Bombay High Court
BHASKAR NAMDEV THAKUR AND ORSversusTHANE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION THR ITS COMMISSIONER AND ORS
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Compensation by way of TDR/FSI cannot be forced on landowners; monetary compensation must be paid under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.
Summary
The petitioners own land in Thane that the Thane Municipal Corporation intends to use for a Development Plan Road. The corporation offered compensation in the form of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) / Floor Space Index (FSI) instead of monetary payment, citing lack of financial capacity. The petitioners refused the TDR offer, insisting on monetary compensation, and filed a writ petition. The court referred to the Full Bench judgment in Shree Vinayak Builders, which held that TDR/FSI compensation cannot be imposed unilaterally and must be accepted by the landowner. Applying that precedent, the court ruled that the corporation must acquire the land under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and pay just monetary compensation. Consequently, the petition was allowed, directing the corporation to acquire the land, pay monetary compensation, quash a specific communication, and refrain from disturbing the petitioners' possession until payment is made.
Issues considered
- The legality of imposing TDR/FSI as compensation without the landowner's consent.
- Whether the municipal corporation must acquire the land and pay monetary compensation under the 2013 Land Acquisition Act.
- The applicability of the right to property and related sub‑rights in the context of land acquisition for public roads.
Legislation cited
Subjects
- land acquisition
- compensation
- TDR
- FSI
- right to property
- municipal corporation
- development plan road
- 2013 Land Acquisition Act
- consent
Judgment
1
8-wp-8309-2026.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 8309 OF 2026
Bhaskar Namdev Thakur and Others …Petitioners
Versus
Thane Municipal Corporation and Others …Respondents
VISHAL
SUBHASH ******
PAREKAR Mr. Vivek Salunke, for the Petitioners
Digitally signed by
VISHAL SUBHASH
PAREKAR Mr. R.S. Apte, Senior Advocate a/w. Mr. Aniesh Jadhav, Mr. Shyam
Date: 2026.09.11
17:46:27 +0530
Singh, Mr. Rushikesh Kekane and Ms. Nikita Kaushik, for Respondent
Nos. 1 to 3.
Smt. G.R. Raghuwanshi, AGP, for the State.
******
CORAM : MANISH PITALE AND
SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ.
DATE : 11th SEPTEMBER, 2026
ORAL ORDER :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The Petitioners have approached this Court, being aggrieved by
the actions of the Respondents in seeking to utilize the land belonging
to the Petitioners for the purpose of construction of Development Plan
Road, without undertaking any steps towards acquisition of the
subject land and payment of monetary compensation for the same.
3. The Respondent Municipal Corporation offered Transferable
Vishal Parekar ….1
2
8-wp-8309-2026.doc
Development Rights (TDR) / FSI as compensation to Petitioners for
the proposed utilization of their land, but the Petitioners are not
agreeable to compensation by way of TDR and they insist on being
paid monetary compensation.
4. The subject land is described in paragraph 3(a) of the Writ
Petition. Perusal of the same shows that a part of the land belonging to
the Petitioners in Thane is to be utilized for construction of
Development Plan Road by the Respondent Municipal Corporation.
5. On 10.07.2026, this Court, while issuing notice for final
disposal, referred to the Full Bench judgment of this Court in the case
of Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers, Nagpur vs. State of
Maharashtra and Others1, which laid down the position of law that
compensation in the form of TDR/FSI cannot be forced unilaterally by
the planning authority or the acquiring body on the landowners.
6. In response to the notice issued by this Court, the Respondent
Municipal Corporation has filed affidavit in reply. In the said affidavit,
the Respondent Municipal Corporation has referred to the reservation
affecting the land and the necessity of construction of the road. It is
further stated that the Respondent Municipal Corporation is offering
1 2022 (4) Mh.L.J. 739.
Vishal Parekar ….2
3
8-wp-8309-2026.doc
TDR as it presently does not have the financial capacity to offer
monetary compensation.
7. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Respondent
Municipal Corporation submitted that the offer of TDR can be said to
be attractive in the facts and circumstances of the present case, and if
the Petitioners are agreeable, the matter can be amicably resolved. But
the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners has instructions not
to give consent for compensation by way of TDR/FSI for utilization of
the subject land belonging to them.
8. In the case of Shree Vinayak Builders (supra), one of the
questions framed for consideration was as to whether, the modes of
acquisition provided as per Section 126(1)(a) and (b) of the
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, are at the choice
of either of the parties or only of the acquiring authority. The said
question was answered in paragraph 43 of the said judgment by
holding that the aforesaid acquisition has to be by consensus between
both the parties and not only at the option of the acquiring authority.
It was specifically held that compensation by way of TDR/FSI cannot
be forced upon the landowners and that their consent to accept
compensation in the aforesaid mode is a sine qua non.
Vishal Parekar ….3
4
8-wp-8309-2026.doc
9. The said position of law has been followed in subsequent
judgments and orders passed by this Court in the cases of Purnima
Talkies vs. Chief Officer, Dahanu Nagar Parishad and Others
(judgment and order dated 20.02.2025 passed in Writ Petition No.
11543 of 2024) and judgment and order dated 30.01.2026 passed in
Writ Petition (L) No. 19414 of 2024 (Jyoti Baliram Thorat and Others
vs. MMRDA and Others).
10. Applying the said position of law to the facts of the present case,
we find that if the subject lands belonging to the Petitioners are to be
utilized for construction of the Development Plan Road by the
Respondent Municipal Corporation, necessary steps ought to be taken
to acquire the subject lands and to pay just, fair, and reasonable
compensation.
11. The Petitioners have categorically stated that they are not giving
their consent for being compensated by way of TDR/FSI and that they
insist on being paid monetary compensation. In such a situation, the
Respondent Municipal Corporation cannot unilaterally force the
Petitioners to accept TDR/FSI as compensation on the specious plea
that it presently does not have the financial capacity to pay monetary
compensation. If the subject lands of the Petitioners are to be utilized
Vishal Parekar ….4
5
8-wp-8309-2026.doc
for construction of the Development Plan Road, they must be paid
compensation in recognition of their right to property under Article
300A of the Constitution of India.
12. Although the said right has no longer remained a Fundamental
Right, as per judgments of the Supreme Court in various cases,
including in the case of Kolkata Municipal Corporation and Anr. vs.
Bimal Kumar Shah and Ors.2 the aforesaid right is now recognized as a
valuable human right which cannot be casually trampled upon by
acquiring bodies. As a matter of fact, in the said judgment, the
Supreme Court has recognized seven sub-rights of the said valuable
right to property, which include , 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. Several
of the sub-rights of the Petitioners recognized by the Supreme Court,
and particularly the right to fair compensation, would stand violated if
the Respondent Municipal Corporation proceeds to construct the DP
road in the subject lands of the Petitioners without taking any steps for
acquisition of the same and making payment of just, fair, and
2 (2024) 10 SCC 533.
Vishal Parekar ….5
6
8-wp-8309-2026.doc
reasonable compensation.
13. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the present
Petition deserves to be allowed in terms of prayer clauses (b), (c), and
(d), which read as follows:
(b) By suitable writ, order or direction this Court may be
pleased to direct the present Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to
acquire the subject property belonging to the Petitioners
under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in
Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act,
2013 in the absence of any agreement with respect to
acceptance of TDR / FSI and accordingly the Respondents
be directed to pay to the Petitioners the monetary
compensation and other awardable benefits under the said
Act of 2013;
(c) By suitable writ, order or direction this Court may be
pleased to quash and set aside communication dated
14/01/2025 [Exhibit 'G' hereto] issued by the present
Respondent No. 3;
(d) By suitable writ, order or direction, this Court may be
pleased to direct the Respondents not to disturb the
peaceful possession of the present Petitioners till monetary
compensation is paid to the Petitioners.
14. Since the Respondent Municipal Corporation is interested in
Vishal Parekar ….6
7
8-wp-8309-2026.doc
taking forward its work of construction of Development Plan Road, it
is only in the interest of the said object of the Respondent Municipal
Corporation to expeditiously complete the exercise of acquiring the
subject lands and disbursing the monetary compensation.
15. In any case, the exercise to be undertaken by the Respondents,
including the Respondent Municipal Corporation, in terms of prayer
clause (b), shall be completed within six months from the date of this
order.
(SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, J.) (MANISH PITALE, J.)
Vishal Parekar ….7
Checking your session…