Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a writ petition filed by the Petitioners, who claimed ownership of land reserved for road widening in Pune. They sought a writ of mandamus directing the Respondents to acquire their land and pay compensation. The Petitioners had previously agreed to hand over possession of the land in exchange for FSI/TDR, as per a possession receipt dated June 9, 2016. After nearly ten years, they requested monetary compensation instead, leading to the present litigation. The Respondents contended that the Petitioners had accepted the terms of compensation and that a concluded contract existed. The court analyzed the communications between the parties, particularly the offer made by the Respondents and the acceptance by the Petitioners. It concluded that the Petitioners were bound by the terms of the contract and could not unilaterally change their stance to demand monetary compensation. The court referenced various precedents to support its reasoning, emphasizing that the courts cannot rewrite contracts. Ultimately, the court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the binding nature of the agreement and allowing the Petitioners to propose compensation in the form of FSI/TDR as per the prescribed procedure.
Headnote
A) Land Acquisition - Compensation - Entitlement to Monetary Compensation - Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, Section 126 - Petitioners claimed monetary compensation for land acquired for road widening but had previously accepted FSI/TDR as compensation. Court held that a concluded contract existed, binding the Petitioners to the terms agreed upon, thus denying the claim for monetary compensation (Paras 28-44).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Petitioners are entitled to insist on monetary compensation instead of FSI/TDR for the acquisition of their land.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming that the Petitioners were bound by the terms of the concluded contract to accept FSI/TDR as compensation and could not demand monetary compensation.
Law Points
- Land acquisition
- compensation
- statutory procedure
- concluded contract
- FSI/TDR
- due process
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (09) 137
Writ Petition No. 5159 of 2026
Advait M. Sethna, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
Dr. Ramdas P. Sabban, Mr. Pravin Sabban, Mr. Shrikant Kompali, Mr. Rohit Chitiken, Mrs. Neha S. Bhide, Mrs. Shruti D. Vyas, Mrs. P.J. Gavhane, Mr. Rishikesh M. Pethe
M/s. L.B. Kunjir Thr. Its Partner Shri. Amit L.Kunjir, Shri. Laxman Bhausaheb Kunjir, Sau. Kusum Laxman Kunjir
The State of Maharashtra, The Collector of Pune, The Pune Municipal Corporation
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition for compensation regarding land acquisition for road widening.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus for monetary compensation.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed deprivation of property rights without due process.
Previous Decisions
Court previously directed Respondent No.3 to decide on compensation.
Issues
Entitlement to monetary compensation versus FSI/TDR
Existence of a concluded contract regarding compensation
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued for monetary compensation citing violation of constitutional rights.
Respondents contended that a concluded contract existed, binding the Petitioners to accept FSI/TDR.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that a concluded contract existed between the Petitioners and Respondents, binding the Petitioners to accept FSI/TDR as compensation, thus denying their claim for monetary compensation.
Judgment Excerpts
The Petitioners claimed to be the owners of land admeasuring 1721.03 sq. mtrs.
Court held that a concluded contract existed, binding the Petitioners to the terms agreed upon.
The Petitioners are at liberty to submit a proposal for compensation in form of FSI/TDR.
Procedural History
The Petitioners filed the writ petition on 13th March 2026 after the Respondents failed to act on their request for monetary compensation. The court directed Respondent No.3 to decide on compensation on 7th May 2026.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966: Section 126
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013: Section 40
- Indian Contract Act, 1872: Sections 2, 10
