Mr. Rohatgi, the landowner signed the LOI, Undertaking, and Maintenance Agreement specifically stating that it would not claim any amenity TDR. These are commercial documents signed by a corporate developer. Why should the landowner not be bound by its own agreement?

My Lord, the landowner signed these documents under economic duress. The Corporation presented the condition of not claiming additional TDR as a pre-requisite for receiving TDR for the land itself. The landowner's land had been reserved for a public purpose since 1994. It had limited options. The Corporation used its dominant bargaining power to impose an illegal condition. This Court in Godrej & Boyce I specifically held that such conditions are void. The Court held that 'the mutual rights and obligations subject to which the landowner may offer to surrender the designated plot... are enumerated in detail in the statutory provisions. Beyond those conditions there can be no negotiations for surrender of the land, particularly in derogation to the landowner's statutory rights.' A contract cannot override a statute. The agreement is void ab initio.

The landowner enjoyed the benefit of maintaining the garden for 14 years. Is that not sufficient consideration for the waiver? Why should the landowner get both the benefit of maintenance and additional TDR?

My Lord, the maintenance of the garden was not consideration for the waiver; it was a separate arrangement. The Corporation itself admitted in its counter-affidavit before the High Court that 'the entitlement of TDR and giving the garden on adoption basis are two separate issues forming parts of two different transactions one having nothing to do with others.' The maintenance agreement was entered into after the land was already surrendered. The landowner had already developed the garden at its own cost. The right to additional TDR accrued at that time. The maintenance agreement was a separate arrangement for the upkeep of the garden. It cannot be said to be consideration for the waiver of a statutory right that had already accrued.

The delay of 17 years is substantial. How do you respond to the Corporation's argument that the claim is barred by laches?

My Lord, in Kukreja Construction, this Court held that delay and laches cannot defeat a claim for statutory compensation. The Court observed that 'once the compensation is determined in the form of FSI/TDR, the same is payable even in the absence of there being any representation or request being made. In fact, a duty is cast on the State to pay compensation to the land losers as otherwise there would be a breach of Article 300-A of the Constitution.' The Corporation has not shown any prejudice caused by the delay. No third-party rights have been created. The land was already surrendered. The garden was already developed. The Corporation has not changed its position to its detriment. The claim is not barred by laches.

The Lokayukta found that the garden was being used as a playground for the elite class and the common man was not given access. The landowner used the garden to advertise its own property project. Is that an 'amenity' within the meaning of the MRTP Act?

My Lord, the Corporation never raised this argument before. It was not in the rejection order dated 5 November 2019. It was not in the counter-affidavit before the High Court. This is a new argument raised for the first time before this Court. Moreover, Section 2(2) of the MRTP Act defines 'amenity' to include 'gardens' — there is no qualification that the garden must be accessible to the public or must not be used for commercial purposes. The definition is based on the nature of the development, not on its use. The Corporation itself certified the development of the garden and made it a pre-requisite for the grant of TDR. It cannot now argue that the same garden is not an amenity.

For RespondentCivil Premium

Statutory Right to Additional TDR Cannot Be Waived or Barred by Delay — (2026) INSC 517

The right to additional amenity TDR under Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act is a statutory right that is a manifestation of Article 300A.

Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation v. Vijay Nagar Apartments — (2026) INSC 517

Core Argument

The right to additional amenity TDR under Section 126(1)(b) of the MRTP Act is a statutory right that is a manifestation of Article 300A. It cannot be waived by agreement, especially when the condition was imposed as a pre-requisite under unequal bargaining power. The claim is not barred by delay because compensation is a continuing cause of action and the State has a duty to pay under Article 300A.

Key Precedents

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. State of Maharashtra (2009) 5 SCC 24 — Held that no conditions beyond those in the statute can be imposed; the landowner cannot be made to waive statutory rights; the mutual rights and obligations are enumerated in the statute.
Kukreja Construction Company v. State of Maharashtra (2024) 14 SCC 594 — Held that compensation is payable without a representation; delay and laches do not bar claims for statutory compensation; a duty is cast on the State under Article 300A.
Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Municipal Corpn. of Greater Mumbai (2023) 15 SCC 110 — Held that when the law is unclear, the right to claim additional TDR is in suspended animation; waiting does not amount to abandonment.
Kolkata Municipal Corpn. v. Bimal Kumar Shah (2024) 10 SCC 533 — Held that Article 300A includes the right to fair compensation; the State has a duty to pay proactively.

This framework covers the complete step-by-step argument structure, opening submissions, key precedents to cite, how to distinguish adverse cases, and the exact prayer to draft. Subscribe to access the full courtroom argument framework with precedent mapping...

Premium Argument FrameworkSubscribers Only

Subscribe to unlock the full argument structure — precedent mapping, bench questions, opposition rebuttals, and court-ready prayer clauses.

Already subscribed? Sign in

Argument SimulatorPaid Plans Only

BENCH QUESTION

What distinguishes this case from earlier precedents on the same point?

OPPOSITION COUNTER

The ratio in this case was expressly limited to its facts by the bench itself...

Unlock the Argument Simulator

4 probable bench questions with suggested answers.
4 opposition counters with rebuttal strategies.

Available on Monthly, Annual, 2-Year & 3-Year plans.

Subscribe to Unlock →

Simulated Content — Not Legal Advice: This courtroom argument and all associated bench questions, judicial responses, and simulator outputs are entirely simulated and hypothetical, created for educational and professional training purposes only. They do not represent actual court proceedings, real judicial opinions, or the positions of any judge or party. Do not cite or use this content in any court, tribunal, or legal proceeding without independent verification and adaptation by a qualified advocate. © 2026 Agarawal Associates — apexdigest.in