The case stemmed from the acquisition of 629.37 sq.m of land in Kurla (CTS Nos. 57 and sub-divisions, Mouje Kurla-4) for the Santacruz-Chembur Link Road (SCLR) widening project. Notifications under Section 32 of the Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority Act, 1974 (MMRDA Act) led to the land vesting in the state in March 2011, with possession taken in May 2011.

In December 2012, the Competent Authority passed an award offering only TDR as compensation, claiming the landowners (predecessors of the petitioners) had made no demand. The petitioners—legal heirs Jyoti Baliram Thorat and others—insisted on cash, arguing that Section 35 of the MMRDA Act mandates monetary compensation through a strict step-by-step process: first attempt agreement on the amount (Section 35(2)), and if no agreement, calculate 100 times the net average monthly income from the land over the prior five years (Sections 35(3)–(5)).

The petitioners repeatedly approached MMRDA for cash compensation, but received no relief. In April 2024, MMRDA rejected their demand outright, stating the award could not be modified and suggesting court action since no tribunal under Section 41 existed.

Represented by Senior Advocate Neeta Karnik, the petitioners argued that forcing TDR violated the Act’s plain language (which repeatedly uses “amount” for cash) and deprived them of appeal rights under Section 35(6), which only covers disputes over the quantum of monetary compensation—not the form itself.

MMRDA (represented by Senior Advocate G. S. Hegde) and the state (Additional Government Pleader Jyoti Chavan) defended the award, citing delay (petition filed in 2024 for a 2012 award), alternative remedy via tribunal, and alleged acquiescence (some old letters seeking TDR monetization or alternative accommodation for remaining land).

The Court demolished these defences:

• TDR not permitted under MMRDA Act — Section 35 is a “self-contained code” for monetary compensation only. Unlike the MRTP Act (where TDR is explicitly allowed), the MMRDA Act mentions no such option. Even hypothetically under the agreement clause (Section 35(2)), TDR requires mutual consent—not unilateral imposition. The Court heavily relied on its own Full Bench precedent in Shree Vinayak Builders (2022), which held that even under MRTP Act, TDR vs. cash requires consensus.
• No alternative remedy — Tribunal appeal under Section 35(6) is limited to challenging the calculated “amount,” not the choice of TDR over cash.
• Delay & laches no bar — Following Supreme Court rulings like Sukh Dutt Ratra (2022), Kolkata Municipal Corporation vs. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024), and Vidya Devi (2020), the Court held that violation of Article 300A (right to property—no deprivation except by authority of law, plus fair compensation) is a continuing wrong and a human right. The state cannot shield itself with delay when fair monetary compensation was never provided. The petitioners’ persistent grievances and MMRDA’s 2024 rejection triggered fresh cause of action.

The Bench declared the 2012 award “arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable,” quashed it along with the 2024 letter, and directed:

• Redetermination of compensation strictly per Section 35 (monetary terms, following latest government resolutions for fair valuation).
• Completion within six months.

This ruling reinforces that in MMRDA Act acquisitions in municipal areas, cash is the default and TDR cannot be forced. It could impact many old MMRDA projects where TDR was unilaterally awarded, empowering landowners to demand proper monetary redress even years later.

The judgment underscores the constitutional sanctity of property rights amid rapid urban development in Mumbai.

Also Read: MMRDA Sets Reserve Price at ₹1,629 Crore for 10 FSI Wadala Plot Lease Auction

The post MMRDA Ordered To Give Cash Compensation Not TDR To Landowners in Kurla appeared first on Square Feat India.

The Mistake That Went Unnoticed for Decades

In 1968, when the Maharashtra Prevention of Fragmentation and Consolidation of Holdings Act was implemented in Pathri, Kachru Bansod’s ancestor owned Survey No. 21/1 measuring exactly 2 acres 9 gunthas. Under the consolidation scheme, this block was neatly divided into two new gat numbers:

• Gat No. 47 → 2 acres (stayed with Bansod family)
• Gat No. 48 → 9 aare (0.09 are) (also meant to stay with Bansod family)

A clerk’s fingers slipped on the typewriter. Instead of writing 9 aare against the Bansod name, only 6 aare were recorded, and the remaining 3 aare (and in some records the entire 9 aare) were mistakenly entered in the name of Vijay, Kakaji, Kishor Pathrikar and others. Mutation Entry No. 418 dated 7 February 1968 quietly carried forward this error.

No one was physically dispossessed. The Bansod family continued to plough, sow and harvest the entire land, including the disputed 9 aare, generation after generation.

The Sudden Claim After 43 Silent Years

Everything remained peaceful until 30 December 2011, when the Pathrikar family suddenly woke up to the 1968 entry and filed an application demanding possession of the 9-aare piece. They claimed the 1968 record proved it was theirs.

Kachru Bansod, then 66 years old, was shocked to learn that a piece of his ancestral field had been “gifted” to neighbours only on paper. He fought back, insisting it was a pure clerical mistake.

The Long Battle Through Revenue Courts

• 2013: Superintendent of Land Records rejected Bansod’s plea, saying “42 years have passed; only minor clerical mistakes can be corrected”.
• 5 June 2013: Deputy Director of Land Records overturned that order, declared it a clear clerical error under Section 31A of the 1947 Act, deleted the Pathrikar names from Gat No. 48, and issued a corrigendum. The 7/12 extract was corrected in November 2013.
• 2015–2025: Pathrikar family appealed to the State Government. The Secretary & Special Executive Officer (Respondent No. 6) allowed their appeal, ruling that even clerical mistakes cannot be corrected after three years of the scheme becoming final.

Justice at Last: Bombay High Court’s Landmark Verdict

On 21 November 2025, Justice Sachin S. Deshmukh delivered a powerful 33-page judgment quashing the State Government’s order and restoring the 2013 correction.

Key findings of the Court:

• A consolidation scheme becomes effective for each landholder only when actual possession is handed over after following due process (eviction + payment/deposit of compensation).
• Mere mutation entry does NOT mean the scheme was implemented.
• No one ever evicted the Bansod family. No compensation was ever calculated or paid. The Pathrikar family was never put in possession.
• Therefore, the 3-year limitation for major changes does NOT apply. A pure clerical mistake can be corrected under Section 31A even after 57 years.
• Depriving a family of land without due process would violate Article 300A of the Constitution (right to property).

The Court relied heavily on its own recent decision in Tulshiram Dhondkar vs State of Maharashtra (2023) which laid down the same principle.

A Quiet Victory for an Elderly Farmer

The corrected revenue records now show the entire 2 acres 9 gunthas, including the full Gat No. 48 (9 aare), squarely in the Bansod family’s name, exactly as it should have been in 1968.

Sometimes, all it takes is one honest judge to fix a 57-year-old typo.

Also Read: MMR Records Highest Land Transactions in 2024: Over 607 Acres Acquired in 30 Deals

The post 57-Year Clerical Error That “Stole” a Family’s Land on Paper Finally Corrected appeared first on Square Feat India.

This June 2025 marks 50 years since the proclamation of the National Emergency in 1975, widely regarded as one of the most turbulent and authoritarian periods in India’s post-independence history. On the night of 25th June 1975, Prime Minister Indira Gandhi, facing growing political opposition and a judicial verdict invalidating her Lok Sabha election, advised the then President Fakhruddin Ali Ahmed to declare an Emergency under Article 352 of the Constitution, citing a threat from “internal disturbance.”

The Emergency, which lasted till 21st March 1977, was marked by a suspension of civil liberties, mass detentions under the Maintenance of Internal Security Act (MISA), press censorship, and centralisation of power. While the curtailment of political and press freedoms is widely discussed, a lesser-known but impactful dimension was the State’s unchecked control over private property.

The Forgotten Casualty: Right to Property

In independent India’s early decades, Right to Property was a Fundamental Right under Article 19(1)(f) and Article 31. However, it became the subject of recurring conflicts between Parliament and the judiciary, especially regarding land reform laws. In 1978, the 44th Constitutional Amendment was enacted by the post-Emergency Janata government. It removed property from the list of Fundamental Rights and introduced Article 300A in Part XII of the Constitution.

Understanding Article 300A

• This means property can be taken by the State, but only through a valid law.
• It is a constitutional right, not a fundamental right, and thus not directly enforceable under Article 32 in the Supreme Court.
• The Parliament or State Legislature can enact laws to acquire property, but such laws must be for public purpose and follow due process.

However, during periods of Emergency, especially under Article 352, the balance between individual rights and State power shifts dramatically.

Article 352: The Trigger for Extraordinary Powers

Impact of Article 352 during Emergency:

• The Centre can override State laws and legislate on any subject, including land acquisition.
• Fundamental Rights under Article 19 are automatically suspended.
• The Parliament can pass acquisition laws with minimal scrutiny, increasing the risk of misuse.

Although Article 300A is not explicitly suspended, the emergency environment enables property to be taken by laws that may otherwise have been challenged.

Maharashtra’s Private Forest Acquisition: A Case Study

One of the key examples of how the State expanded its land control during Emergency was the Maharashtra Private Forests (Acquisition) Act, 1975.

• Enacted shortly after Emergency proclamation.
• Vested thousands of hectares of private forest land into State ownership.
• Promised compensation of 20 times the land revenue assessment.

Problems:

• Many landowners reported no or partial compensation.
• In several cases, disputes over whether land was truly forested led to prolonged litigation.
• Decades later, the land became the subject of high-value property disputes and allegations of fraudulent transactions.

In Panditrao v. State of Maharashtra (2023), the court upheld the State’s power to acquire land under the Act but insisted that owners receive due compensation and clarity on title.

Key Case Laws on Article 300A and Property Acquisition

1. Hindustan Petroleum Corp Ltd. v. Darius Shapur Chenai (2005)
   • The Supreme Court held that any acquisition must be for a public purpose and must ensure reasonable compensation.
2. N. Padmamma v. S. Ramakrishna Reddy (2008)
   • Emphasised that the Right to Property under Article 300A, though not fundamental, is still a constitutional safeguard.
3. Kalyani v. Sulthan Bathery Municipality (2022)
   • Held that even local authorities must follow due process; no acquisition without notice and hearing.
4. State of H.P. v. Jodha Singh (2024)
   • The Court struck down a land acquisition for a highway bypass project where procedural requirements were bypassed, reaffirming the strength of Article 300A.

How Article 300A Can Be Circumvented During Emergency

Conclusion: The Thin Line Between Law and Power

The 1975 Emergency revealed how quickly a constitutional democracy can slip into authoritarianism under the guise of national security. While Article 300A remains a vital protection for property rights, it is not absolute. In times of Emergency, when Article 352 is invoked, the State’s legislative reach expands significantly, enabling it to pass laws that can effectively strip individuals of property rights, often with limited legal recourse.

As India reflects on 50 years since that dark chapter, it is crucial to remember that constitutional rights must be actively protected, and the misuse of emergency powers must be checked to ensure history does not repeat itself.

Also Read: Decoding Property Regulations: Legal Considerations for NRI Real Estate Investors

The post Can the Government Take Your Property During an Emergency? Here’s What the Constitution Says appeared first on Square Feat India.