The Supreme Court has set aside a Bombay High Court judgment that had directed the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to grant additional amenity Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for a garden developed on reserved land at Bhakti Park in Chembur, Mumbai.
The Bench led by Justice J.K. Maheshwari and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar held that the landowner’s later claim for additional amenity TDR was contrary to the terms of the Letter of Intent, undertaking and maintenance agreement executed with the corporation, under which the landowner had agreed not to seek such benefits.
Background of the Case
The dispute arose from land reserved for a public garden at Bhakti Park, Chembur, under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning (MRTP) Act. The landowner had surrendered the land to the municipal corporation in 2002 and, in return, received TDR for the land itself.
Under a Letter of Intent and later agreements, the landowner agreed to develop and maintain the garden for 20 years at its own cost. In those documents, the landowner specifically undertook that it would not seek additional amenity TDR for developing the garden.
The arrangement continued until 2016, when the corporation took back possession of the garden following proceedings before the Lokayukta regarding public access to the space. Only in 2019 did the landowner apply for additional amenity TDR, which the corporation rejected.
The Bombay High Court later allowed the landowner’s plea and directed grant of additional TDR, prompting the corporation to approach the Supreme Court.
Court’s Observations
The Supreme Court examined earlier judgments dealing with TDR rights under Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act, including the landmark rulings in Godrej & Boyce and Kukreja Construction.
However, the Bench clarified that the present matter stood on a different footing because the landowner had expressly agreed not to claim additional amenity TDR in exchange for being allowed to maintain the garden for two decades.
The Court examined the Letter of Intent, undertaking and maintenance agreement executed between the parties and noted that the landowner had specifically agreed not to claim amenity TDR for development and maintenance of the garden.
The Bench also disagreed with the High Court’s interpretation that the restriction on claiming additional amenity TDR came to an end once possession of the garden was resumed by the corporation in 2016. The Court held that the documents executed between the parties did not support such an interpretation.
Delay in Raising the Claim
The Court noted that the claim for additional amenity TDR was raised almost 17 years after the original transfer of land and after the landowner had repeatedly acknowledged that no such claim would be made.
The Court noted that earlier Supreme Court decisions, including the Godrej & Boyce and Kukreja Construction cases, had considered claims for additional TDR in different factual situations. However, in the present matter, the Court found that the agreements executed between the parties played a significant role while examining the landowner’s entitlement.
Supreme Court’s Decision
Allowing the appeal filed by the municipal corporation, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court’s 2024 judgment and upheld the corporation’s decision rejecting the claim for additional amenity TDR.
Allowing the appeal filed by the corporation, the Supreme Court set aside the Bombay High Court judgment and upheld the rejection of the claim for additional amenity TDR.
Case Details
Case Title: Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation & Ors. v. Vijay Nagar Apartments & Ors.
Case Number: Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) No. 11541 of 2024
Judges: Justice J.K. Maheshwari & Justice Atul S. Chandurkar
Decision Date: May 20th 2026
