Back
2025 Supreme(SC) 635
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SUDHANSHU DHULIA, K. VINOD CHANDRAN, JJ.
Lakhani Housing Corporation Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. – Appellants
Versus
The State of Maharasthra & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 5216 of 2025 (@ Special Leave Petition (C) No. 29118 of 2024)
Decided On : 16-04-2025
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Mukul Rohatgi, Sr. Adv. Mr. C. A. Sundaram, Sr. Adv. Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Sr. Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Mr. Harshit Khanduja, Adv. Ms. Shreya Arora, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Rajesh Srivastava, AOR Mr. Bipin Joshi, Adv. Mr. Yash Vardhan Singh, Adv. Mr. Chander Shekhar Ashri, AOR Mr. Chirag M. Shroff, AOR Mrs. Mahima C Shroff, Adv. Mr. Anand Thumbayil, Adv. Mr. Abhikalp Pratap Singh, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Ms. Aagam Kaur, Adv. Mr. Kartikey, Adv. Ms. Gayatri Agarwal, Adv. Ms. Shubhangi Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Utkarsh Kumar, Adv.
The court ruled that unregistered agreements do not confer enforceable rights, allowing MHADA to intervene in redevelopment under public interest and existing regulations.
Headnote:(A) Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority Act, 1976 - Regulation 33(9) - Jurisdiction of MHADA - E-tender issued by MHADA for redevelopment of privately owned land challenged - Appellants claimed contractual rights over redevelopment agreements with residents - High Court dismissed writ petition, finding it not maintainable and agreements unregistered - Court emphasized that MHADA's intervention was justified under public interest and existing regulations. (Paras 2, 6, 10, 20)
(B) Contractual Rights - The court ruled that the appellants failed to establish enforceable rights due to unregistered agreements and lack of compliance with redevelopment terms, thus lacking locus standi to challenge MHADA's e-tender. (Paras 19, 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellants sought to challenge the e-tender issued by MHADA for redevelopment of land previously housing 1200 families, claiming they had agreements with residents for redevelopment. The High Court found the writ petition not maintainable as the agreements were unregistered and the government had acted on residents' requests for redevelopment.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the High Court's dismissal of the writ petition, affirming that MHADA's actions were within jurisdiction and in public interest, given the lack of valid contracts from the appellants.
Issues: The main issues included the jurisdiction of MHADA to intervene in redevelopment and the validity of the appellants' claimed contractual rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the appellants lacked enforceable rights due to unregistered agreements and that MHADA's intervention was justified under the DCPR, emphasizing the need for public interest in redevelopment.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
K. VINOD CHANDRAN, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. Whether the e-tender issued by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority1[MHADA] in pursuance of a Cabinet decision, followed up with a government resolution, interferes with the contractual rights of the appellants is the question arising in the present appeal.
3. In a writ petition filed by the appellants before the High Court of Bombay, initially, stay was granted on the fundamental question of jurisdiction of MHADA to proceed with a cluster redevelopment in a land having an extent of approximately 11.20 acres, commonly known as ‘Guru Tegh Bahadur Nagar’ (subject land, herein after) which is not owned by the State and lies as a free hold. The Division Bench of the High Court finally dismissed the writ petition which judgment is impugned in the present appeal.
4. On the undisputed facts, the High Court of Bombay noticed that the land once had 25 buildings standing on it, housing around 1200 families, the allotment having been originally made to the refugees from Pakistan. The buildings were 62 to 66 years’ old, standing in an extremely dilapidated condition; classified as Category C-1 by the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation2[The BMC], which stood demolished in the year 2019 after proper notices were issued and proceedings taken under the BMC Act.
5. The appellants had approached the residents in the said building for redevelopment of the land and as per their claim, obtained agreements for redevelopment from individual members. The appellants had also spent around Rs.17.31 Crores in pursuing the initial steps for redevelopment. However, the redevelopment project did not fructify, according to the appellants, since the residents did not have proper title deeds despite Sanads being executed in their favour, between 1954 and 1987. It was the appellants who took steps to ensure proper conveyances, executed by the President of India, to be issued in favour of the families; the absence of which was the only reason for the development of land having not been taken up. It was contended that the MHADA could not have intervened with an e-tender based on the government resolutions; the Government having no rights over the land since the property was privately owned and did not belong to the State.
6. The High Court found that the writ petition is not maintainable, since, if at all, the recourse of the petitioner was against the individuals who were the residents in the buildings demolished, with whom they had agreements. It was also found that the agreements claimed to have been executed by the individual residents were not registered and that, in any case, it would have to be established before a Civil Court. The Government decision to entrust MHADA with the development, eventually was on the request made by the majority of the residents who agreed to the development through the government nodal agency. The petitioners claimed an expenditure of Rs.17 Crores out of which Rs.9.35 Crores, expended as corpus funds to various occupants. On an examination of the development agreement, it was found that this would only indicate that the corpus fund was disbursed to only 267 occupants while the total residents came to 1200. The High Court found that the intention of the petitioner was to mislead the Court, with half-truths, partial truths and deliberate falsehood, that too in a writ petition which was not maintainable . The writ petition stood dismissed.
7. Before us, Mr. C. A. Sundaram, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant pointed out that the nature of lands subjected to development are categorised as free-hold, government owned properties and slums which fall under the Slum Regulatory Authority and MHADA. Regulation 33(9) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 20343[The DCPR] deals with the development of such lands and in so far as privately owned lands, when the majority of the residents enter into a development agreement with a private develope
