2026:BHC-OS:2649-DB IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 19414 OF 2024 Jyoti Baliram Thorat and others … Petitioners vs.

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and others … Respondents WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (LODGING) NO. 25234 OF 2024 IN WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 19414 OF 2024 Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority … Applicant/Resp. No.1 In the matter between:

Jyoti Baliram Thorat and others … Petitioners vs.

Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority and others … Respondents Ms. Neeta Karnik, Senior Advocate, a/w. Mr. Sagar Kursija for petitioners.

Mr. G. S. Hegde, Senior Advocate, a/w. Ms. Pinky M. Bhansali for respondent No.1-MMRDA.

Ms. Jyoti Chavan, Addl. GP a/w. Ms. Gaurangi Patil, AGP for respondent Nos.2 and 3-State.

CORAM : MANISH PITALE &

SHREERAM V. SHIRSAT, JJ RESERVED ON: 23^rd JANUARY, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 30^th JANUARY, 2026 ORDER: (Per Justice Manish Pitale):

. The question that arises for consideration in this petition is as to whether respondent No.3-competent authority constituted under the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act), was justified in specifying compensation payable to the petitioners for acquisition of their land, by means of Transferrable Development Rights (hereinafter referred to as TDR), instead of monetary compensation. According to the petitioners, as per the provisions of the said Act, the compensation had to be in monetary terms and that too, firstly by exploring as to whether an agreement could be reached between the land owners and the State and only thereupon, by determination of monetary compensation, as per sections 33 to 35 of the said Act.

2. Before considering the rival submissions and the aforementioned question, it would be appropriate to briefly refer to the chronology of events.

3. The petitioners are the legal heirs of the joint land owners of land bearing CTS Nos.57, 57/1 to 57/10, CTS Road, Mouje Kurla-4, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai Suburban District. The respondent No.1- Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as MMRDA) implemented road widening project for Santacruz-Chembur Link Road, for which purpose the subject land of the petitioners and their predecessors, was required.

4. Respondent No.1-MMRDA sent a proposal in that regard on 12.05.2010 to the respondent No.2-Urban Development Department of the State of Maharashtra. In that context, necessary notifications were issued under Section 32 of the said Act, with final notification being issued on 18.03.2011. In pursuance thereof, on 19.05.2011, possession of the subject land, admeasuring 629.37 sq.mtrs., was taken by respondent No.1-MMRDA. As per operation of law, particularly Section 32(3) of the said Act, on the date of publication of the final notification, the subject land vested absolutely in the State Government.

5. In this context, as per Section 35 of the said Act, the respondent No.3-competent authority was expected to determine the amount of compensation payable for acquisition of the aforesaid land. It is the case of the petitioners that respondent No.3-competent authority, instead of proceeding as per step-wise procedure contemplated under Section 35 of the said Act, unilaterally proceeded to determine the compensation by providing TDR, in lieu of monetary compensation. According to the petitioners, this led to the impugned award dated 15.12.2012 being unilaterally passed by respondent No.3-competent authority.

6. It was submitted that the said act of respondent No.3- competent authority was in the teeth of the statutory provisions and it also deprived the petitioners and their predecessors from taking recourse to remedy available under Section 35(6) of the said Act. A person aggrieved by determination of monetary compensation could prefer an appeal before the tribunal under the said provision. But since monetary compensation was not ev