Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, a Public Charitable Trust, owned land bearing CTS No.216(pt) and CTS No.190 in Village Mandapeshwar, Borivali, Mumbai. The land was reserved for a garden/park in the development plan under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act). The Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) offered Transferable Development Rights (TDR) as compensation in lieu of monetary compensation for acquisition of the land. The petitioner refused TDR, stating that as a charitable trust, it could not utilize TDR and sought monetary compensation under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (2013 Act). The MCGM rejected the request, insisting on TDR. The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the respondents to follow the 2013 Act for acquisition. The Court examined Sections 125 and 126 of the MRTP Act. Section 125 deems land reserved for public purpose as needed for public purpose under the 2013 Act. Section 126 provides three modes of acquisition: (a) by agreement with agreed amount, (b) by granting TDR/FSI, or (c) by making an application to the State Government for acquisition under the 2013 Act. The Court held that the option of granting TDR is not compulsory on the land owner; if the owner refuses TDR, the authority must follow the 2013 Act. The Court directed the MCGM to initiate acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act within four weeks from the date of the order, failing which the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the Court again. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
Headnote
A) Town Planning - Land Acquisition - Compulsory Acquisition - Sections 125, 126 Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 read with Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 - The issue was whether a land owner can be compelled to accept TDR in lieu of monetary compensation for land reserved for public purpose under the MRTP Act. The Court held that Section 126 of the MRTP Act provides three modes of acquisition: by agreement, by granting TDR/FSI, or by making an application to the State Government for acquisition under the 2013 Act. The land owner cannot be forced to accept TDR; if the owner refuses TDR, the authority must follow the 2013 Act for acquisition. (Paras 6-8) B) Town Planning - Compensation - TDR vs Monetary Compensation - Section 126 MRTP Act - The Court interpreted Section 126 to mean that the option of granting TDR is one of the modes, but if the land owner does not agree to TDR, the authority must resort to acquisition under the 2013 Act. The Court directed the Municipal Corporation to initiate acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act within four weeks if the petitioner does not accept TDR. (Paras 7-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether a land reserved for public purpose under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 can be acquired by granting TDR or FSI as compensation, or must necessarily follow the 2013 Act for acquisition if the land owner refuses to accept TDR/FSI as compensation.
Final Decision
The Court directed respondent No.1 (MCGM) to initiate acquisition proceedings under the 2013 Act within four weeks from the date of the order, failing which the petitioner may approach the Court again. The petition was disposed of.
Law Points
- Land acquisition for public purpose under MRTP Act must follow 2013 Act if owner refuses TDR
- Section 126 MRTP Act provides alternative modes of acquisition including TDR or monetary compensation under 2013 Act
- Land owner cannot be compelled to accept TDR
