The petitioner, a Public Charitable Trust, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a directive for the respondents to adhere to the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation, and Resettlement Act, 2013 ("2013 Act") for the acquisition of its land. The petitioner rejected the offer of Transferable Development Rights (TDR) from the Municipal Corporation and sought monetary compensation instead. The court held that in the absence of an agreement, the land must be acquired under the 2013 Act and that the Municipal Corporation cannot impose TDR on the petitioner.

1. Introduction

The petitioner seeks a directive for the respondent to follow the 2013 Act in acquiring the petitioner’s land.

2. Case Background

The petitioner, a Public Charitable Trust, owns the disputed land. The Archaeological Survey of India (ASI) claimed ownership of adjacent land and caves. The City Civil Court had previously injuncted the respondent from disturbing the petitioner's possession. The Municipal Corporation requested the petitioner to hand over the land for public development in lieu of TDR benefit, which the petitioner refused, seeking monetary compensation instead.

3. Petitioner's Position

The petitioner argued that being a charitable trust, it cannot utilize TDR benefits and requested monetary compensation for the land, which was rejected by the Municipal Corporation.

4. Respondent’s Position

The Municipal Corporation contended that TDR in lieu of monetary compensation is permissible under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966.

5. Court’s Examination

The court examined whether land reserved for public purposes under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 can be acquired through TDR/FSI or if it must follow the 2013 Act.

6. Legal Framework

Section 125 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966

Land required for public purpose deemed under 2013 Act.

Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966

Acquisition by agreement, TDR/FSI, or application to the State Government under the 2013 Act.

7. Court’s Analysis

The court noted that acquisition under Section 126 requires an agreement between the parties. In the absence of such an agreement, the land must be acquired under the 2013 Act. TDR/FSI cannot be forced on the petitioner.

8. Legal Precedent

Referenced the Full Bench decision in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers, Nagpur versus The State of Maharashtra and ors., emphasizing mutual agreement for TDR/FSI.

9. Conclusion

The court directed that in the absence of an agreement, the Municipal Corporation must acquire the land under the 2013 Act, and cannot disturb the petitioner's possession until the appropriate legal procedure is followed.