MMRDA cannot foist TDR for acquired land: HC

The Bombay High Court ruled MMRDA must provide monetary compensation, not TDR, for land acquisition, directing payment to a Kurla resident within six months.

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Friday held that the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (MMRDA) cannot unilaterally foist TDR (Transferable Development Right) as compensation for land acquisition and directed it to compensate a Mumbai resident with money for her land in Kurla. MMRDA had acquired the land for expansion of the Santacruz Chembur Link Road in December 2012.

MMRDA cannot foist TDR for acquired land: HC

A division bench of Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram Shirsath held that offering TDR as compensation is “beyond the four corners” of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974.

“If the state government and the land owner mutually agree that compensation could be given in the form of TDR, by stretching the provision under Section 35(2) of the said Act, such a situation could perhaps be contemplated,” the bench said.

“But, it is absolutely clear that compensation in the form of TDR can never be unilaterally foisted by the state government on the land owner, whose land is acquired,” the bench added, while directing MMRDA to determine the monetary compensation payable to Jyoti Thorat and other members of the family, whose 630-sq-m land in Kurla was acquired for widening the Santacruz Chembur Link Road. The compensation would have to be paid within six months.

The final notification for acquiring the land was issued in March 2011 and the land was taken over by MMRDA two months later. On December 15, 2012, the competent authority passed an award, granting TDR to the petitioners as compensation for acquisition of their land for the public project.

The petitioners immediately approached MMRDA and sought monetary compensation instead. Although they kept pursuing this, they did not get a positive response. Eventually, on April 1, 2024, MMRDA wrote to the petitioners, informing them that the award cannot be modified and they cannot be granted monetary compensation.

The petitioners then approached the high court, through advocate Neeta Karnik, and challenged the denial of monetary compensation. They contended that the offer of TDR as compensation for acquired land was completely contrary to the statutory scheme of the MMRDA Act.

The high court accepted their contention. The bench noted that the language used in section 35 of the MMRDA Act clearly shows that the compensation payable is monetary compensation in terms of the formula specified in the provision.

The court noted that, regarding acquisitions under the MRTP Act, a three-judge bench of the high court has held that the acquiring body cannot unilaterally foist TDR as compensation on the land owner, even though there is a specific provision in the MRTP Act for compensating landowners in terms of TDR. Here, the bench said, the petitioners were better footed, as the MMRDA Act does not contain any provision for compensation in any other terms, except money.