1. Redevelopment of property — Dispute over developer consent, NOC conditions, and non-compliance with court-mandated timelines for completion. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 )
Back
Next 
2022 Supreme(SC) 353
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
L. NAGESWARA RAO, B.R. GAVAI, JJ.
Jagdish Mavji Tank (Dead) Through Lrs. & Ors. - Petitioners
Versus
Harresh Navnitrai Mehta & Ors. - Respondents
Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 442 of 2021 In Civil Appeal No. 9878 of 2016 With Miscellaneous Application No. 2028 of 2021 (in Civil Appeal No. 9878 of 2016), Miscellaneous Application No. 1838 of 2021 (in Civil Appeal No. 9878 of 2016)
Decided On : 19-04-2022
Important Points
The main legal point established in the judgment is the obligation of parties to comply with court directions and the serious consequences for non-compliance.
Subject
Property Law - Redevelopment Disputes
Act Referred
Development Control Regulations: Reg.33(7), Reg.33(9)
Headnote
Redevelopment - Property Dispute - Development Control Regulations 1991 - DCPR 2034 - NOC - Contempt Petition
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved the redevelopment of a property in Mumbai. The tenants filed a Writ Petition seeking permission for redevelopment, which was granted by the High Court. However, subsequent disputes arose regarding the consent of the tenants, conditions imposed by MHADA, and non-compliance by the developer.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found gross negligence on the part of the developer in not complying with the directions of the Court. It also noted that MHADA had created hurdles by imposing unreasonable conditions. The Court warned both the developer and MHADA of serious consequences for further non-compliance.
Issues: The main issues revolved around the consent of tenants, conditions imposed by MHADA, and non-compliance with court directions.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the developer and MHADA were both guilty of non-compliance and warned them of serious consequences for further disobedience. The undertaking filed by the developer was taken on record and was to be scrupulously complied with by all concerned.
Final Decision: The Contempt Petition was closed with liberty to the tenants/occupants to approach the Court in case of non-compliance. The other Miscellaneous Applications were disposed of.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates appeared:
For the parties : Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Amandeep Mehta, Adv. Mr. Aman Vachher, Adv. Mr. Dhiraj, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Anshu Vachher, Adv. Ms. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. P. N. Puri, AOR Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR. Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv. Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Anish R. Shah, AOR Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv. Mr. H.A. Pimple, Adv. Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv. Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv. Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv. Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR Mr. Rajendra D. Anbhule, AOR M/S. Vachher And Agrud, AOR
For the parties : Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mr. Amandeep Mehta, Adv. Mr. Aman Vachher, Adv. Mr. Dhiraj, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Anshu Vachher, Adv. Ms. Abhishek Chauhan, Adv. Mr. P. N. Puri, AOR Mr. Ashok Mathur, AOR Mr. Sachin Patil, AOR. Mr. Rahul Chitnis, Adv. Mr. Aaditya A. Pande, Adv. Mr. Geo Joseph, Adv. Ms. Shwetal Shepal, Adv Mr. Nishant Ramakantrao Katneshwarkar, AOR Mr. Anish R. Shah, AOR Mr. R.P. Bhatt, Sr. Adv. Mr. H.A. Pimple, Adv. Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv. Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv. Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv. Ms. Meera Mathur, AOR Mr. Rajendra D. Anbhule, AOR M/S. Vachher And Agrud, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Builder alleges delay due to unreasonable NOC conditions; authority claims land ownership and seeks to resume redevelopment following developer's failure to perform. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 )
3. Builder was negligent in delaying construction; authority created hurdles by imposing unreasonable conditions and claiming ownership of land previously superseded by court orders. (Para 12 , 14 , 15 )
4. Where a court order supersedes a joint venture and waives land costs, the authority cannot subsequently claim ownership to obstruct the developer's conveyance. (Para 14 )
5. Builder's undertaking to complete redevelopment taken on record; parties warned against further disobedience; contempt petition and miscellaneous applications disposed of. (Para 15 , 16 )
6. What is the effect of a court order superseding a joint venture agreement on land ownership and costs?
If a court determines that redevelopment is to be carried out solely by a developer and waives land cost payments, the authority cannot subsequently insist on ownership rights or execute separate lease deeds for portions of that land. (Para 14 )
7. What are the legal consequences of failing to adhere to a court-mandated redevelopment timeline?
Failure to commence or complete construction within a stipulated timeframe, especially after providing an undertaking to the court, constitutes gross negligence and may result in contempt of court proceedings. (Para 12 , 15 )
8. Can an authority impose plot subdivision conditions in an NOC after a court has clarified the terms of redevelopment?
No. Once a court clarifies that certain conditions in a No Objection Certificate are unreasonable or superseded, the authority cannot insist on those conditions, such as plot subdivision or separate property cards, to obstruct the project. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 15 )
JUDGMENT :
L. NAGESWARA RAO, J.
1. The dispute in this Contempt Petition and Miscellaneous Applications relates to the redevelopment of property situated at Plot No.231, T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai also known as Jariwala Chawls (“subject property”). As we are not concerned with the historical background, the antecedent facts are not dealt with in this judgment. The brief facts that are necessary for the adjudication of the dispute herein are as follows.
2. The tenants/occupants of the Jariwala Chawl filed a Writ Petition (Civil) No.2545 of 2006 in the High Court of Bombay for the following reliefs :
“(a) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to permit redevelopment of the said property known as Jariwala Chawl, situated at Plot No.231, T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai 400016 in accordance with the decision recorded in the Minutes of the meeting dated 2.8.2004;
(b) That this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue of Writ of Mandamus or any other writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing Respondent No.1 to forthwith issue the NOC for the purpose of redevelopment of the said property known as Jariwala Chawl, situated at Plot No.231, T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai 400016 in accordance with the Minutes of the meeting dated 2.8.2004;
(c) That Respondent No.6 be directed to forthwith commence redevelopment of the said property known as Jariwala Chawl, situated at Plot No.231, T.H. Kataria Marg, Mahim, Mumbai 400016 in accordance with the provisions of Development Regulations 33(7) and (9);”
3. On 21.01.2016, the High Court passed an order in the said Writ Petition to the following effect :
“(a) The Chief Officer of the MBRRB in the first instance will file an authenticated copy of the list of occupants in his custody in a sealed cover in this Court on or before 2nd February 2016;
(b) On or before 15th February 2016, both developers shall also file in sealed covers in this Court and simultaneously in sealed cover with the Chief Officer, MHADA a list of the occupants from whom each of them they claim to have obtained consents along with the necessary supporting documents;
(c) All the sealed covers shall be retained by the Prothonotary & Senior Master of this Court until further orders;
(d) Thereafter, by 29 th February 2016, the Chief Officer will fix a meeting at which all these documents will be opened and scrutinize. That would be done in the presence of the representatives of these developers;
(e) It is clarified that if the Chief Officer finds that the same occupants has given consent to both sides, then the consent so given will not be taken into account in computing the 70% requirement for either side;
(f) The Chief Officer will then assess which of the two Developers has authenticated and bona fide 70% consent. Further development will be carried out only by the developer having such confirmed consent;
(g) If neither Developer is able to establish such consent, further development will be carried out on a priority basis by MHADA itself through its own resources and for which it may appoint Architects, Surveyors, Engineers and Contractors (but not another developer);
(h) The decision of the Chief Officer will be final and binding on all concerned and will not be called into question;
(i) The entire exercise in terms of our directions will be completed by the end of 15 th April 2016 and conclusions reached by the Chief Officer shall be filed in a sealed cover with this Court.”
4. In compliance of the directions issued by the High Court, an exercise was conducted by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (for short “MHADA”) on 05.04.2016 to identify which developer/builder has the requisite 70% consent of the tenants/occupiers to carry out the redevelopment of the subject property. MHADA reported to the High Court that neither M/s. Raj Doshi Exports Pvt. Ltd. nor M/s. Matoshree Infrastructure Privat
