Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation v. Vijay Nagar Apartments 2026 INSC 517 -Land Acquisition -MRTP Act
Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 - Section 126(1)(b) - A manifestation of Article 300A of the Constitution of India and once fair compensation as against surrender of land - When read with the relevant regulations, no deprivation of land without strict compliance thereof can be permissible. (Para 43) [Context: The Supreme Court held that under Section 126(1)(b) MRTP Act read with DCR 1991, a landowner is statutorily entitled not only to TDR equal to the area of land surrendered but also to additional amenity TDR equal to the area of the amenity (garden) constructed at its own cost, and such compensation cannot be waived or curtailed by contractual clauses in an LOI, undertaking or maintenance agreement. ]
Land Acquisition - Distinction must be drawn between delay and laches caused in challenging the process of land acquisition itself on one hand and delay and laches caused in seeking fair statutory compensation on the othe. (Para 65)
Case Info
Case name: Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. v. Vijay Nagar Apartments and Ors.
Neutral citation: 2026 INSC 517
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Judgment date: 20 May 2026
Case laws and citations referred
- Godrej & Boyce Manufacturing Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 24 (“Godrej & Boyce I”)
- Municipal Corpn., Greater Mumbai v. Natvar Parikh & Co. (P) Ltd., (2024) 14 SCC 644
- Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai, (2023) 15 SCC 110 (“Godrej & Boyce II”)
- Municipal Corpn., Greater Bombay v. Yeshwant Jagannath Vaity, (2011) 11 SCC 88
- Kukreja Construction Company and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra and Ors., (2024) 14 SCC 594
- Sukh Dutt Ratra & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh & Ors., (2022) 7 SCC 508
- Municipal Corpn., Greater Mumbai v. Century Textiles & Industries Ltd., (2025) 3 SCC 183
- Apurva Natvar Parikh & Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra & Ors., 2018 SCC OnLine Bom 6436
- Starwing Developers (P) Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra, 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 13411
- Arvind Kashinath Dadarkar v. Municipal Corpn., Greater Mumbai, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 11962
- T. Vijayalakshmi v. Town Planning Member, (2006) 8 SCC 502
- Rajasthan State Industrial Development & Investment Corpn. v. Diamond & Gem Development Corpn. Ltd., (2013) 5 SCC 470
- Shri Vallabh Glass Works Ltd. v. Union of India, (1984) 3 SCC 362
- Lachoo Mal v. Radhey Shyam, (1971) 1 SCC 619
- Sita Ram Gupta v. Punjab National Bank, (2008) 5 SCC 711
- Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar, (2003) 2 SCC 721
- State of Punjab v. Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, (2011) 14 SCC 770
- Indore Vikas Pradhikaran v. Pure Industrial Coke & Chemicals Ltd., (2007) 8 SCC 705
- Kolkata Municipal Corpn. v. Bimal Kumar Shah, (2024) 10 SCC 533
- Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai, (2005) 7 SCC 627
- K.T. Plantation (P) Ltd. v. State of Karnataka, (2011) 9 SCC 1
- Urban Improvement Trust v. Vidhya Devi, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3725
- Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd. v. Mast Ram, (2025) 1 SCC 798
- Pt. Chet Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corpn. of Delhi, (1995) 1 SCC 47
- Kazi Moinuddin Kazi Bashiroddin v. Maharashtra Tourism Development Corpn., (2024) 19 SCC 490
(Plus older waiver/abandonment cases cited within Davinder Pal Singh Bhullar, such as Dawsons Bank Ltd. v. Nippon Menkwa Kabushiki Kaisha, AIR 1935 PC 79; Basheshar Nath v. CIT, AIR 1959 SC 149; Mademsetty Satyanarayana v. G. Yelloji Rao, AIR 1965 SC 1405; Associated Hotels of India Ltd. v. S.B. Sardar Ranjit Singh, AIR 1968 SC 933; Jaswantsingh Mathurasingh v. Ahmedabad Municipal Corpn., 1992 Supp (1) SCC 5; Sikkim Subba Associates v. State of Sikkim, (2001) 5 SCC 629; Krishna Bahadur v. Purna Theatre, (2004) 8 SCC 229.)
Statutes / regulations referred
- Constitution of India: Article 300A
- Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (MRTP Act):
- Section 2(2) (definition of “amenity”)
- Section 22
- Sections 40, 49, 113A, 125, 126 (especially 126(1)(a), (b), (c) and sub-sections (2)–(4))
- Land Acquisition Act, 1894
- Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013
- Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976
- Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 (DCR 1991):
- Regulation 2(7) / 3(7) (amenity)
- Regulation 33
- Regulation 34 and Appendix VII / VII‑A (Transferable Development Rights / Development Rights Certificate)
- Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034 (DCPR 2034)
Three‑sentence brief summary
The Supreme Court held that under Section 126(1)(b) MRTP Act read with DCR 1991, a landowner is statutorily entitled not only to TDR equal to the area of land surrendered but also to additional amenity TDR equal to the area of the amenity (garden) constructed at its own cost, and such compensation cannot be waived or curtailed by contractual clauses in an LOI, undertaking or maintenance agreement. It rejected BMC’s defences of waiver, estoppel, substitution of TDR by the “benefit” of maintaining the garden, non‑applicability of DCR 1991 after DCPR 2034, and delay/laches, relying heavily on Godrej & Boyce (I & II), Yeshwant Vaity and Kukreja Construction, and grounding the reasoning in Article 300A’s guarantee of fair compensation. The appeal was dismissed and BMC was directed to grant the additional amenity TDR in terms of the High Court’s order within two months.