{"id":384927,"date":"2026-05-22T16:30:23","date_gmt":"2026-05-22T11:00:23","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=384927"},"modified":"2026-05-22T16:18:08","modified_gmt":"2026-05-22T10:48:08","slug":"sc-on-entitlement-of-additional-amenity-tdr-under-mrtp-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/05\/22\/sc-on-entitlement-of-additional-amenity-tdr-under-mrtp-act\/","title":{"rendered":"MRTP Act | Additional Amenity TDR Cannot Be Defeated by Contractual Conditions or Delay Once Statutory Right to Compensation Crystallises: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> The present appeal deals with the right of a landowner to claim additional amenity transferable development rights (Amenity TDR) under Section 126(1)(b<\/span>)<\/a>, Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966<\/a> (MRTP Act), after surrendering reserved land and developing a public garden thereon at its own cost. While examining the controversy revolving around whether such a statutory right could be defeated by clauses contained in the Letter of Intent (LOI), undertaking and maintenance agreement executed between the parties, and whether the claim was barred on account of delay and laches, the Division Bench of J.K. Maheshwari*<\/span><\/span> and Atul S. Chandurkar, JJ., affirmed the impugned judgment of the Bombay High Court and upheld the entitlement of the landowners to additional Amenity TDR against development of the garden on the surrendered land. The Court held that:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n

    Under Section 126(1)(b<\/span>)<\/a>, MRTP Act<\/a>, a landowner surrendering land reserved for public purposes and developing an amenity at his own cost acquires a statutory right to additional floor space index (FSI)\/TDR equivalent to the area of amenity developed.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  2. \n

    Such statutory entitlement cannot be waived or contracted away through executive conditions, undertakings or maintenance agreements imposed by the planning authority.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  3. \n

    Delay and laches do not defeat claims for lawful compensation in the form of TDR\/FSI because the State carries a continuing obligation to provide compensation consistent with Article 300-A.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

  4. \n

    Rights crystallised under Development Control Regulations, 1991 (DCR, 1991) at the time of surrender and development cannot be retrospectively extinguished by subsequent regulations such as the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 (DCPR, 2034).<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Also Read: Strict adherence to MRTP Act’s acquisition timeline is essential, land reservation lapses if no action is taken: Supreme Court<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

    Factual Matrix<\/h3>\n

    The Urban Development Department of the Government of Maharashtra reserved lands measuring 98,369.1 sq m situated at Village Anik, Bhakti Park, Chembur, for the purpose of construction of a “garden” under the Development Plan notified on 4 March 1994 under the MRTP Act. The reservation itself stipulated that the landowners would develop the garden and thereafter hand over the same to the appellant, Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (Corporation).<\/p>\n

    The landowners made an application dated 6 July 2001 seeking grant of TDR under Section 126(1)(b<\/span>) read with Regulation 34 and Appendix VII, DCR, 1991. In the application the landowners stated that the reservation was not proposed to be built upon under sub-regulation 6 of Appendix VII.<\/p>\n

    Pursuant thereto, the Corporation issued a LOI which stated that the request for grant of Development Rights Certificate (DRC) would be considered after compliance with certain requirements, including the requirement that the landowners would develop the garden, maintain it for 20 years at their own cost and “will not claim any amenity TDR towards development of garden”.<\/p>\n

    The subject land was thereafter developed as a garden in accordance with the Corporation’s specifications and the Superintendent of Gardens and Tree Officer granted a no-objection for issuance of completion certificate on 21 December 2001.<\/p>\n

    On 10 January 2002, the constituted attorney of the landowners executed an undertaking agreeing to maintain the garden for 20 years and specifically stating that no Amenity TDR would be claimed towards development of the garden. The undertaking declared itself binding upon the executants, their heirs, executors, administrators and assigns.<\/p>\n

    Actual possession of the subject land was handed over between January 2002 and October 2002. In exchange, TDR equivalent to the area of the surrendered land was released between February 2002 and February 2003. There was no dispute regarding the grant of this primary TDR.<\/p>\n

    On 27 November 2002, a maintenance agreement was executed. Under the agreement, the Corporation permitted the landowners to maintain the garden on “adoption basis” from 2002 to 2022 subject to the condition that the garden would be maintained at their own cost “without claiming any Amenity TDR\/FSI or any compensation towards the development and maintenance of the said garden”.<\/p>\n

    Although title had vested in the Corporation, possession remained with the landowners, who continued to maintain the garden uninterrupted till 2016.<\/p>\n

    Subsequently, proceedings were initiated before the Lokayukta based on complaints that the garden was not accessible to the general public and was being commercially exploited. Acting pursuant to those proceedings, the Corporation demanded possession of the garden vide letter dated 14 March 2016, and possession was handed over on 2 June 2016 without protest or any contemporaneous claim for additional Amenity TDR.<\/p>\n

    On 3 May 2018, DCR, 1991 stood superseded by the DCPR, 2034. It was only thereafter, on 4 April 2019, that the landowners raised a claim for additional Amenity TDR for development of the garden.<\/p>\n

    The Corporation rejected the request on 5 November 2019 on 3 grounds of delay of 17 years, absence of any provision for such TDR under DCPR, 2034 and the express conditions contained in the LOI, undertaking and maintenance agreement.<\/p>\n

    Proceedings Before the High Court<\/h3>\n

    The Bombay High Court allowed the writ petition and directed the Corporation to grant additional Amenity TDR, holding that the claim involved a continuing cause of action and, therefore, could not be defeated on grounds of delay and laches. The Court also held that the restriction against claiming additional Amenity TDR was linked to the right granted to the landowners to maintain the garden on adoption basis. Once the maintenance arrangement was withdrawn by the Corporation, the restriction itself could not survive independently. The Court further observed that the transaction was entirely governed by DCR, 1991 and therefore the later DCPR, 2034 could not be applied to deny rights which had already crystallised.<\/p>\n

    Also Read: Landowners Win as SC Resolves NHAI-Tarsem Singh Conundrum; Holds Liability Spike Not a Ground for Review of Judgment<\/span><\/span><\/a><\/p>\n

    Issues for Determination<\/h3>\n
      \n
    1. \n

      Whether the claim for additional Amenity TDR was barred by delay and laches?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n

    2. \n

      Whether the landowners had waived their right to claim additional Amenity TDR under Section 126<\/a>, MRTP Act<\/a> in view of the LOI, undertaking and maintenance agreement?<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Analysis<\/h3>\n