JYOTI BALIRAM THORAT vs MUMBAI METROPOLITAN REGION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Judgment text excerpt

WPL_19414_24.doc 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: 23rd JANUARY, 2026 PRONOUNCED ON: 30th 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 1/23 WPL_19414_24.doc 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