A landowner who expressly waived claim to additional amenity TDR under contractual undertakings and remained silent for 17 years cannot later revive such claim after voluntarily accepting the contractual arrangement and corresponding benefits.
Facts
The respondent-landowners owned land at Bhakti Park, Chembur, reserved as a “garden” under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (“MRTP Act”). Under s. 126(1)(b) MRTP Act, the land was surrendered to the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (“Corporation”) in exchange for TDR (Transferrable Development Rights).
A Letter of Intent (“LOI”) dated 13.12.2001 required the landowners to develop and maintain the garden for 20 years at their own cost and specifically stipulated that they “will not claim any amenity TDR towards Development of Garden.”
The landowners executed a formal undertaking on 10.01.2002 reiterating that they would maintain the garden and would not claim amenity TDR. A Maintenance Agreement dated 27.11.2002 further confirmed that the garden would be maintained on “adoption basis” without claiming “any amenity TDR/FSI or any compensation.”
The landowners retained management and possession of the garden till 2016. After proceedings before the Lokayukta concerning restricted public access to the garden, the Corporation resumed possession in 2016.
Only in 2019, after the coming into force of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034 (“DCPR 2034”), the landowners sought additional amenity TDR for development of the garden. The Corporation rejected the request, but the Bombay High Court allowed the claim.
Issues Framed
(a) Whether the claim for additional amenity TDR was barred by delay and laches.
(b) Whether the landowners had waived their right to additional amenity TDR under s. 126(1)(b) MRTP Act by virtue of the LOI, undertaking and maintenance agreement.
Court’s Reasoning
(a) The Court recognised that under s. 126(1)(b) MRTP Act and Regulation 34 read with Appendix VII-A of the DCR 1991, compensation for acquired land may consist of two components: TDR against the surrendered land and additional TDR for development of amenities such as gardens.
(b) However, the Court held that the statutory entitlement to additional amenity TDR was capable of waiver because the provision was enacted for the private benefit of the landowner and did not involve overriding public interest. Relying on Lachoo Mal v. Radhey Shyam, (1971) 1 SCC 619 and Bank of India v. O.P. Swarnakar, (2003) 2 SCC 721, the Court reiterated that a statutory right created for individual benefit may validly be waived.
(c) The Court found that the waiver was explicit and unequivocal. The LOI, undertaking and Maintenance Agreement consistently recorded that the landowners would not claim any amenity TDR or compensation for development and maintenance of the garden.
(d) Rejecting the High Court’s reasoning, the Court held that the contractual stipulation waiving amenity TDR was not conditional upon continued possession or maintenance rights. The High Court had impermissibly “rewritten” the contract by implying such linkage.
(e) The Court further held that the claim raised after nearly 17 years suffered from gross delay and acquiescence. The landowners had accepted the original TDR, acted upon the agreements for years, surrendered possession in 2016 without protest, and only thereafter attempted to revive a waived claim.
(f) The Court also observed that after enforcement of the DCPR 2034, the earlier regulatory framework under the DCR 1991 had ceased to operate, further weakening the belated claim for additional amenity TDR.
Held
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Bombay High Court judgment, and upheld the Corporation’s rejection of the claim for additional amenity TDR.
Ratio
A landowner who expressly waives entitlement to additional amenity TDR under contractual undertakings executed pursuant to s. 126(1)(b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 cannot, after prolonged acquiescence and acceptance of corresponding benefits, subsequently revive such claim on the basis of statutory entitlement
Case Details
Citation: 2026 INSC 517
Decided on: 20 May 2026
Case Title: Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation and Ors. v. Vijay Nagar Apartments and Ors.
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice J.K. Maheshwari