The acquisition must follow statutory requirements – In the absence of an agreement for TDR/FSI, monetary compensation under the 2013 Act is mandatory (Para 30–32). Demolition without compensation violated Article 300A of the Constitution and principles of fair acquisition (Para 34). Respondents' actions were arbitrary and illegal – The acquisition must comply with Section 126(1)(c) of the MRTP Act (Para 36). Writ Petition Allowed – Respondents directed to compensate the petitioner under the 2013 Act and not disturb possession until full payment (Para 37).

Acts And Sections Discussed:

Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 226 – Writ jurisdiction invoked to challenge the refusal of monetary compensation for land acquisition.
The Maharashtra Regional Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act) – Section 126 – Compensation under statutory acquisition; necessity of an agreement for TDR/FSI.
The Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act) – Compensation determination in cases of statutory land acquisition.
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order XXXIX Rule (1), (5); Order XLIII – Injunction application and appeal procedures.
The Right to Information Act, 2005 (RTI Act) – Request for documents related to acquisition.

Subjects:

Writ Petition – Land Acquisition – Compensation – TDR – FSI – MRTP Act – 2013 Act – Public Purpose – Ecologically Fragile Area – Illegal Demolition – Injunction – Development Plan

Nature Of The Litigation:

The petitioner, a cinema proprietor, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging the refusal of the Dahanu Nagar Parishad to grant monetary compensation for land acquisition, insisting on Transferable Development Rights (TDR) or Floor Space Index (FSI) instead.

Who Asked The Court And For What Remedy?

The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to acquire the land under the 2013 Act and compensate in monetary terms, rather than enforcing the grant of TDR/FSI. An injunction was also sought to restrain the respondents from disturbing possession until compensation was paid.

Reason For Filing The Case:

The petitioner’s land was designated for road widening under the Development Plan. The respondents demolished the compound wall and initiated acquisition proceedings without compensating the petitioner in money, instead offering TDR/FSI, which the petitioner did not accept.

What Had Already Been Decided Until Now?

1. Trial Court: Rejected the petitioner’s injunction application against demolition.
2. Appellate Court: Set aside the rejection and directed reconsideration.
3. Respondents: Issued a final order on 23 July 2024, maintaining their stance that TDR/FSI was the only compensation available.

Issues Before The Court:

a) Whether the respondents could legally deny monetary compensation and insist on TDR/FSI under Section 126 of the MRTP Act.
b) Whether the acquisition of land was illegal and arbitrary in the absence of a mutual agreement under Section 126(1)(a) and (b) of the MRTP Act.
c) Whether the 2013 Act should govern compensation in the absence of an agreement between the parties.
d) Whether the demolition of the petitioner’s compound wall was unlawful due to non-payment of compensation.

Submissions/Arguments:

Petitioner’s Contentions:

1. The respondents breached Section 126 of the MRTP Act by forcing TDR/FSI without an agreement.
2. No lawful acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act were initiated, making the acquisition illegal.
3. Dahanu town is an ecologically fragile area, making TDR/FSI an inappropriate remedy.
4. The compound wall was demolished without compensation, causing financial loss and hardship.
5. Cited Shree Vinayak Builders v. State of Maharashtra and Our Lady of Immaculate Conception Church v. MCGM to assert that TDR/FSI cannot be forced and monetary compensation is the correct approach.

Respondents’ Contentions:

1. Acknowledged that no agreement existed between the parties.
2. Conceded that settled law (Full Bench and Coordinate Bench decisions) applies to this case.
3. Did not contest the requirement of compensation under the 2013 Act.