In 2018, the Bombay High Court had rejected several builders' pleas for compensation from the BMC for land surrendered for public amenities, citing delay and laches. However, the Supreme Court bench, consisting of Justices B. V. Nagarathna and N. K. Singh, held that the High Court was incorrect in dismissing the writ petitions on these grounds. The Supreme Court invoked principles established in its 2009 decision related to Godrej & Boyce and state land acquisition schemes. The Supreme Court allowed more than half a dozen appeals filed by Kukreja Constructions and others against part of the High Court’s order from 18 December 2018. The court directed the BMC to expeditiously review the cases and, within a maximum of three months, release the additional buildable space and Transferable Development Rights (TDR) to the builders. In one instance, the TDR to be allocated to a builder exceeded 6,000 sq m. Lawyers estimated that the Supreme Court’s verdict would require the BMC to extend transferable development rights worth approximately Rs 5 billion cumulatively. The BMC had previously filed three appeals against a portion of the 2018 High Court judgment, which had instructed it to compensate several landowners and builders with additional TDR ranging from 75% to 100%. The Supreme Court found no merit in the BMC's appeals and dismissed them, affirming that the High Court’s decision was just and proper. Petitioners before both the High Court and the Supreme Court included prominent landholders such as Byramjee Jeejeebhoy, an HUF, Jitendra Sheth, and others. The landowners, represented by leading law firms and top counsel including Pravin Samdani, Amar Dave, Samit Shukla, Mahesh Agarwal, and Shikhil Suri, argued that they had constructed the roads at their own expense and surrendered the land to the BMC. They contended that despite being legally entitled to fair compensation, they had received nothing in return, a right guaranteed under Article 300-A of the Constitution. The landowners also argued that denying compensation would amount to usurping citizens' property without legal authority and in violation of constitutional rights. They pointed out that regulations stipulated that if a landowner also developed the amenity, they were eligible for additional compensatory TDR. The state had cited a November 2016 notification that amended the law to deny such compensation. Samdani argued that an amendment could not strip the owner of their constitutionally guaranteed right to compensation, particularly when a previous law had conferred such entitlement.