The Bombay High Court has dismissed a long-running dispute between a Pune-based cooperative housing society and the Pune Municipal Corporation over the right to develop land reserved for a shopping centre. The court held that once the society accepted development benefits and surrendered land under a concluded agreement, it could not reclaim ownership decades later.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a Second Appeal No. 1400 of 2005, filed by Milan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd against the Pune Municipal Corporation.
Read also:- Supreme Court Rules Dumpers, Excavators Not ‘Motor Vehicles’; Gujarat Road Tax Demand Quashed
The society had purchased land in Kothrud, Pune, in 1967 and later divided it into plots for its members. While approving the layout, the municipal corporation required that 10% of the land be kept as open space. To accommodate all members, the society sought relaxation of this condition.
According to the corporation, the society agreed to surrender an equivalent area-reserved for a shopping centre-free of cost. A possession receipt was executed in October 1970, and construction permission was granted without insisting on the 10% open space requirement.
Nearly 28 years later, the society filed a suit claiming that physical possession was never handed over and that the land continued to belong to it. It sought a declaration of ownership and a permanent injunction to allow commercial development on the disputed plot.
Read also:- Preventive Detention Misused: Supreme Court Frees Telangana Woman Held in Ganja Cases
Before the High Court, the society contended that:
- There was no formal land acquisition under the law.
- Mere execution of a possession receipt could not transfer ownership.
- The land was reserved under the development plan, and without following statutory acquisition procedures, the corporation could not claim title.
The society also alleged coercion, claiming the possession receipt was obtained only to secure approval of the layout plan.
The corporation argued that the society had voluntarily surrendered the land in exchange for a clear benefit-permission to construct more buildings by waiving the open space condition.
It pointed out that:
- The society enjoyed the benefit of higher construction potential for decades.
- The possession receipt showed transfer of possession.
- The society never challenged the surrender condition at the relevant time.
Relying on earlier judgments, the corporation said the society was barred from reopening the issue after such a long delay.
Read also:- Supreme Court curbs private fraud complaints under Companies Act, partially quashes Telangana
Court’s Observations
Justice Gauri Godse noted that the dispute was not about forced acquisition but about an agreement reached between the parties.
“The society could not have accommodated all its members without the waiver of the open space condition,” the court observed, adding that this waiver itself had clear monetary value.
The court explained that under planning law, land reserved for public purposes can be acquired through an agreement, and consideration need not always be in cash. Benefits such as additional construction rights or higher Floor Space Index (FSI) also count as valid consideration.
Importantly, the court highlighted that the society had accepted the development permission and acted upon it, without raising any objection for nearly three decades.
Read also:- Madras High Court Stays Single Judge Order in CBFC Film Certification Row, Flags Lack of Fair
Decision
The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the first appellate court.
It ruled that:
- The surrender of land was part of a valid and concluded agreement.
- The society received valuable consideration in the form of construction permission and higher FSI.
- Once possession was handed over under such an agreement, ownership validly vested in the municipal corporation.
Dismissing the second appeal, the court held that both lower courts were justified in refusing declaratory and injunctive relief.
“The society, after taking advantage of the waiver, cannot turn around and challenge the surrender after 28 years,” the bench concluded.
Case Title: Milan Cooperative Housing Society Ltd vs Pune Municipal Corporation
Case No.: Second Appeal No. 1400 of 2005
Case Type: Civil – Property and Development Rights
Decision Date: 5 January 2026
