Bombay High Court
SAMEER ABDUL AZIZ BOBDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THR. ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Possession of land for road widening cannot be taken until the statutory acquisition process under the MRTP Act, 1966 and the RFCTLARR Act, 2013 is completed, including payment of monetary compensation; TDR cannot be imposed without consent.
Summary
The petitioners challenged notices issued by the Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation (BNCMC) that threatened to take over their lands and structures for a road‑widening project and offered only Transferable Development Rights (TDR) instead of monetary compensation. They alleged violation of Article 300A and the procedural requirements of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act). The corporation argued that the project was of public interest and sought early possession, relying on a division‑bench order that allowed possession before compensation. The Court, referring to an earlier judgment in Kamla Devi Kumawat v. State of Maharashtra, held that BNCMC had bypassed the statutory acquisition process under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 and the RFCTLARR Act, and that TDR could not be imposed without consent. The notices were deemed arbitrary and violative of the constitutional right to property. The Court quashed the notices, directed the corporation to follow the statutory procedure, pay monetary compensation, and then take possession within four weeks after compensation is disbursed. All writ petitions were allowed.
Issues considered
- When can a municipal corporation take possession of land for a public‑purpose project without completing the statutory acquisition process under the MRTP Act and the RFCTLARR Act?
- Is offering Transferable Development Rights (TDR) in lieu of monetary compensation permissible without the landowner’s consent?
- Do the notices issued by the municipal corporation violate Article 300A and the principles of the right to property as laid down by the Supreme Court?
- Can the court quash such notices and direct compliance with the statutory acquisition procedure?
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- right to property
- Article 300A
- road widening
- Transferable Development Rights
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act
- RFCTLARR Act 2013
- municipal corporation
- compensation
- public purpose
Judgment
1
915-919-wp-10833-2025.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 10833 OF 2025 (Sr. No. 915)
Atul Arun Kale and Another …Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Another …Respondents
VISHAL WITH
SUBHASH WRIT PETITION NO. 10993 OF 2025 (Sr. No. 916)
PAREKAR WITH
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
PAREKAR
WRIT PETITION NO. 10994 OF 2025
Date: 2026.10.01
19:33:57 +0530
Nuzrat Aziz Bobhde …Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Another …Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 6057 OF 2026 (Sr. No. 918)
Sameer Abdul Aziz Bobde …Petitioner
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Another …Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 9089 OF 2026 (Sr. No. 919)
Seema Sudhir Acharya and Others …Petitioners
Versus
The State of Maharashtra and Another …Respondents
******
Mr. Sumit Kothari, for the Petitioners in WP No. 10833 of 2025.
Mr. Atharva Dandekar a/w. Mr. Gautam Jain, for the Petitioners in WP
Nos. 10993 of 2025, 10994 of 2025, 6057 of 2026 and 9089 of 2026.
Mr. N.R. Bubna i/b. Ms. Pooja Malik and Mr. Aryan Achra, for
Respondent No. 2- BNCMC.
Mr. Rajesh Rekale (through VC), for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 in WP
Vishal Parekar ….1
2
915-919-wp-10833-2025.doc
No. 10833 of 2025. And Smt. Tanu Bhatia, for Respondent Nos. 2 and
3 in remaining petitions.
Smt. M.P. Thakur, AGP for the State in WP No. 10883 of 2025 and WP
No. 10994 of 2025.
Smt. P.J. Gavhane, AGP for the State in WP No. 10993 of 2025.
Smt. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP for the State in WP Nos 9089 of 2026
and 6057 of 2026.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 1st OCTOBER, 2026
-----------
P. C. :
1. These writ petitions are taken up together, as identical issues
arise for consideration.
2. The petitioners are aggrieved by letters/notices issued by the
respondent- Bhiwandi Nizampur City Municipal Corporation
(“respondent Municipal Corporation”) threatening to take over the
lands and structures of the petitioners for undertaking the project of
road widening. In some of the petitions, the petitioners have also
challenged follow-up notices issued by the respondent Municipal
Corporation offering Transferable Development Rights (TDR) instead
of monetary compensation for taking over the lands and structures of
the petitioners for the purposes of road widening.
Vishal Parekar ….2
3
915-919-wp-10833-2025.doc
3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submit that
the high-handed manner in which the respondent Municipal
Corporation has proceeded in the matter indicates that the rights of
the petitioners under Article 300A of the Constitution of India have
been violated. It is submitted that, as per statutory provisions,
including the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 (“the Act, 2013”), the respondent Municipal Corporation is
required to first undertake the procedure of acquisition, determination
of compensation by passing an appropriate award, disbursing the
amounts, and then taking over possession of the subject lands and
structures. Instead, according to the learned counsel for the
petitioners, the respondent Municipal Corporation has rushed into
issuing the impugned letters/notices that adversely affect the rights of
the petitioners.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners rely upon a recent order
dated 29.07.2026 passed by this Court in writ petitions raising
identical issues concerning the very same project of road widening of
the respondent Municipal Corporation. It is submitted that this Court,
after taking note of the position of law, directed that possession of the
Vishal Parekar ….3
4
915-919-wp-10833-2025.doc
lands and structures belonging to the petitioners therein could be
taken only after determination and payment of compensation to the
petitioners therein, in accordance with law. It is submitted that a
similar relief may be granted to the petitioners in these writ petitions.
5. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Municipal
Corporation have tendered affidavits in reply today in Writ Petition
No. 10833 of 2025 and Writ Petition No. 9089 of 2026. The said
affidavits in reply are taken on record. In the other writ petitions,
reply affidavits are already filed.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent Municipal
Corporation submit that the project of road widening is in the public
interest, and early completion of the said project is in the interest of
the general public. It is submitted that the respondent Municipal
Corporation is bound to appropriately compensate the affected
persons, but the project of road widening ought not to be delayed. It is
submitted that this Court may consider directing possession of the
lands being handed over to the respondent Municipal Corporation so
that the project of road widening can be completed at the earliest. The
exercise of determination of compensation and payment thereof, in
accordance with law, shall be undertaken by the Municipal
Vishal Parekar ….4
5
915-919-wp-10833-2025.doc
Corporation. Reliance is sought to be placed on an order passed by a
Division Bench of this Court wherein it was indicated that the lands
and structures of the affected persons could be handed over and that
compensation could be determined and paid to them within four
weeks of taking over of possession.
7. We have considered the rival submissions.
8. We find that the present petitions are squarely covered as per
the aforesaid order dated 29.07.2026 passed by this Court in Writ
Petition No. 1799 of 2026 (Kamla Devi Ramchandra Kumawat vs. The
State of Maharashtra & Ors.) and connected writ petitions. The said
writ petitions also concerned the aforesaid action of the respondent
Municipal Corporation in issuing such letters/notices to identically
situated affected persons for taking over their lands and structures for
the project of road widening. We are of the opinion that the present
petitions can be disposed of in the manner in which the said group of
writ petitions were allowed and disposed of.
9. For the sake of convenience, the relevant portion of the said
order passed in the case of Kamla Devi Kumawat (supra) is
reproduced below:
Vishal Parekar ….5
6
915-919-wp-10833-2025.doc
7] We are of the opinion that this Court, while entertaining
the present writ petitions, cannot be made a platform for
considering the aspect of the extent to which the
properties/structures of the Petitioners are authorized or
otherwise. The fundamental question that arises for
consideration is that when a public body, like the
Respondent Municipal Corporation, intends to undertake
the task of road widening in order to ensure that the
concerned road is widened to the extent as approved in the
development plan, as to what is the procedure to be
followed in such circumstances. The stand of the
Respondent Municipal Corporation clearly shows that it
intends to undertake the task of road widening in the light
of the width of the road approved in the development plan.
This indicates that if the Respondent Municipal
Corporation intends to undertake the task of road
widening, it would necessarily have to acquire
land/property to the extent that the widening of the road is
satisfied in terms of the development plan.
8] In such circumstances, the Respondent Municipal
Corporation would have to move an appropriate proposal
before the Respondent State Government for exercising
powers under the Maharashtra Regional and Town
Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) read with the provisions of
the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land
Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (Act
of 2013). The requirement of law is that when such a
proposal is moved, a specific amount is required to be
deposited with the Respondent State/competent authority,
so that the steps indicated under the Act of 2013 are duly
undertaken for acquisition of properties to satisfy the task
of road widening.
9] It is upon such proposal being moved and the powers
under the MRTP Act and the Act of 2013 being exercised in
accordance with law that the process of acquisition would
stand triggered. This would entail the stepwise procedure
contemplated under the Act of 2013 for granting an
opportunity to the persons interested to raise objections as
per the statutory provisions of the Act of 2013 applicable to
acquisitions under the MRTP Act and after disposal of
objections, further steps could be taken for determination
of quantum of compensation, pronouncement of the
award, offering compensation to the persons entitled to
disbursal of such compensation and thereupon taking
possession of the land for undertaking the task of road
widening.
Vishal Parekar ….6
7
915-919-wp-10833-2025.doc
10] In the present case, it appears that in its zeal to
undertake the action of road widening, the Respondent
Municipal Corporation has completely thrown to the winds
the statutory requirements noted hereinabove. Admittedly,
there is no proposal moved before the Competent Authority
of the Respondent State for undertaking the process of
acquisition. Instead, the impugned notices were issued to
the Petitioners directly asking them to produce certain
documents and indicating that the Petitioners would be
thrown out of their properties and thereafter, in future if
they were able to produce necessary documents, they could
be offered compensation by way of TDR. This was followed
with the subsequent action within a period of one month of
alleging that the structures of the Petitioners were
unauthorized and hence, they would be demolished within
24 hours for the purpose of road widening.
11] We find that the aforesaid impugned actions
undertaken by the Respondent Municipal Corporation are
wholly arbitrary and unsustainable. The contents of the
impugned notices indicate that the Respondent Municipal
Corporation is itself aware about the requirement of law to
offer compensation to the affected persons, but the said
Respondent has refused to follow the statutory
requirements and instead a novel method of taking a
shortcut to taking possession of lands/properties for the
road widening project, has been undertaken. The
Respondent Municipal Corporation cannot be permitted to
trample upon the rights of the citizens in such a manner
and even if it has to undertake the task of the development
work of road widening, it has to be done in accordance
with law. In the present case, the Respondent Municipal
Corporation has nowhere indicated by its actions or the
affidavits filed before this Court that the present case was
being treated as a case where possession of the subject
land/properties was to be taken under the emergency
provisions.
12] We are of the opinion that the Respondent Municipal
Corporation by insisting that the Petitioners would be
compensated, if at all, only by way of TDR, violated the
position of law clarified by the Full Bench judgment of this
Court in the case of Shri Vinayak Builders and
Development Nagpur v. State of Maharashtra & Ors 1 . If the
land owners or claimants do not give their consent,
1 [2022 (4) MHLJ 739]
Vishal Parekar ….7
8
915-919-wp-10833-2025.doc
compensation by way of TDR cannot be imposed upon
them and the concerned authorities would necessarily be
required to determine and pay monetary compensation to
the Petitioners.
13] In such a situation, we find that the Respondent
Municipal Corporation has utterly failed in justifying the
notices and the follow up action taken against the
Petitioners. The Supreme Court has held that although the
right to property has no longer remained a Fundamental
Right, under Article 300A of the Constitution of India, it is
recognized as a Constitutional Right and Human Right,
which cannot be trampled upon by the State and its
agencies and instrumentalities.
14] In this context, reference can be made to the judgment
of the Supreme Court in the case of Kolkata Municipal
Corporation v. Bimal Kumar Shah2.
15] In the said judgment, the Supreme Court has
elaborately discussed various facets of the right to property
and seven principles have been specified, which include the
right to notice, right to be heard, right to a reasoned
decision, the duty to acquire only for public purpose, the
right of restitution or fair compensation, the right to an
efficient and expeditious process and the right of
conclusion. The impugned actions of the Respondent
Municipal Corporation show that all the aforesaid
principles have been breached and therefore, the
Petitioners have made out a case in their favour for the writ
petitions to be allowed.
16] The learned AGPs confirm the fact that till date, the
Municipal Corporation has not forwarded any proposal for
acquisition of land/properties for undertaking the said
project of road widening.
17] In view of the above, the writ petitions are allowed in
terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) in all the petitions.
Consequently, the notices dated 10/10/2025, issued by the
Respondent Municipal Corporation and further notices
dated 14/11/2025 issued to the Petitioners are quashed
and set aside. The Respondents are directed to take
recourse to the provisions of the Maharashtra Regional and
Town Planning Act, 1966 and the Right to Fair
Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition,
Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, acquisition and
payment of compensation to the Petitioners before taking
2 [2024 (10) SCC 533]
Vishal Parekar ….8
9
915-919-wp-10833-2025.doc
possession for undertaking the exercise of road widening.
18] Writ petitions are allowed in the above terms.
19] Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
10. We do not wish to repeat and reiterate what was held in the
above-quoted portion of the said order. Since the petitioners in these
writ petitions are identically situated, we intend to grant relief to them
as was granted in the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions.
11. We find that in some of the writ petitions, the reliefs sought
pertain to initial letters/notices issued by the respondent Municipal
Corporation calling upon the petitioners to produce relevant
documents pertaining to the subject lands and structures, followed up
with further notices offering only TDR as compensation instead of
monetary compensation. Writ Petition Nos. 6057 of 2026 and 9089 of
2026 have been filed by the petitioners seeking a direction against the
respondents to follow the settled position of law to undertake
acquisition and to pay compensation to the petitioners before taking
over possession of their lands and structures for the road widening
project. In these writ petitions also, reference is made to similar
letters/notices issued by the respondent Municipal Corporation calling
upon the petitioners to produce documents in the context of the
Vishal Parekar ….9
10
915-919-wp-10833-2025.doc
requirement of their lands and structures for the road widening
project.
12. Considering the fact that the petitioners in these petitions are
also found eligible for relief, as was granted to the petitioners in the
aforesaid order dated 29.07.2026 passed in the case of Kamla Devi
Kumawat (supra), we are inclined to allow these writ petitions in the
following manner.
13. Writ Petition No. 10833 of 2025 is allowed in terms of prayer
clauses (a) and (b-1), which read as under:
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writ,
order or direction calling for the records leading to the
issuance of the impugned notice dated 23.07.2025 (Exh.
L to the petition) and after going through the legality,
validity and propriety of the same, be pleased to quash
the same and set it aside.
(b-1) Issue a writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writ,
order or direction calling for the records leading to the
issuance of the impugned notice dated 31.07.2025 (Exh.
M1 to the petition) and after going through the legality,
validity and propriety of the same, be pleased to quash
the same and set it aside.
14. Writ Petition No. 10993 of 2025 and Writ Petition No. 10994 of
2025 both are allowed in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (c) of the
said writ petitions, which read as follows:
Vishal Parekar ….10
11
915-919-wp-10833-2025.doc
Writ Petition No. 10993 of 2025 :-
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writ,
order or direction calling for the records leading to the
issuance of the first impugned notice dated 23.07.2025
(Exh. I to the petition) and after going through the
legality, validity and propriety of the same, be pleased to
quash the same and set it aside.
(c) Issue a writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writ,
order or direction calling for the records leading to the
issuance of the second impugned notice dated
31.07.2025 (Exh. K to the petition) and after going
through the legality, validity and propriety of the same,
be pleased to quash the same and set it aside.
Writ Petition No. 10994 of 2025 :-
(a) Issue a writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writ,
order or direction calling for the records leading to the
issuance of the first impugned notice dated 23.07.2025
(Exh. J to the petition) and after going through the
legality, validity and propriety of the same, be pleased to
quash the same and set it aside.
(c) Issue a writ of certiorari, or other appropriate writ,
order or direction calling for the records leading to the
issuance of the second impugned notice dated
31.07.2025 (Exh. L to the petition) and after going
through the legality, validity and propriety of the same,
be pleased to quash the same and set it aside.
15. Writ Petition Nos. 6057 of 2026 and 9089 of 2026 are allowed
in terms of prayer clause (a), extracted below:
Writ Petition No. 6057 of 2026 :
(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of
Vishal Parekar ….11
12
915-919-wp-10833-2025.doc
Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondent
No.1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra to forthwith issue the
requisite Notification/ Declaration under the provisions
of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 r/w. Section 78 of the M.M.C., Act, 1949 for
acquisition of such part of the said plot/said premises
being Municipal House No. 65 comprising of Ground
floor situate at C.S. No. 2167 situated at Bhiwandi, Dist.
Thane as may be required for the Road widening exercise
from Bobde Chowk, Toheed Jewellers to Mandai and
forthwith remit the amount of compensation to the
Petitioner in respect Municipal House No. 65 comprising
of Ground floor situate at C.S. No. 2167 situated at
Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane.
Writ Petition No. 9089 of 2026 :
(a) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of
Mandamus or any other Writ, order or direction in the
nature of Mandamus thereby directing the Respondent
No.1 i.e. the State of Maharashtra/the State Government
to forthwith issue the requisite Notification/Declaration
under the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation
and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and
Resettlement Act, 2013 r/w. Section 78 of the M.M.C.,
Act, 1949 for acquisition of such part of the said plots
and/or said premises being Municipal House Nos.
34/1/G/2, 34/1/G/3, 34/1/G/5, 34/2, 34/3, 34/5,
34/6, 34/8, and 34/9 situated in "Acharya Building"
comprised of Ground plus three floors situate at C.S. No.
2235, 2236 and 2237 situated at Bhiwandi, Dist. Thane
as may be required for the Road widening exercise from
Bobde Chowk, Toheed Jewellers to Mandai and forthwith
remit the amount of compensation to the Petitioners in
respect of the said plots and said premises.
Vishal Parekar ….12
13
915-919-wp-10833-2025.doc
16. Consequent upon quashing of the impugned letters/notices and
the writ petitions being allowed in the aforesaid manner, the
respondents are directed to take recourse to the provisions of the
relevant statutes, including the Right to Fair Compensation and
Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement
Act, 2013 to undertake the exercise of acquisition, determination of
compensation, pronouncement of awards, and disbursal of
compensation to the petitioners.
17. Upon such disbursal of compensation, the petitioners shall hand
over the subject lands and structures to the respondent Municipal
Corporation within four weeks of disbursal of the amount of
compensation.
18. Needless to say, the petitioners would be at liberty to institute
appropriate proceedings if they are aggrieved by the determination of
quantum of compensation. However, handing over of possession shall
not be delayed on that count.
19. It is further clarified that the order passed in these writ petitions
has no bearing on any structures that may be found to be illegal on
the subject lands.
Vishal Parekar ….13
14
915-919-wp-10833-2025.doc
20. The order passed today will not come in the way of the parties
to proceed for acquisition by consent, considering the fact that the
respondent Municipal Corporation is undertaking a project of road
widening which is in the larger interest of the public.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Vishal Parekar ….14
Checking your session…
Lawyer court records for this case
Associated through the court’s case reference.