties, Pune Municipal Corporation to the Petitioners.
20. By the said communication, the Respondent Authorities,
inter alia, provided that in case the possession of the subject land
is given to the Respondent No.3 – PMC under Section 126 of the
MRTP Act, due compensation will be paid to the Petitioners in the
form of additional FSI/TDR/Cash compensation in lieu of the said
acquisition. The Petitioners were required to submit the necessary
documents to the concerned Respondent - Department.
21. Mr. Pethe, would then rely on the document in the nature of
a possession receipt dated 9th June 2016 addressed by the
Petitioners to the Respondent Authorities. He would submit that
the said communication clearly records the acceptance by the
Petitioners of the offer made by the Respondent No.3 pursuant to
the decision of subject land acquisition. The possession of the
subject land was handed over as per the said communication with
the condition that the compensation in form of FSI/TDR will be
paid for the said affected land by the Respondent Authorities,
under the extant Rules and Policies.
22. Thereafter Mr. Pethe, would submit that until 10 th February
2026, there has been no response from the Petitioners to the
Respondents. It is only by such letter dated 10 th February 2026
Pallavi/Mayur 8/22
9 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
that the Petitioners have demanded compensation by stating that
the Petitioners are no longer interested in TDR and that they are
not bound to accept such TDR in lieu of the acquisition of the
subject land.
23. Mr. Pethe would rely on Section 126(1)(a) of the MRTP Act to
submit that the said provision is of no assistance to the
Petitioners to support their claim for monetary compensation in
lieu of the FSI/TDR in the given facts and circumstances. This is
more particularly considering the fact that pursuant to the
possession receipt dated 9th June 2016, there is a concluded
contract, for FSI/TDR compensation that has taken place in the
given factual situation.
24. Mr. Pethe, would submit that pursuant to the order of the
coordinate Bench of this Court dated 7 th May 2026, the Municipal
Commissioner has rejected the Petitioners’ claim for monetary
compensation, which is stated in the Affidavit-in-Reply dated 22 nd
July 2026 filed by the Respondent No.3.
25. Mr. Pethe would submit that considering the above, the
decision of the Full Bench in Shree Vinayak Builders and
Developers, Nagpur (supra) as well as the other decisions cited by
the Petitioners will lend no assistance to the case of the
Petitioners.
Pallavi/Mayur 9/22
10 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
26. In light of all the above submissions, Mr. Pethe would urge
that the Petition is devoid of merits and deserves to be dismissed.
III. Analysis and Conclusion :
27. Heard learned counsel for the parties and with their
assistance, perused the record.
28. At the very outset, in our view, an interesting legal issue falls
for our determination, revolving around a narrow compass. We are
called upon to decide whether the claim of the Petitioners to insist
on monetary compensation and not FSI/TDR, under the relevant
statutory provisions, is sustainable in law.
29. In the above context, it would be necessary at this juncture
to, refer to the communication dated 29th August 2013 which
reads thus:
“True Translation Copy from Marathi to English
Land Acquisition and Management Office, Land
and Properties, Pune Municipal Corporation,
Outward No. LEO/3292,
Date: 29-08-2013
To,
Mr. Laxman Bhausaheb Kunjir & Ors.
R/o. Kharadi
Subject:- About 18 Mtr. D.P. Road at Pune Kharadi Survey No. 56.
By Mutual Compromise the Pune Municipal Corporation intend to take
possession of the Lands situated at Survey No. 56/6C/2 at Kharadi,
Pune affected by the 18 Mtr. D.P. Road Reserved Lands under the Pune
City Development Plan. Prima facia the said land is in your possession.
In case the possession of the said 18 Mtr. D.P. Road Reserved Lands
Pallavi/Mayur 10/22
11 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
is given to the Pune Municipal Corporation as per the provisions of
Section 126 of the MRTP Act, it is proposed to take the possession of this
land by Mutual Compromise as per the final Land area affected as
shown in the final Government Measurement Map and after verification
of the title documents as per 7/12 extract, and after getting advice from
the Legal Advisor of the Pune Municipal Corporation. The due
Compensation will De paid in the form of Additional FSI/TDR/Cash
Compensation in lieu of the said 18 Mtr. D.P. Road Reserved Lands. The
appropriate proposal for Compensation alongwith all the required
documents as per official procedure should be submitted to the
Department.
Hence you are requested to handover the said subject properties
reserved for 18 Mtr. D.P. Road to the Pune Municipal Corporation, and
cooperate in the Development of Pune city.
Sd/-
Deputy Commissioner
Land and Properties, Pune Municipal
Corporation Land Acquisition and Management
Office, Land and Properties, Pune Municipal
Corporation.”
30. Pursuant to the above, we refer to the communication dated
9th June 2016 which reads thus :
“[Translation of a photocopy of a Preliminary Possession Receipt
typewritten in Marathi.]
Exh.C
36
(Subject to the provisions prescribed under Section 126 of
M.R.T.P. Act)
Preliminary Possession Receipt
I/We, the undersigned,
Name – M/s. Amit L. Kunjir, through Partner Shri Amit Laxman Kunjir.
Age – 36 years.
Address – Pelican Building, Raheja Woods, Kalyani Nagar, Pune – 411
006.
give in writing the Possession Receipt in favor of Pune Municipal
Corporation, for the reasons as mentioned herein-below.
Description of the Property – Land bearing S. No. 56/6C/1, 56/6C/2,
56/6C/2/2, 56/6C/2/3, 56/6C/2/4, 56/6C/2/5 part, thus, total area
admeasuring 86.83 Are, situated at Village – Kharadi.
Approximate Area admeasuring 1721.00 sq. mts. affected by widening of
18 Meter DP Road and the four boundaries thereof are as under:
Pallavi/Mayur 11/22
12 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
On East - Remaining property from out of S. No. 56/6C/1, 56/6C/2,
56/6C/2/2, 56/6C/2/3, 56/6C/2/4, 56/6C/2/5.
On West - S. No. 56/1B + 2A+6A part.
On South - S. No. 57 part and 18 mts. D.P. Road.
On North - Internal Road from out of S. No. 56/6C.
A requisition bearing O. No. LEO/3292, dated 29.08.2013, under
Section 126 of the MRTP Act, has been sent to you regarding taking
possession of the area admeasuring 1721.00 sq. mts. approximately, the
area affected by widening of 18 mts. D.P. Road, from out of the property
bearing S. No. 56/6C/1, 56/6C/2, 56/6C/2/2, 56/6C/2/3,
56/6C/2/4, 56/6C/2/5, situated at Village – Kharadi. After
determination of the final area being calculated as per Official
Government Survey and in accordance with the opinion and layout from
the Development Planning Department, regarding the area affected by
road widening and upon verification of the land ownership in accordance
with the opinion of the Legal Advisor's Office, admissible consideration in
the form of F.S.I./T.D.R. towards the said land shall be granted as per
prevailing rules and policy.
Hence, subject to the aforesaid conditions, the possession of the said
land is being handed over. In accordance with the prevailing procedures
of the Department, we shall submit documents pertaining to the
Ownership Rights and land survey map etc. and shall transfer the said
area in favor of the Municipal Corporation. We have been informed that
unless and until the 7/12 extract in respect thereof is produced before the
Municipal Corporation by us, we will not get any compensation towards
the said land.
Thus, on this day, the date 9.6.2016, we are handing over the
possession of the said land, after understanding the above-mentioned
aspects.
Party giving possession Party taking possession
For M/s. Amit L. Kunjir (Signature Illegible)
(Signature Illegible) (Suhas Nalawade)
PARTNER Deputy Engineer
Shri. Amit Laxman Kunjir. Estate and Management
Pune Municipal Corporation.”
A plain reading of the above would demonstrate that the
Petitioners handed over the possession of the said land subject to
the conditions set out in the communication dated 9 th June 2016.
This being that the Petitioner shall receive admissible
Pallavi/Mayur 12/22
13 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
consideration in the form of FSI/TDR towards the subject land, to
be granted as per the prevailing rules and policy. The above
document which is in the nature of preliminary possession receipt,
further records that unless and until the 7/12 extract in respect
of the subject land is produced before the Municipal Corporation
by the Petitioners, they will not be entitled to any compensation
towards the subject land. Be that as it may.
31. A conjoint reading of the above documents, would clearly
indicate that the communication dated 29th August 2013 is in the
nature of an offer by the Respondent No.3 to the Petitioners. Such
offer was accepted by the Petitioners vide the subsequent
possession receipt dated 9th June 2016 issued, referring to Section
126 of the MRTP Act. Such acceptance in writing clearly records
that the Petitioners would accept the admissible consideration in
the form of FSI/TDR at the prevailing rates, in accordance with
the extant Rules/Policy. Such offer, followed by the acceptance by
the Petitioners vide the possession receipt dated 9 th June 2016 by
which the Petitioners voluntarily handed over possession of the
subject land to the Respondent No.3 – PMC for the purpose of
acquisition, would constitute a legally binding contract, even
under the scheme and framework of the Indian Contract Act, 1872
(“Contract Act” for short).
Pallavi/Mayur 13/22
14 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
32. At this juncture, we deem it apposite to refer to the following
provisions of the Contract Act, which read thus:-
“2(a) When one person signifies to another his willingness to do or to
abstain from doing anything, with a view to obtaining the assent of
that other to such act or abstinence, he is said to make a proposal.
2(b) When the person to whom the proposal is made signifies his assent
thereto, the proposal is said to be accepted. A proposal, when
accepted, becomes a promise.
………….
2(d) When, at the desire of the promisor, the promisee or any other person
has done or abstained from doing, or does or abstains from doing, or
promises to do or to abstain from doing, something, such act or
abstinence or promise is called a consideration for the promise.”
…………..
“10. What agreements are contracts. - All agreements are contracts if
they are made by the free consent of parties competent to contract, for
a lawful consideration and with a lawful object, and are not hereby
expressly declared to be void.
Nothing herein contained shall affect any law in force in India and
not hereby expressly repealed by which any contract is required to
be made in writing or in the presence of witnesses, or any law
relating to the registration of documents.”
33. Based on the above, it is evident that the Petitioners elected
FSI/TDR vide their acceptance in writing dated 9 th June 2016,
pursuant to the offer of the Respondents vide their
communication dated 29th August 2013. In the given facts and
circumstances, we are clearly of the view that the offer of the
Respondent No.3 - PMC by communication dated 29th August 2013
and the unequivocal acceptance of the same by the Petitioners
vide possession receipt dated 9th June 2016 constitutes a legally
binding and concluding contract between the parties. Such finding
is returned more particularly in light of the categorical
Pallavi/Mayur 14/22
15 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
observations recorded by the Full Bench in Shree Vinayak
Builders and Developers, Nagpur (supra) which are discussed
in the paragraphs to follow.
34. In the aforesaid backdrop, we are, therefore, not persuaded
to accept the submission of Mr. Sabban to the effect that there is
no concluded contract in the given factual complexion. Despite
specific query put to him in this regard, we have not been able to
get any satisfactory response to buttress the Petitioners’ claim of
there being no concluded contract, in terms of the Full Bench
decision (supra).
35. We have duly perused the Letter dated 10 th February 2026
addressed by the Petitioners to the Respondent No.3. The
Petitioners for the first time vide the said communication, record
that they are not interested in accepting TDR in lieu of the subject
land handed over for acquisition to the Respondents, which
according to them, is not binding on the landowner. They would
on the other hand, insist for compensation in accordance with law
for the subject land of which they claim to be the owners. This
would tantamount to a complete change of stance at the behest of
the Petitioners, by which they are resiling from the binding
contractual terms (supra), as mutually agreed upon.
36. In the above context, it is apposite to refer to the decision of
Pallavi/Mayur 15/22
16 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
the Supreme Court in State of Haryana & Ors. Vs M/s. Jai
Durgaa Finvest P. Ltd.10. It was held therein that, in matters of
contract between the parties, the function of the Courts is to
interpret and enforce the terms as has been agreed between the
parties. The Courts will not re-write the terms howsoever
reasonable the substituted term may appear to be. It was further
held that where the parties have committed to certain
unambiguous terms, the parties are bound by the same. Once the
parties with their eyes open, without any protest whatsoever and
with free will, accept certain terms of a contract they cannot
afterwards be permitted to go back on the same merely because at
a later point of time the stipulation proves to be onerous.
37. In light of the above, in the event we accept the claim of the
Petitioners for monetary compensation made for the first time in
the year 2026 despite a concluded contract taking place on 9 th
June 2016, we are not stopping short of re-writing such legally
binding concluded contract between the parties. Such recourse is
held to be impermissible in law, in various decisions of the
Supreme Court inter alia, General Assurance Society Ltd. vs.
Chandumull Jain and another11; Rajasthan State Industrial
Development & Investment Corporation vs. Diamond & Gem
10 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1323
11 AIR 1966 SC 1644
Pallavi/Mayur 16/22
17 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
Development Corporation Ltd.12; Shree Ambica Medical Stores
vs. Surat People's Coop. Bank Ltd.13; and GMR Warora Energy
Ltd. vs. Central Electricity Regulatory Commission14. The
same were also re-iterated in a recent judgment of the Supreme
Court in Venkataraman Krishnamurthy And Another v. Lodha
Crown Buildmart Private Limited15, the relevant extract of
which, for convenience, reads thus:-
“16. In this regard, we may refer to the Constitution Bench decision in General
Assurance Society Ltd. vs. Chandumull Jain and another, wherein it was
observed that, in interpreting documents relating to a contract of insurance,
the duty of the Court is to interpret the words in which the contract is
expressed by the parties because it is not for the Court to make a new
contract, however reasonable, if the parties have not made it themselves.
Thereafter, in Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment
Corporation vs. Diamond & Gem Development Corporation Ltd., this Court
reiterated that a contract, being a creature of an agreement between two or
more parties, is to be interpreted giving the actual meaning to the words
contained in the contract AIR 1966 SC 1644 (2013) 5 SCC 470 and it is not
permissible for the Court to make a new contract, however reasonable, if the
parties have not made it themselves.
17. More recently, in Shree Ambica Medical Stores vs. Surat People 's Coop. Bank
Ltd., it was observed that, through its interpretative process, the Court can-
not rewrite or create a new contract between the parties and has to simply
apply the terms and conditions of the agreement as agreed between the par-
ties. Again, in GMR Warora Energy Ltd. vs. Central Electricity Regulatory
Commission, it was observed that Courts cannot substitute their own view of
the presumed understanding of commercial terms by the parties, if the terms
are explicitly expressed. It was held that the explicit terms of a contract are
always the final word with regard to the intention of the parties.”
(Emphasis supplied)
In our view, captured in essence, the ratio in the above
judgments clearly would be that, the Courts exercising writ
12 (2013) 5 SCC 470
13 (2020) 13 SCC 564
14 (2023) 10 SCC 401
15 (2024) 4 SCC 230)
Pallavi/Mayur 17/22
18 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
jurisdiction ought not to pass any order/directions which would
result in making a new contract or re-writing the same. We,
therefore cannot countenance the stand espoused by the
Petitioners, as the law would clearly not support the same.
38. We have carefully perused the decision of the Full Bench of
this Court in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers, Nagpur
(supra). The Full Bench in paragraph 34 of the decision has
clearly contemplated existence and or non-existence of a
concluded contract. Accordingly, it is held that if there exists a
concluded contract between the parties, the landowner or lessee
cannot withdraw his request for compensation and/or refuse to
surrender the land. In other words, the parties are bound to act
on the terms and conditions of such concluded contracts.
However, the existence of a concluded contract would be a
question of fact to be determined in the facts and circumstances of
every case. In such view of the matter, the decision of the
Petitioners to refuse to accept FSI/TDR as compensation and to
insist only on monetary compensation would effectively mean
changing the terms of a concluded contract and seeking such
relief in writ jurisdiction, is legally impermissible.
Pallavi/Mayur 18/22
19 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
39. At this juncture, it would be relevant to refer to Section 126
(1) of the MRTP Act, which is reproduced below :-
“126. Acquisition of land required for public purposes specified in plans -
(1) When after the publication of a draft Regional Plan, [Structure
plan] a Development or any other plan or town planning scheme,
any land is required or reserved for any of the public purposes
specified in any plan or scheme under this Act at any time the
Planning Authority, Development Authority, or as the case may
be, any Appropriate Authority may, except as otherwise provided
in section 113A acquire the land, -
(a) by agreement by paying an amount agreed to, or
(b) in lieu of any such amount, by granting the land-owner or the
lessee, subject, however, to the lessee paying the lessor or
depositing with the Planning Authority, Development Authority
or Appropriate Authority, as the case may be, for payment to the
lessor, an amount equivalent to the value of the lessor's interest
to be determined by any of the said Authorities concerned on the
basis of the principles laid Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013), Floor Space down in the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Index (FSI) or
Transferable Development Rights (TDR) against the area of land
surrendered free of cost and free from all encumbrances, and
also further additional Floor Space Index or Transferable
Development Rights against the development or construction of
the amenity on the surrendered land at his cost, as the Final
Development Control Regulations prepared in this behalf
provide, or
(c) by making in application to the State Government for acquiring such land
under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013],
and the land (together with the amenity, if any, so developed or
constructed) so acquired by agreement or by grant of Floor Space Index
or additional Floor Space Index or Transferable Development Rights
under sections for under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013], as the case may be, shall vest absolutely free from all
encumbrances in the Planning Authority. Development Authority, or as
the case may be, any Appropriate Authority.”
(Emphasis supplied)
Apropos the above, we find that the facts of the given case
are such that the conditions under Section 126(1)(b) are duly
fulfilled. In view thereof, the acquisition proceedings are
Pallavi/Mayur 19/22
20 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
undertaken clearly by consensus of both the Petitioners and the
Respondent – Authorities, and not merely at the instance of the
Respondent – Authorities. Accordingly, the reliance on the Full
Bench decision (supra) by the Petitioners, is like carrying coal to
New Castle, which does not take the case of the Petitioners any
further.
40. Similarly, the other decisions cited by the Petitioners in the
case of Makarand Sharad Pande & Ors. (supra), Lata Balaso
Patil (supra), Sushant Sureshrao Charjan (supra) and Minakshi
Pramod Sonar (supra) will not come to the aid/assistance of the
Petitioners primarily on the ground that there is a concluded
contract in the given factual complexion, unlike the facts situation
in those cases. Even on such count, those decisions are clearly
distinguishable on facts and the Petitioners cannot insist on the
relief of monetary compensation, in the given case, by relying on
those authorities.
41. We may observe that, had the converse been true and in
case there was no concluded contract between the parties, then
the Petitioners' case for claiming monetary compensation would
have had some substance, as held in a recent co-ordinate bench
decision of this Court in Purnima Talkies vs Chief Officer,
Pallavi/Mayur 20/22
21 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
Dahanu Nagar Parishad, Dahanu , which is not the case,
16
before us.
42. The Affidavit-in-Reply of the Respondent No.3 dated 22nd July
2026 discloses that the representation of the Petitioner for
monetary compensation was rejected pursuant to the order of the
coordinate Bench this Court dated 7th May 2026. Be that as it may.
In light of our analysis above, we are not persuaded to accept the
case of the Petitioners and/or grant any relief in the given facts
and circumstances.
43. The Petitioners have placed reliance by way of written
submissions on the decision of this Court in Tukaram Kana
Joshi & Ors. (supra) and Sukh Dutt Ratra (supra). These
judgments mainly deal with delay and laches and that there is a
continuing cause of action for persons claiming compensation. In
our view, such decisions in the given factual complexion lend no
assistance to the Petitioners. There being no quarrel with such
principle laid down therein, however, the same would not apply in
the present case.
44. For all the above reasons, in our considered view, the Writ
Petition is devoid of merit. Accordingly, Rule is Discharged and the
Writ Petition is Dismissed.
16 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 326
Pallavi/Mayur 21/22
22 J-WP-5159-2026 (C).doc
45. Before parting, we clarify that the Petitioners are at liberty to
submit a proposal for compensation in form of FSI/TDR, in
accordance with the prescribed procedure to the Competent
Authority/Officer of the Respondents which, in the absence of any
other impediment can be considered, in accordance with law,
expeditiously.
[ADVAIT M. SETHNA, J.] [CHIEF JUSTICE]
Pallavi/Mayur 22/22
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.