Pune Owners Gave PMC Their DP Road Land in 2016 for TDR. In 2026 They Asked for Cash. The Bombay High Court Said the 2016 Receipt Binds Them.

In 2016 a Pune family firm handed 1,721 sq m at Kharadi to the Pune Municipal Corporation for an 18 metre development plan road, on a possession receipt that accepted compensation in FSI or TDR. In February 2026 the owners wrote that they no longer wanted TDR and asked for money. On 24 September 2026 a Division Bench of the Bombay High Court dismissed their petition: the 2013 PMC letter and the 2016 receipt made a binding contract, and the court would not rewrite it.

There is no NRI party in this case. The owners live in Pune. We report it because any owner of land reserved under the Pune development plan can face the same choice, and an owner abroad is the one most likely to sign a receipt through a relative or an agent and look at the terms years later.

The case

The judgment is in Writ Petition No. 5159 of 2026, M/s. L.B. Kunjir and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, neutral citation 2026:BHC-AS:39178-DB. The Bench was Chief Justice Mahesh Chandra Tripathi and Advait M. Sethna, J., and Sethna, J. wrote the judgment. It was reserved on 10 September 2026 and pronounced on 24 September 2026, and runs to 22 pages. The respondents were the State's Urban Development Department, the Collector of Pune and the Pune Municipal Corporation.

What happened

The facts are at paragraphs 4 to 9, 29 and 30:

• The owners hold land in Survey No. 56 at Kharadi, of which 1,721.03 sq m is reserved for widening an 18 metre DP road.
• 29 August 2013: PMC's Land Acquisition and Management Office wrote to them (Outward No. LEO/3292) proposing to take possession under Section 126 of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 "by Mutual Compromise". The letter said compensation would be paid "in the form of Additional FSI/TDR/Cash Compensation".
• 9 June 2016: the owners signed a preliminary possession receipt and handed over the land. The receipt says that "admissible consideration in the form of F.S.I./T.D.R." would be granted "as per prevailing rules and policy". It also records that no compensation would come until the 7/12 extract was produced.
• 10 February 2026: the owners wrote to PMC that they were not interested in TDR and asked PMC to acquire the land and pay money.
• 13 March 2026: they filed the writ petition. On 7 May 2026 the court directed PMC to decide the claim. PMC's affidavit of 22 July 2026 records that the Municipal Commissioner rejected cash and said the owners were entitled to FSI or TDR under the receipt.

The owners asked the court to order acquisition and payment with all statutory benefits. They also argued for 80% advance compensation and 75% additional compensation under Section 40 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (paragraph 15), and that delay did not matter because the cause of action was continuing (paragraph 16).

What the court held

The letter was an offer and the receipt was the acceptance

Paragraph 31 reads the 2013 letter as an offer by PMC, and the 2016 receipt as its acceptance in writing. Together they "would constitute a legally binding contract", even under the Indian Contract Act, 1872. Paragraph 33 calls the acceptance "unequivocal" and the result "a legally binding and concluding contract between the parties".

The 2026 letter was a change of stance

Paragraph 35 says the February 2026 letter was the first time the owners said they did not want TDR, and calls it "a complete change of stance". Paragraphs 36 and 37 apply the rule that courts enforce the terms parties agree and do not rewrite them. Granting cash, the court said, would mean rewriting a concluded contract, which a writ court ought not to do.

The full bench ruling cuts against the owners here

The owners relied on the Full Bench decision in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers, Nagpur v. State of Maharashtra for the point that a TDR offer is not binding on a landowner. Paragraph 38 reads that Full Bench as holding that where a concluded contract exists, "the landowner or lessee cannot withdraw his request for compensation and/or refuse to surrender the land". Whether a concluded contract exists is a question of fact in each case. Here it did.

Section 126(1)(b) was satisfied

Section 126(1) of the MRTP Act lets the planning authority acquire reserved land by an agreed amount, by granting FSI or TDR in lieu of that amount, or by applying to the State for acquisition under the 2013 Act. Paragraph 39 holds the conditions of clause (b), the FSI or TDR route, "duly fulfilled", with the acquisition done "by consensus" of both sides.

Without a contract, the answer might differ

Paragraph 41 says that had there been no concluded contract, the claim for money "would have had some substance", citing the co-ordinate Bench decision in Purnima Talkies v. Chief Officer, Dahanu Nagar Parishad. Paragraph 40 distinguishes four other cases the owners cited on the same ground. Paragraph 43 holds the delay and continuing-cause cases the owners cited do not apply on these facts.

The result

The petition was dismissed (paragraph 44). Paragraph 45 leaves the owners free to submit a proposal for FSI or TDR under the prescribed procedure, to be considered "expeditiously" if there is no other impediment.

What it means for a Pune owner

The court's reasons turn on two documents: the authority's letter and the owner's signed receipt. Once the receipt named FSI or TDR as the consideration, the owners were held to it, a decade later, even though the 2013 letter had listed cash as one of three options. Paragraph 41 shows the other side of the same rule: an owner who never accepted a TDR offer in writing stands on different ground.

For an owner abroad, whoever signs a possession receipt for a reserved plot is choosing the form of compensation, and that choice can bind the owner. Paragraph 30 also records a condition that is easy to miss from a distance: no compensation of any kind until the 7/12 extract reaches the corporation.

For running a Pune property from abroad, see our Pune property management page and the guide to paying PMC and PCMC property tax. For a recent Supreme Court ruling on acquisition compensation time limits, see the section 28A three-month rule.

This judgment turned on the two documents in its record. A reservation, a possession receipt or a TDR proposal on a specific plot belongs with a lawyer who can read those papers.

FAQ

Can a Pune landowner who accepted TDR for DP road land later ask for cash? Not on the facts of this case. On 24 September 2026 the Bombay High Court held that a 2016 possession receipt accepting FSI or TDR, given in reply to PMC's 2013 offer, was a binding contract, and refused the owners' 2026 claim for cash.

Did PMC's letter offer cash as an option? Yes. The 29 August 2013 letter said compensation would be paid "in the form of Additional FSI/TDR/Cash Compensation". The owners' 2016 receipt named only FSI or TDR, and the court held that receipt was their acceptance.

What does Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act allow? As the judgment reproduces it, clause (b) lets the planning authority acquire reserved land by granting FSI or TDR in lieu of an amount, against land surrendered free of cost and free of encumbrances.

Would the answer be different without a signed acceptance? Paragraph 41 says that without a concluded contract, the claim for money "would have had some substance". The court did not decide that case.

What can the owners do now? Paragraph 45 gives them liberty to submit an FSI or TDR proposal under the prescribed procedure, to be considered in accordance with law.

66 MG Road newsdesk

Sources

• M/s. L.B. Kunjir and others v. State of Maharashtra and others, Writ Petition No. 5159 of 2026, 2026:BHC-AS:39178-DB, CNR HCBM010138152026, Bombay High Court, Mahesh Chandra Tripathi CJ and Advait M. Sethna J, reserved 10 September 2026, pronounced 24 September 2026, 22 pages. The court's own PDF was downloaded on 28 September 2026 from the recent-judgments listing, 187,161 bytes, sha256 a346873f8870e84f1d26b7168a1d178dab62dadd6fc8735deaf4c382360970bb, and read in full. The PDF link carries a session token, so we cite the listing: https://bombayhighcourt.gov.in/bhc/front/recentjudgment
• The petition gives the area as 1,721.03 sq m (paragraphs 3 and 4). The 2016 receipt says "approximately" 1,721.00 sq m (paragraph 30). We use 1,721 sq m in the headline and summary.
• The 2013 letter and the 2016 receipt are quoted from the English translations reproduced in paragraphs 29 and 30 of the judgment.