Bombay HC Upholds Jurisdiction of LARR Authority In MRTP Act Acquisitions

The Bombay High Court has ruled that reference proceedings arising from awards passed after 2014 must lie before the LARR Authority, even for acquisitions initiated under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966. The Bench held that while the right to seek enhancement is a substantive vested right, litigants possess no vested right to a specific forum, thereby validating the shift from civil courts to specialized authorities under the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Manish Pitale and Justice Shreeram V. Shirsat adjudicated cross-appeals filed by a private developer and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM). The litigation centered on the jurisdictional validity of an award passed by the Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Authority, Nagpur, and the subsequent quantum of compensation for a massive 48,897.60 sq. mtr. plot in Mumbai.

Key Takeaways

Forum Shift Validated
The Bombay High Court confirmed that the LARR Authority has exclusive jurisdiction under Section 64 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 for awards passed post-2014, even if the acquisition began under older statutes.

Substantive vs. Procedural Rights
Litigants have a vested right to seek a legal remedy (enhancement), but the choice of the specific forum (Court vs. Authority) is a procedural matter subject to legislative change.

Market Value Reckoning
In Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 acquisitions initiated before 2014, the date of the Section 126 notification remains the relevant date for determining market value under the new 2013 regime.

Weighted Average Methodology
Where acquired land spans multiple villages with different Ready Reckoner rates, courts must apply a weighted average formula rather than a blanket rate for the entire parcel.

LARR Authority Jurisdiction and Statutory Harmony

The MCGM challenged the LARR Authority’s award as a nullity, arguing that since the acquisition was initiated under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 read with the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the only remedy was a reference to the Civil Court under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Bombay High Court rejected this, noting that the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 was specifically amended in 2015 to substitute the 1894 Act with the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013.

The Bench expressed that “The source of the right to make the reference is the very right to receive compensation for compulsory acquisition. Therefore, the remedy of reference is inextricably linked with the determination of the quantum of compensation and the market value of the subject land. Since the determination of compensation... can only be under the provisions of the said Act of 2013, the exercise of examination of the correctness or otherwise thereof in a reference proceeding can only be under Section 64 of the Act of 2013.” It relied on Pune Municipal Corporation vs. Rajeev L. Sangtani and others to emphasize that the LARR Authority is equipped to examine whether the Collector followed the specific parameters of Sections 26 to 30 of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, a task for which a Reference Court under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 would lack the specific mandate.

Refining Market Value and Compensation Additions

On merits, the Court addressed the 'Ready Reckoner' vs. 'Sale Instances' method under Section 26. While the claimant urged the use of the 'Residual Land Value Technique' based on nearby flat sales, the Court found the evidence insufficient to satisfy the requirements of Madhya Pradesh Road Development Corporation vs. Vincent Daniel and others ( "(2025) 7 SCC 798": 2025 CaseBase(SC) 223). Consequently, it upheld the use of the Ready Reckoner method but corrected the LARR Authority's error in applying a blanket rate.

The Bombay High Court noted that the land was an ideal 'premium project' site, justifying additions for TDR (40%), Fungible FSI (25.2%), and Largeness (25%). It specifically held that the 'shadow of reservation' cannot be used by the state to depress market value, citing Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai vs. M/s. B. J. Development Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Ors..

Ratio

The right to seek a reference for enhancement of land compensation is a substantive vested right arising from the right to receive compensation itself. However, the forum for such a remedy is procedural. When an award is passed after the commencement of the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013, even in acquisitions initiated under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966 or Land Acquisition Act, 1894, the reference must be pursued under Section 64 before the LARR Authority to ensure the parameters of Sections 26-30 of the 2013 Act are correctly evaluated.

Background

The dispute arose from the acquisition of 48,897.60 sq. mtrs of land in Oshiwara and Ambivali for public purposes (gardens and roads). The acquisition was initiated in 2012 under the Maharashtra Regional and Town Planning Act, 1966, but the award was declared in 2017 after the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 took effect. The LARR Authority had enhanced the compensation to over ₹2,100 crores, which both the MCGM and the claimant challenged. The Bombay High Court, after analyzing the Right to Fair Compensation and Transparency in Land Acquisition, Rehabilitation and Resettlement Act, 2013 and precedents like Maria Cristina De Souza Sodder and others Vs. Amria Zurana Pereira Pinto and others ( "(1979) 1 SCC 92": 1978 CaseBase(SC) 254) and Custodian of Evacuee Property, Bangalore Vs. Khan Saheb Abdul Shukoor ( "AIR 1961 SC 1087": 1961 CaseBase(SC) 349), eventually reworked the compensation to ₹1,572 crore (total), resulting in an additional enhancement of approximately ₹1,061 crore over the original 2017 award.

Case Details:
Case No.: FIRST APPEAL NO. 268 OF 2021
Neutral Citation: 2026:BHC-AS:42117-DB
Case Title: S. N. Desai Hospitalities & Developers LLP, Mumbai vs. Deputy Collector (Land Acquisition Officer) No.7, Mumbai and another
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. C. M. Korde, Senior Advocate; Mr. F. E. De Vitre, Senior Advocate; Mr. Rohaan Cama, Advocate
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Girish Godbole, Senior Advocate; Mr. Shivraj Patne, Advocate; Mr. Dinesh J. Haldankar, AGP

Source: 2026 CaseBase(BOM) 6536