21-WP-1206-2025(C).doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1206 OF 2025 Shakirhussain Shaftakhusain Bohari and Others ...Petitioners Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 1185 OF 2025 Salimhusain Fazalehusain Bohari ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and Others ...Respondents —————— Mr. Ajay A. Joshi, for the Petitioners. Mr. Sarang S. Aradhye a/w Mr. Shantanu Gurav for Respondent Nos.3 & 4. Ms. Tejas J. Kapre, AGP for the Respondent-State. —————— CORAM : SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH & NEERAJ P. DHOTE, JJ. DATE : AUGUST 29, 2026. P. C. : 1. As the Petitions raise common issues and common submissions were advanced by the parties, with consent, the Petitions are disposed of by this common order. 2. Both these Petitions question the action of the Respondent - Pandharpur Municipal Council in commencing the work of road Jamadar-SL 1 of 4 2026:BHC-KOL:8290-DB 21-WP-1206-2025(C).doc widening, affecting the Petitioners' properties, without taking recourse to the provisions of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 (“2013 Act”). 3. Mr. Joshi, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners, submits that in lieu of acquisition of the Petitioners’ properties, the Respondent- Municipal Council offered FSI/TDR in lieu of the acquisition, which was not acceptable to the Petitioners and was duly communicated on 11th December, 2024 to the Municipal Council. He submits that the position is no longer res integra and has been settled by the Full Bench decision of this Court in the case of Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers, Nagpur v. State of Maharashtra and others1. He submits that the Municipal Council is required to take recourse to the 2013 Act and there cannot be any compulsory acquisition. 4. Per contra, Mr. Aradhye, learned counsel appearing for the Respondent - Municipal Council would contend that the Petitioners can avail the benefit of the FSI/TDR by utilizing the same in the open market. He submits that the Municipal Council has already offered the FSI/TDR and there are financial constraints on the part of the Municipal Council which should not affect the road widening project, which is a public interest project. 1 2022(4) Mh.L.J. 739 Jamadar-SL 2 of 4 21-WP-1206-2025(C).doc 5. We have considered the submissions and perused the record. 6. The Petitions question the offer of FSI/TDR by the Municipal Council vide notices dated 21st October, 2024 and 25th November, 2024. 7. There is no dispute about the fact that in view of the acquisition, the Municipal Council offered FSI/TDR, which has been refused by the Petitioners, who are now claiming compensation under the 2013 Act. 8. The Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers, Nagpur (supra) considered the issue as to whether the modes of acquisition provided under Section 126(1)(a) and (b) of the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 (‘MRTP Act’) are at the choice of either of the parties or only of the acquiring authority. The Hon'ble Full Bench considered the statutory provisions and held in paragraph 17 as under: “17. While concurring with the above proposition, we would like to emphasize that the mode of acquisition of land under Section 126(1)(a) and (b) of the MRTP Act is by an “agreement”. The word agreement connotes offer and acceptance and signifies that the agreement is not an unilateral act but a bilateral act which is concluded with communication of acceptance of the offer. Thus, Acquisition of land reserved for public purpose under Section 126(1) (a) and (b) cannot be by any unilateral proposal of the Acquiring Authority to acquire the land with an offer of compensation or FSI/TDR. It is a mutual agreement between the Acquiring Authority and the land owner whereunder the land is acquired by the concerned authority by agreement either by paying an amount agreed to or by granting, in lieu of any agreed amount, FSI or TDR against the area of land surrendered free of cost, and free of all encumbrances. That being so, the modes of acquisition of land under Section 126(1)(a) and (b) of the MRTP Act, can be resorted to only when there is a consensus between the parties; when the parties are ad idem and not when there is dissension; not when they are at variance. That means these modes of acquisition are essentially at the Jamadar-SL 3 of 4 21-WP-1206-2025(C).doc choice of either of the parties and not just the acquiring authority, and are taken to their logical end when the consensus is arrived at between these parties. In the absence of such concord, the only option available to the Acquiring Authority is to take recourse to Section 126(1)(c) of the Act and make an application to the State Government under the provisions 2013 Act.” 9. Considering the enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Full Bench, in the event, there is a refusal on the part of the Petitioners to accept FSI/TDR, the only recourse available to the Municipal Council is under Section 126(1)(c) of the MRTP Act, that is, by making an application to the State Government for acquiring such land under the 2013 Act. 10. The issue is no longer res integra stands settled in view of decision of this Court in Shree Vinayak Builders and Developers, Nagpur (supra) and, in view thereof, the impugned notices dated 21st October, 2024 and 25th November, 2024 are hereby quashed and set aside. 11. The Respondent - Municipal Council is directed to adopt the course as set out in Section 126(1)(c) of the MRTP Act for acquisition of the Petitioners' properties for the purpose of road widening. 12. The Petitions are allowed in the above terms. [NEERAJ P. DHOTE, J.] [SHARMILA U. DESHMUKH, J.] Jamadar-SL 4 of 4