the leafy colony of Erandwane in Pune, the retired soldiers of the Pune Ex-servicemen Co-operative Housing Society had spent years trying to protect a patch of green from encroaching slums and wandering cattle. They hired a nursery, built a jogging path with benches, and fenced it in. Then one February morning in 2010, they opened their newspaper and found something far more alarming than slum-dwellers at the gate — it was the Pune Municipal Corporation itself, announcing it was taking their open space. For compensation of exactly one rupee.

That rupee became the symbol of a long and bitter battle. Across Pune, from Walvekar Nagar to Aundh to Parvati, other landowners and plot holders read similar declarations in local newspapers over a span of years stretching back to 2004. A brief public notice. A month to raise objections. And then, possession. Their common spaces — parks, gardens, jogging tracks that they had built and maintained — were being claimed by a civic body invoking Rule 13.3.1.5 of Pune’s Development Control Rules. Five different sets of petitioners, five different layouts, one terrifying rule.

On May 6, 2026, a division bench of the Bombay High Court, comprising Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat, put an end to it. Rule 13.3.1.5 was declared unconstitutional. It was struck down.

The Rule That Took Land for a Rupee

Rule 13.3.1.5 of Pune’s Development Control Rules — brought into force on February 5, 1987 — reads, at its core, like a bureaucratic formality. Whenever called upon by the Planning Authority, open spaces in layouts “shall be handed over to the Planning Authority after development of the same for which nominal amount (of ₹1) shall be paid.” It then adds a second limb: if the authority is “convinced that there is misuse of open spaces,” it “shall take over the land.”

No definition of misuse. No notice required before the declaration. No reference to the Land Acquisition Act or to the provisions of the Bombay Provincial Municipal Corporations Act that actually govern acquisition of property. The rule cited only Sections 202 and 203 of the BPMC Act — provisions, the petitioners would argue, that deal exclusively with the vesting of public streets in the corporation, and have nothing whatsoever to do with open spaces.

The Rule in Question — Rule 13.3.1.5

“Whenever called upon by the Planning Authority to do so, under provisions of Section 202, 203 of BPMC Act, areas under roads and open space… shall be handed over to the Planning Authority after development of the same for which nominal amount (of ₹1) shall be paid… in which case the Authority shall take over the land.”

On paper, the PMC positioned this not as acquisition but as management — an exercise of “police powers” for public good. The open spaces are the lungs of the city, the corporation’s lawyers argued. They cannot be permitted to be misused. But what exactly constituted misuse was never written down. And that, the petitioners would argue for two decades, was precisely the problem.

Five Battles, Five Stories

The fights did not begin simultaneously. They accumulated, one newspaper notice at a time, across a decade.

• 1954–73 Layouts sanctioned: All five layouts — in Erandwane, Walvekar Nagar, Parvati, Aundh, and Survey Nos. 89/2–91/2 — were approved by the PMC years before the DC Rules came into force in 1987. Open spaces had been earmarked by the original planners.
• 1987 DC Rules notified: The Development Control Rules, including Rule 13.3.1.5, came into effect on February 5, 1987 — years, sometimes decades, after all five layouts had already been sanctioned.
• 2004 First declaration — Walvekar Nagar: The PMC published a notice declaring intent to take possession of open spaces in the layout developed by the Walvekar family. Petitioners alleged they found a local politician personally supervising the PMC’s move to take possession.
• 2005 Parvati owners file suit: The Gadve family’s layout at Parvati had an active application pending before the PMC for a recreation centre. While awaiting response, the PMC published its takeover notice. Civil suits and a writ petition followed.
• 2006 Aundh declaration: The petitioner in Writ Petition 4433 had planted trees in his layout’s open space. A PMC declaration followed, citing misuse, offering ₹1 compensation.
• 2008–09 The acquisition that wasn’t: In the fifth case, the PMC’s own City Engineer and Special Land Acquisition Officer had initiated formal acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Then, abruptly, in October 2009, the newspaper declaration appeared instead — at the insistence, petitioners alleged, of a local corporator.
• 2010 Ex-servicemen’s society challenged: Pune Ex-servicemen Co-operative Housing Society, having developed a jogging park with a nursery, received the final notice. Writ Petition 5838 of 2010 was filed. All five petitions were tagged together.
• 2026JudgmentArguments concluded on March 25. The division bench pronounced its judgment on May 6, 2026.

The Fear Behind the Fence

For the ex-servicemen’s society in Erandwane, the trouble had begun not with the PMC but with human geography. The open space designated ‘C’ in their layout abutted a slum. Residents of that settlement had been making attempts to encroach, cattle wandered in, and the open ground was slowly being swallowed. The society had done what responsible residents do: they hired Surabhi Nursery, built a jogging track, placed benches. They created a functioning, maintained green space that their members used every day.

Then came the complaint — someone told the PMC the space was being “misused.” And the PMC agreed, apparently without ever visiting or issuing a notice to the society. The February 2010 declaration in Daily Sakal was their first indication that the corporation was walking in, with one rupee in hand.

“The open spaces are lungs of the city and cannot be permitted to be wasted or misused.”— PMC’s argument before the High Court

In Walvekar Nagar, the battle had a rawer, more political edge. The Walvekar family, owners of open spaces in a 1971-sanctioned layout, sent a legal notice to the PMC after its October 2004 declaration. The next day, they read in the Indian Express that the corporation had already taken possession. When they rushed to the site, they allegedly found a local politician and an influential corporator personally directing PMC officers to take over. The petitioners had to run to the High Court to get even a status quo order.

In the fifth case — Survey Nos. 89/2, 90/2 and 91/2 — the situation was perhaps the most damning. The PMC’s own engineers had concluded that formal acquisition was the appropriate route. A letter dated December 31, 2008, from the City Engineer formally initiated acquisition proceedings. By July 2009, the Special Land Acquisition Officer was processing joint measurement maps. The process was well underway. And then a corporator, according to the petitioners, pushed for the Rule 13.3.1.5 route instead — faster, cheaper, and accompanied by just one rupee.

The Corporations’ Case: Public Good, Not Acquisition

R.M. Pethe, counsel for the PMC, and the Additional Government Pleader appearing for the State, mounted a defence built on two pillars. First, they argued, the right to property is no longer a fundamental right — it is a constitutional right under Article 300A, a less robust protection. Under 300A, a person can be deprived of property “by authority of law,” and the DC Rule, they argued, was exactly that authority.

PMC & State’s Argument

The DC Rule is valid law. The takeover is not acquisition but management of open spaces in exercise of police powers. Property rights under Article 300A are satisfied by any lawful authority. The 2024 Supreme Court judgment in Association of Vasanth Apartments covers this situation.

Petitioners’ Argument

The Rule cites wrong provisions of the BPMC Act. ₹1 is illusory, not compensation. There is no definition of “misuse,” giving the PMC unbridled power. Article 300A still demands just, fair and reasonable treatment. The Supreme Court’s earlier judgments squarely cover and condemn this situation.

Their second pillar was the 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Association of Vasanth Apartments’ Owners v. V. Gopinath, which had upheld a Development Control Rule requiring developers to transfer 10% of project area to planning authorities through a gift deed, without compensation. That, the PMC argued, was its trump card: the Supreme Court had itself blessed such transfers.

The State went further, arguing that the condition of maintaining open spaces was “voluntarily accepted” by developers in exchange for FSI benefits. Since the FSI of the open spaces had already been consumed in the rest of the layout, no separate compensation was due. Token payment of ₹1 was, they said, not only legally sufficient but conceptually appropriate.

The Court’s Verdict: Three Strikes

The High Court was unimpressed. Its reasoning dismantled the defence on three distinct grounds, each independently fatal to Rule 13.3.1.5.

First: The wrong source of power. Sections 202 and 203 of the BPMC Act — the rule’s stated legal foundation — pertain exclusively to the vesting and maintenance of public streets. They appear in Chapter XIV of the Act, which deals only with streets. Open spaces are nowhere mentioned. The Court found that the rule was therefore ultra vires the Act itself; it had bootstrapped a power to acquire open spaces onto provisions that grant no such power. Chapter VIII of the BPMC Act, which specifically deals with acquisition of property, was never invoked.

Court’s Finding — Ultra Vires

“A bare perusal of the above-quoted provisions of the BPMC Act, which are purported source for framing the said Rule, shows that the said provisions have nothing to do with open spaces in sanctioned layouts… There is absolutely no reference to common spaces. Thus, the said Rule is ultra vires the BPMC Act itself.”

Second: Illusory compensation violates Article 300A. The Court drew on a Constitution Bench judgment of the Supreme Court in K.T. Plantation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Karnataka (2011), which had made clear that even under Article 300A, a law depriving a person of property must be just, fair and reasonable. It cannot offer “no compensation” — and while “nil” compensation may be justified in narrow circumstances, the burden lies on the State to demonstrate it. A flat statutory declaration that ₹1 is sufficient, with no reasoning and no process, does not discharge that burden. The Court reaffirmed that the right to property, even as a constitutional right, is a human right that “cannot be casually trampled upon.”

Third: Unbridled, arbitrary power violates Article 14. The term “misuse” appears in the Rule with no definition, no criteria, no procedural safeguard. There was no obligation to issue a prior show cause notice, no requirement to hear the affected parties before a declaration was published, no threshold a civic body had to cross before invoking the Rule. The Court found this a manifest violation of Article 14’s guarantee of non-arbitrariness. It noted pointedly that Rule 13.3.1.3 of the same DC Rules actually permits construction of structures — pavilions, gymnasia — within open spaces, indicating that not all development constitutes misuse. Yet the Rule gave the PMC carte blanche to override even lawful use.

Distinguishing the Vasanth Apartments Judgment

The Court’s handling of the PMC’s trump card — the 2024 Supreme Court ruling in Vasanth Apartments — was surgical. In that case, the Supreme Court had upheld a Development Control Rule requiring transfer of 10% open space through a gift deed. But the Court noted key factual distinctions: that rule had been framed under specific statutory provisions in the parent Act that dealt with development plans and reservations; the transfer was embedded in a comprehensive statutory scheme from the outset; and the developer had executed a voluntary gift deed as part of an explicit condition of development approval.

Here, by contrast, the layouts predated the DC Rules by decades. The rule invoked provisions about streets. And there was nothing voluntary about residents being confronted with a newspaper announcement offering one rupee. The High Court concluded that the Vasanth Apartments judgment not only did not cover the present situation — it actually reinforced why the earlier precedents in Yogendra Pal and Pt. Chet Ram Vashist applied.

“The message must be loud and clear — the rule of law exists in this country even when we interpret a statute which has the blessings of Article 300A.”— Supreme Court, K.T. Plantation v. State of Karnataka (quoted in judgment)

Standing on the Shoulders of Earlier Fights

This was not a battle fought in isolation. The petitioners’ counsel — led by Senior Advocate G.S. Godbole, with Mr. S.S. Kanetkar and Mr. Drupad Patil appearing for the other petitioners — pointed to a consistent thread of judgments from both the Supreme Court and this High Court condemning exactly this kind of rule.

In 1994, the Supreme Court in Yogendra Pal v. Municipality, Bhatinda had demolished the argument that “transferred” was different from “acquired” — holding that using the word transfer was a “euphemism for acquisition,” and that the loss of ownership rights without fair compensation could not be dressed up in different language. In 1995, in Pt. Chet Ram Vashist v. Municipal Corporation of Delhi, the Court had held that a municipal corporation’s right to manage an open space does not extend to claiming its ownership.

Closer to home, this Court had in 2003 in Vrajlal Jinabhai Patel v. State of Maharashtra struck down an identically worded bye-law applicable to municipal councils, on precisely the same grounds. That judgment was followed in 2009, and again in December 2025, when a writ petition challenging a similar rule applicable to Baramati Nagar Parishad was allowed. The Pune petitioners were carrying forward a lineage of civic resistance that had been building for three decades.

What the Judgment Means

The High Court’s order is comprehensive. Rule 13.3.1.5 is declared unconstitutional and struck down. The newspaper declarations issued by the PMC against all five petitioners are quashed. All consequential actions taken in pursuance of those declarations are directed to be “rectified to restore the status as existed prior” to the declarations. The petitioners, the Court held, “are entitled to use the open spaces in accordance with law.”

What the judgment does not do is leave open spaces unprotected. The Court made clear that the PMC retains its general municipal powers to issue notices and take action if structures are erected in violation of the DC Rules. Legitimate misuse can be addressed — but through proper legal processes, with fair notice, proper procedure, and compensation that reflects the real value of the land, not a rupee slipped under the door.

For the ex-servicemen in Erandwane, the Walvekar family, the residents of Parvati, Aundh, and the fifth layout whose internal PMC documents had already called for proper acquisition — the order is a restoration. Their open spaces remain theirs. Their jogging tracks, their planted trees, their fenced gardens — built against the threat of encroachment from one direction and the overreach of the state from another — stand.

The one rupee was never payment. It was always an insult. The High Court has finally said so, in writing.

Also Read: Maharashtra Winds Down Smart City SPVs, Hands Charge to Municipal Commissioners

The post Housing Society’s Epic 16-Year Battle: They Came for Our Land with ₹1. We Said No and Won appeared first on Square Feat India.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat pronounced the judgment yesterday (April 24, 2026), holding that the LARR Authority had rightly allowed the State authorities and the National High Speed Rail Corporation Limited (NHSRCL) to file their written statements and raise the plea of limitation.

What was the dispute?

The Godrej property, admeasuring approximately 10 acres in Village Vikhroli, Taluka Kurla, Mumbai Suburban district, was acquired under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. The award was passed on 15 September 2022.

After unsuccessfully challenging the acquisition itself in the High Court and the Supreme Court, Godrej filed a reference application under Section 64 of the 2013 Act on 28 February 2023 seeking enhancement of compensation. The claim, which originally stood at around ₹572 crore based on District Level Committee rates, was later enhanced twice by the LARR Authority — first in February 2024 and again in May 2024 — taking the total demand to nearly ₹1,972 crore.

The reference proceedings were initially before the LARR Authority at Aurangabad and later transferred to Nashik.

The two orders Godrej challenged

Godrej had approached the High Court aggrieved by two orders passed by the LARR Authority:

1. Order dated 21 August 2025 (challenged in Writ Petition No. 12027 of 2025): The LARR Authority set aside its earlier ex-parte order (passed on 15 March 2024 against the Collector and Deputy Collector) and allowed the State authorities to file their written statement after condoning the delay.
2. Order dated 18 February 2026 (challenged in Writ Petition No. 3467 of 2026): The LARR Authority permitted NHSRCL (the project proponent and beneficiary of the acquisition) to amend its written statement to specifically raise the plea of limitation.

Senior Advocate Vineet Naik, appearing for Godrej, argued that both orders were passed after inordinate delay, caused prejudice to the company, and that the LARR Authority had no jurisdiction to entertain the plea of limitation, which according to the petitioner could only be decided by the Collector.

What the High Court held

Justice Manish Pitale, authoring the judgment for the Bench, rejected both contentions.

The Court held that since Godrej itself was allowed to amend its reference application twice and substantially increase its claim, it was only fair that the acquiring body (State) and the beneficiary (NHSRCL) be permitted to file proper pleadings.

On the issue of sufficient cause shown by the State, the Bench accepted the explanation that the newly-constituted LARR Authority lacked a proper institutional mechanism and special counsel for representation in the initial period.

Crucially, the Court clarified the jurisdiction of the LARR Authority. The Bench explained that the LARR Authority, constituted under the 2013 Act, performs the functions of the Reference Court that earlier existed under the old Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It has full jurisdiction to decide not only the quantum of compensation but also preliminary issues such as limitation. The Court relied on Supreme Court precedents, including Mohammed Hasnuddin vs. State of Maharashtra (1979), and earlier Bombay High Court rulings.

The judges observed that allowing the amendment to raise limitation does not mean the plea has been accepted — Godrej will get a full opportunity to contest it on merits.

The Bench also noted that the Collector’s order dated 25 September 2023 did not contain a clear finding that the reference was filed within time, leaving the issue open for adjudication by the LARR Authority.

What is the LARR Authority?

The Land Acquisition Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority (LARR Authority) is a quasi-judicial body established under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013. It replaced the role of the District Judge (Reference Court) under the old 1894 Act. When a landowner is dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector, he can seek a reference to the LARR Authority, which hears evidence from all parties and decides the fair compensation, rehabilitation, and other related issues. Its orders are appealable to the High Court.

Final outcome

Both writ petitions were dismissed. The interim stay granted earlier was vacated. The High Court directed the LARR Authority at Nashik to decide the compensation reference expeditiously and preferably within six months.

The judgment paves the way for the LARR Authority to now hear the matter on merits, including the preliminary issue of limitation, which could potentially impact the maintainability of Godrej’s massive enhancement claim.

Also Read: Maharashtra Clears 4.79 Ha Forest Land in Palghar for Mumbai-Ahmedabad Bullet Train

The post Bombay HC Dismisses Godrej & Boyce Writs; LARR Authority to Decide ₹1,972 Cr Bullet Train Land Claim appeared first on Square Feat India.

Justice Arun R. Pednekar delivered the comprehensive judgment on March 18, 2026 (neutral citation 2026:BHC-AUG:11860 and connected matters), ruling that Section 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 — which sets strict time limits for arbitral awards — does not apply to statutory arbitrations under Section 3G(5) of the National Highways Act, 1956.

This decision is expected to benefit thousands of farmers and landowners nationwide whose lands are acquired for infrastructure projects, as it removes a common technical ground used by NHAI to challenge enhanced compensation awards.

Key Facts from the Case

• Acquisition Details: Lands in Gandheli village were notified under Section 3A on 18 September 2015 and finalised under Section 3D on 16 September 2016 for NH-211 expansion.
• Initial Award: The Competent Authority for Land Acquisition (CALA) awarded varying rates (₹486 to ₹1,500 per sq.m) based on land classification (bayagat/jirayat/hangami-bagayat).
• Arbitration: Landowners invoked Section 3G(5); the Arbitrator (Collector, Aurangabad) passed awards in January 2024 enhancing compensation to a uniform ₹1,742 per sq.m after considering 193 sale deeds from the village.
• NHAI Challenges: NHAI lost under Section 34 before the Principal District Judge (order dated 16 October 2025) and then under Section 37 before the High Court.

Court’s Landmark Holdings

1. Section 29A Inapplicable The National Highways Act is a self-contained special code. Arbitrators are appointed by designation (office of Collector for the region), and proceedings continue seamlessly on transfer of officers. Applying Section 29A’s court extension/substitution mechanism would make the statutory scheme unworkable. The Court relied on NHAI v. Sayedabad Tea Company (2020) 15 SCC 161 and Girnar Traders v. State of Maharashtra (2011) 3 SCC 1.
2. No Patent Illegality in Compensation The Arbitrator correctly applied Section 26 of the RFCTLARR Act, 2013: considered highest 50% of comparable sale deeds, excluded outliers with reasons, and moderated the rate to ₹1,742 for parity. Uniform rate justified due to similar location/potential near city and airport. Multiplier of 2.0 upheld for rural area. Court refused to re-appreciate evidence, citing narrow scope under Sections 34 & 37 (PSA Sical Terminals, 2023; MMTC v. Vedanta, 2019).

Practical Advice for Landowners

• Delays due to officer transfers do not invalidate awards under the NH Act.
• Produce certified local sale deeds aggressively in arbitration.
• Challenge low CALA awards promptly — arbitration offers genuine enhancement scope.
• Cite this judgment (2026:BHC-AUG:11860) when NHAI raises time-bar objections.
• For excessive arbitral delay, approach High Court under Article 226 (not Section 29A).

The judgment reinforces fair compensation under Article 300A and the protective intent of the 2013 Act. Landowners can now proceed for execution of the enhanced awards with interest and statutory benefits.

Also Read: Investments in Renewables, Roads, and Real Estate Set to Reach ₹17.5 Lakh Crore Over Two Years

The post Landowners Win vs NHAI: Bombay HC Upholds Higher Compensation appeared first on Square Feat India.

This February 2, 2026 decision in Writ Petition No. 8122 of 2022 (Vikrant Happy Homes Private Limited & Others vs. Union of India & Others) sends a clear message: when it comes to national highways, the Centre calls the shots on fair compensation — and states can’t undercut it.

The Core Injustice: A Battle Over the “Multiplier” Factor

Under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (RFCTLARR Act), compensation for acquired rural land isn’t just the market value — it’s multiplied by a factor (between 1.00 and 2.00) to account for the loss and hardship.

• The Central Government (as the “appropriate Government” for Union purposes like national highways) notified on February 9, 2016 that the multiplier for rural areas would be 2.00 — effectively doubling the base market value before adding solatium (100% extra) and other benefits.
• But Maharashtra State Government issued:
  • A notification on October 5, 2021,
  • Government Resolutions (GRs) on October 6, 2021, and January 14, 2022, claiming the multiplier should be only 1.00 — even for national highway projects.

This meant landowners could lose out on roughly half the potential compensation for the same land.

The Case: Farmers’ Land for Surat-Nashik-Ahmednagar Greenfield Highway

The petitioners, owners of land in Gat Nos. 138 and 143 pt., Village Odha, Nashik district, saw their property targeted for the Surat-Nashik-Ahmednagar Greenfield Section of a national highway.

• On November 1, 2021, the Union of India (Ministry of Rural Development) issued the acquisition notification under Section 3-A(1) of the National Highways Act, 1956 — handled by NHAI (respondent No. 5).
• Landowners filed detailed objections on December 2, 2021, under Section 3-C, arguing the Central multiplier of 2.00 must apply.
• Hearings took place in January 2022, but the Competent Authority (Deputy Collector, Land Acquisition, National Highways Project — respondent No. 4) rejected them and applied 1.00.
• An award was passed on January 13, 2023 (received by petitioners around October 2023), using the lower factor.

Frustrated, the landowners approached the Bombay High Court via this writ petition, challenging the state orders and the award.

Courtroom Clash: Centre vs. State Powers

Petitioners’ counsel argued:

• National highways fall exclusively under Entry 23, List I (Union List) of the Constitution — Central Government’s domain.
• Under Section 3(e)(v) of the 2013 Act, the “appropriate Government” for Union-purpose acquisitions (like NHAI projects) is the Central Government.
• Only the Centre could notify the multiplier under Section 30(2) read with the First Schedule — and it did so at 2.00 in 2016.
• State had no authority to override this for national highways.

State authorities (respondents 2–4) defended the 1.00 factor, claiming it applied to all highways and warning of doubled costs. They suggested landowners use the arbitration remedy under Section 3-G(5) of the National Highways Act.

NHAI supported the State.

Bombay High Court’s Verdict: A Clear Win for Fairness

Justices Manish Pitale and Shreeram V. Shirsat (judgment pronounced February 2, 2026, reserved on January 29, 2026) ruled decisively in favour of the petitioners.

Key holdings:

• Central Government has exclusive jurisdiction over national highways and the multiplier for such acquisitions.
• State’s 2021 notification and GRs are invalid (quashed) to the extent they apply to national highway projects — they overstepped into Central territory.
• The January 13, 2023 award is quashed for wrongly applying 1.00.
• Competent Authority must issue a fresh award within six weeks, using the 2.00 multiplier per the 2016 Central notification.
• Landowners retain the right to challenge the fresh award’s other aspects (quantum, valuation etc.) via arbitration under Section 3-G(5).

The court rejected the “cost will double” argument — compensation is NHAI’s (Central agency’s) responsibility, not the State’s to dilute.

What This Means for Landowners Facing Highway Acquisitions

This ruling could set a powerful precedent. Many national highway projects in Maharashtra (and potentially elsewhere) may have used the lower 1.00 factor wrongly. Affected owners now have strong grounds to seek higher compensation.

For the petitioners in this case, it means a shot at significantly better payout — and a reminder that constitutional divisions of power protect against unfair state overreach.

Rule made absolute — a victory for property rights in the face of infrastructure push.

Also Read: Dawood Ibrahim’s Land On Sale For Rs 1.38 Lac

The post Court Strikes Down Maharashtra’s Attempt to Halve Compensation for National Highway Acquisitions – “Centre’s Rule Prevails, You Get Double!” appeared first on Square Feat India.

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 development will primarily comprise group housing and is expected to offer a developable potential of nearly 2.1 million square feet. The acquisition aligns with Godrej Properties’ strategy to deepen its presence in high-growth urban corridors across India’s major cities.

The land parcel is strategically located within the Mahalunge–Maan–Nande belt and forms part of the Mahalunge–Hinjewadi micro-market, one of Pune’s most active residential and commercial zones. The location enjoys proximity to the upcoming Pune Inner Ring Road and lies along the rapidly developing Hinjewadi–Balewadi corridor, a key employment belt anchored by IT and BFSI hubs.

The project site is supported by well-established social infrastructure, including reputed educational institutions such as Delhi Public School, Mahindra International School, and the Symbiosis Centre for Management. It also offers seamless connectivity to Baner–Balewadi and Hinjewadi, making it attractive for both end-users and long-term investors.

Commenting on the acquisition, Gaurav Pandey, MD & CEO, Godrej Properties, said, “Pune is one of India’s most vibrant urban centers, driven by robust infrastructure development and thriving commercial hubs. Mahalunge, with its strategic connectivity and well-planned social ecosystem, demonstrates the city’s growth story and offers customers an ideal blend of convenience and quality living. Acquiring this land parcel marks an important step in our broader strategy to strengthen our presence in Pune and expand across high-potential micro-markets in India’s leading cities. We will aim to deliver thoughtfully designed spaces that create long-term value for residents and meet evolving customer aspirations.”

Pune continues to be a key focus market for large developers, supported by sustained housing demand, infrastructure upgrades and strong employment fundamentals. Godrej Properties’ latest acquisition underscores growing developer confidence in the city’s western growth corridors, particularly locations aligned with future infrastructure and commercial expansion.

*On the basis of current business assumptions.

Also Read: Godrej Properties Acquires 20 Acres In Kalyan

The post Godrej Properties Acquires 8.5-Acre Land Parcel in Mahalunge, Pune for ₹2,000-Crore Housing Project appeared first on Square Feat India.

This acquisition marks another strategic expansion for GPL in Bengaluru’s thriving residential corridors, further consolidating its footprint in one of the city’s fastest-growing micro-markets.

Sarjapur Road: A High-Growth Corridor

Sarjapur Road has rapidly emerged as one of Bengaluru’s most vibrant real estate destinations. Its connectivity to major employment hubs—including Whitefield, Outer Ring Road, and Electronic City—makes it a preferred location for working professionals.

The area also offers excellent social infrastructure, with proximity to reputed schools, hospitals, retail centres, and leisure avenues, contributing to sustained homebuyer demand and robust absorption levels.

Strengthening a Proven Track Record

Godrej Properties already has a strong presence in South Bengaluru, with successful projects like Godrej Park Retreat and Godrej Lakeside Orchards. Both developments have recorded high customer uptake and steady sales momentum, reinforcing the Sarjapur corridor’s status as a high-demand residential micro-market.

Management Commentary

Gaurav Pandey, MD & CEO, Godrej Properties, said:

“As Bengaluru continues to consolidate its position as one of India’s most dynamic real estate markets, the Sarjapur Road corridor stands out as a key growth hub within the city’s evolving urban fabric. The strong performance of our recent projects in this micro-market reflects the depth of demand and the trust customers have in our brand. We remain committed to delivering thoughtfully designed, high-quality developments that enrich lives and create enduring value for all stakeholders.”

Why This Matters

• Expands Godrej Properties’ presence in Bengaluru’s premium residential market.
• Reinforces Sarjapur Road’s position as a real estate hotspot.
• Signals continued developer confidence despite broader market fluctuations.
• Highlights Bengaluru’s sustained growth as a key real estate investment destination.

Also Read: Godrej Properties enters Hyderabad

The post Godrej Properties Acquires 26-Acre Land Parcel Near Sarjapur Road, Bengaluru with ₹1,100 Cr Revenue Potential appeared first on Square Feat India.

The land parcel was secured through the acquisition of 100% equity stake in Chaitanya Bilva Private Limited (CBPL), making CBPL a wholly owned subsidiary of Lodha Developers. The transaction was completed on October 13, 2025, on a cash consideration basis.

About the Acquisition

• Target Company: Chaitanya Bilva Private Limited (CBPL)
• Net worth (as of March 31, 2025): ₹13.10 crore
• Turnover: ₹0 crore (no operations yet)
• Land Size: 8.37 acres in a prime Bengaluru location
• Transaction Type: 100% equity acquisition
• Value of Deal: ₹499.61 crore (cash)
• Regulatory Approvals: Not required
• Transaction Completion Date: October 13, 2025

CBPL, incorporated in November 2021, is engaged in the business of real estate development and construction, though it has not yet commenced business operations.

Strategic Expansion into Tier 1 Markets

Lodha’s acquisition is aligned with its strategy to grow in select Tier 1 cities through the inorganic route. Bengaluru, known for its strong residential demand and IT-driven economy, has emerged as a key market for developers looking beyond traditional strongholds like Mumbai and NCR.

This deal marks another significant step in Lodha’s pan-India expansion, particularly in southern markets where competition among major real estate players has intensified.

What Makes the Deal Important

• Strategic Location: Bengaluru’s residential market continues to show resilience, with steady price appreciation and growing end-user demand.
• Land Bank Addition: The 8.37-acre land parcel enhances Lodha’s development pipeline outside MMR.
• Inorganic Growth Route: Acquiring CBPL allows Lodha to bypass lengthy land acquisition processes and gain immediate control over a prime development-ready parcel.

Industry Context

Bengaluru’s real estate market has remained one of India’s most stable, driven by IT/ITeS employment, strong mid- and upper-segment housing demand, and robust infrastructure development. Major developers have increasingly been acquiring land parcels in North and East Bengaluru to tap into this sustained growth story.

For Lodha, this move mirrors a broader industry trend — Mumbai-based developers diversifying into other Tier 1 cities to de-risk portfolios and tap new growth corridors.

Also Read: Abhishek Lodha Alleges Unauthorized Use of Lodha Brand by Brother Abhinandan Lodha’s HoABL

The post 📰 Lodha Acquires 8.37-Acre Prime Bengaluru Land for ₹499.6 Crore — Expands Footprint Beyond Mumbai appeared first on Square Feat India.

Strategically located near the Satellite Town Ring Road (STRR), the land parcel offers excellent connectivity and growth potential. The development will primarily focus on plotted residential layouts, aligning with the rising demand for open, flexible housing formats in this part of the city.

Doddaballapur is witnessing rapid transformation due to its proximity to Kempegowda International Airport, infrastructure projects like STRR, expanding industrial zones, and natural attractions such as Nandi Hills. These factors are making the region increasingly attractive to both homebuyers and developers.

Speaking about the acquisition, Gaurav Pandey, Managing Director & CEO, Godrej Properties, said:

“We are pleased to announce the acquisition of this prime land parcel in Doddaballapur, a high-potential micro market in North Bengaluru. This investment reinforces our focus on expanding our presence in key growth corridors through well-planned residential communities. Bengaluru continues to be a priority market for us, and we look forward to creating a development that offers long-term value to its residents.”

With this move, Godrej Properties strengthens its presence in North Bengaluru, a region that’s quickly emerging as a hotspot for plotted and villa developments.

Also Read: Godrej Properties purchases 89 acres of land in Khalapur

The post Godrej Properties Acquires 48-Acre Land Parcel in Doddaballapur, Bengaluru for Plotted Residential Project appeared first on Square Feat India.

Delivering its verdict in a batch of civil appeals filed by the Estate Officer, Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA), the apex court overturned a series of High Court and lower court rulings that had directed the state to allot residential plots to oustees under a 1992 rehabilitation policy.

“We have made ourselves very explicitly clear that in cases of land acquisition, the plea of deprivation of right to livelihood under Article 21 of the Constitution is unsustainable,” the Court observed in its judgment dated July 14.

The ruling came in response to numerous landowners from Haryana who claimed they were entitled to subsidised residential plots under the 1992 HUDA oustee policy after their land was acquired for urban development projects in Kaithal and other areas. Many of them had approached civil courts seeking mandatory injunctions, arguing that denial of alternative plots violated their constitutional right to livelihood.

Policy, Not Entitlement

The Court emphasized that rehabilitation benefits are policy-driven, not constitutional mandates. The 1992 oustee policy was found to be an executive scheme requiring landowners to apply in a prescribed format along with a 10% earnest money deposit. The Court noted that most claimants did not comply with these essential conditions.

“No enforceable right can be claimed under an administrative policy unless all its terms are strictly met,” the bench stated.

It was also revealed that several allottees had filed civil suits years after the policy was introduced, without fulfilling basic procedural requirements such as formal application and deposit of earnest money. Despite this, many suits were decreed by civil courts, and confirmed by the High Court — prompting HUDA to escalate the matter to the Supreme Court.

High Court Rulings Overturned

The Punjab and Haryana High Court had earlier ruled in favour of the landowners, relying on precedents like Brij Mohan vs HUDA and Jarnail Singh. However, the Supreme Court held that these judgments were not directly applicable in the present case due to material differences in facts, especially the non-compliance with eligibility criteria.

The bench also noted that the High Court had not adequately examined whether the claimants had submitted valid applications or fulfilled the conditions of the 1992 policy.

No Vested Rights in Welfare Schemes

The Court clarified that no vested rights arise merely from the existence of a policy. A claimant becomes eligible only upon full compliance. It further rejected the use of Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 (which deals with mandatory injunctions) to enforce discretionary government schemes.

The Court warned against treating welfare policies as enforceable rights, stating that such an approach could lead to “windfall gains” and distortion of the policy framework.

Current Policy to Apply

The judgment also highlighted that HUDA had since introduced a new oustee policy in 2016 (amended in 2018), under which fresh claims could be assessed. The apex court endorsed the authority’s stand that any future claims must be processed under the latest applicable policy, not older ones.

Implications of the Judgment

• Landowners cannot claim alternative plots or rehabilitation as a matter of right after land acquisition.
• Article 21 cannot be stretched to demand policy-based welfare measures.
• Courts cannot force allotments unless all policy conditions are fulfilled.

A Clear Message

This verdict sends a strong signal to both litigants and lower courts: government welfare policies are not enforceable rights unless backed by statutory provisions or fully met conditions. The Court’s unambiguous interpretation of Article 21 in the land acquisition context provides much-needed legal clarity.

Also Read: This Supreme Court Judgement is Very important for Homebuyers & Builders as well

The post Rehabilitation After Land Acquisition, Not a Fundamental Right, Says Supreme Court appeared first on Square Feat India.