Authority: High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Civil Appellate Jurisdiction

Order Date: 24 September 2026

Case Overview

  • Petitioners: M/s L.B. Kunjir (partners Shri Amit L. Kunjir, Shri Laxman Bhausaheb Kunjir, Sau. Kusum Laxman Kunjir) residing at B‑107, Pelican Building, Raheja Woods, Kalyani Nagar, Pune.
  • Respondents: State of Maharashtra (Principal Secretary, Urban Development Dept.), Collector of Pune, and Pune Municipal Corporation (PMC) represented by its Municipal Commissioner.
  • Subject land: 1,721.03 sq m (86.83 are) comprising Survey Nos. 56/6C/1, 56/6C/2, 56/6C/2/2, 56/6C/2/3, 56/6C/2/4, 56/6C/2/5 at Kharadi, Pune, reserved for an 18 m wide D.P. Road widening.
  • Timeline:
  • 29 Aug 2013 – PMC’s Land Acquisition Office sent a notice (Outward No. LEO/3292) offering acquisition under Section 126 MRTP Act with compensation in the form of additional FSI/TDR or cash.
  • 9 Jun 2016 – Petitioners executed a Preliminary Possession Receipt, handing over possession of the land on the condition of FSI/TDR compensation as per the prevailing rules.
  • 10 Feb 2026 – Petitioners wrote to PMC demanding monetary compensation, stating they no longer accepted FSI/TDR.
  • 13 Mar 2026 – Petitioners filed the present writ petition.
  • 7 May 2026 – The Court directed PMC to decide on compensation.
  • 22 Jul 2026 – PMC filed an Affidavit‑in‑Reply rejecting monetary compensation, reiterating that compensation must be in FSI/TDR.
  • Petitioners argued that the offer of FSI/TDR was not binding, invoking Articles 14 and 300‑A of the Constitution, Section 126(1)(a) of the MRTP Act, and Section 40 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, seeking 80 % advance and 75 % additional compensation.
  • Respondent PMC contended that the 2013 offer and the 2016 possession receipt formed a concluded contract for FSI/TDR, and that the petitioners were bound by it.
  • Both sides cited extensive case law, including Shree Vinayak Builders & Developers v. State of Maharashtra, Makarand Sharad Pande v. State of Maharashtra, Tukaram Kana Joshi v. MIDC, and Supreme Court decisions on contract enforcement.

Final Outcome

  • The Court held that the 2013 communication and the 2016 possession receipt together constitute a legally binding contract under the Indian Contract Act, 1872, obligating the petitioners to accept compensation in FSI/TDR as per the agreed terms.
  • The Court rejected the petitioners’ claim for monetary compensation, stating that rewriting a concluded contract is impermissible.
  • Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed as devoid of merit, and the rule was discharged.
  • The petitioners were directed to submit a proposal for FSI/TDR compensation to the competent authority, which may be considered expeditiously.

Topics: Land Acquisition, Compensation, Contract Law