BMC v. Vijay Nagar Apartments
Supreme Court of India2026 INSC 517Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
The Supreme Court reaffirmed that landowners surrendering their land to the municipal authority under Section 126(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 are entitled to receive the full statutory compensation contemplated by the Act, which includes the grant of additional Transferable Development Rights for development of public amenities on the surrendered land. The Bench held that this statutory entitlement is intrinsically linked to and protected by Article 300A of the Constitution of India, which guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law and which, by judicial elaboration, has been read to require that any deprivation be accompanied by a fair, just and reasonable compensation. The Court squarely rejected the municipal authority's contention that the landowner had, by contractual undertaking or by acceptance of certain executive conditions, waived its right to additional TDR. It held that statutory compensation cannot be waived or contracted away merely because the landowner, often in a position of unequal bargaining power, signs an undertaking proposed by the State; permitting such waiver would defeat the constitutional protection under Article 300A and would convert a statutory right into a bargaining chip in the hands of the authority. The Court also rejected the defences of delay and laches, holding that delay alone, in the absence of any prejudice or third-party rights, cannot defeat a claim for fair compensation for compulsory acquisition or surrender of property. Most importantly, the Court laid down that statutory authorities cannot compel landowners to relinquish statutory rights as a pre-condition for granting development permissions or TDR — such conditions amount to an extraneous and impermissible exercise of power.