The main legal point established in the judgment is that the decision of the Corporation to permit redevelopment of the entire plot under D.C.R. 33(7) by the developer appointed by the municipal tenants was not justified and was quashed by the court.

J.P.DEVADHAR, J.-

1. Where some of the buildings constructed prior to 1940 on a large municipal plot are occupied by the tenants, whether the Municipal Corporation would be justified in permitting the developer appointed by the tenants to redevelop the entire plot under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 instead of permitting redevelopment either by subdividing the plot or developing the plot under Regulation 33(9) is the question raised in this petition.

2. The dispute in the present case relates to the redevelopment of a large plot belonging to the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (‘Corporation’ for short) admeasuring 12130.07 sq. mtrs. bearing C.S. No.17/47 (part) of Lower Parel Division situated at Dr. E.Moses Road, Worli Naka, G/South Ward, Mumbai - 400 018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plot in question’).

3. On the plot in question, the Corporation had constructed several buildings prior to 1940, some of which are occupied by the municipal tenants and the remaining buildings are used for housing the Municipal Conservancy staff. Subsequently in the year 1959, a building for municipal school has also been constructed by the Corporation on the plot in question. Some other commercial structures have also been constructed on the said plot during the period from 1960 to 1/1/1995.

4. As the buildings constructed prior to 1940, have become dilapidated and the Corporation has not taken any steps for reconstruction of the said buildings, the municipal tenants as well as the municipal conservancy staff have formed independent co-operative societies with a view to redevelop their dilapidated buildings. Respondent No.10 society is formed by the municipal tenants and Respondent No.8 and 9 societies are formed by the municipal conservancy staff.

5. Since the plot in question is a large plot, the developer appointed by the municipal tenants had sought subdivision of the said plot and N.O.C. for redevelopment of the subdivided plot on which buildings occupied by the municipal tenants are existing. The petitioners representing the municipal employees had also applied for redevelopment of the adjoining subdivided plot on which the buildings occupied by the municipal employees are existing. The municipal authorities had approved the subdivision of the plot in question and granted N.O.C. to the developer appointed by the municipal tenants to redevelop the subdivided plot. However, by the impugned decision dated 24/8/2007. the Improvement Committee of the Corporation decided to allow the Respondent No.6, developer appointed by the municipal tenants to redevelop the entire plot in question. Challenging the above order, the present petition is filed. During the pendency of the petition, the Corporation by the impugned order dated 22/1/2008 rejected the proposal submitted by the Architect of the Petitioner-developer. The writ petition has been amended to challenge the said order dated 22-1-2008.

6. Regulation 33(7) and 33(9) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Bombay, 1991 (‘DCR 1991’ for short) published by the State Government to the extent relevant herein read thus:-

33(7) Reconstruction or redevelopment of cessed buildings in the Island City by Co-operative Housing Societies or of old Corporation buildings belonging to the Corporation. -- For reconstruction / redevelopment to be undertaken by Co-operative Housing Societies of existing tenants or by Co-operative Housing Societies of Landlords and/or Occupiers of a cessed buildings of ‘A’ category in Island City, which attracts the provisions of MHADA Act, 1976 and for reconstruction / redevelopment of the buildings of Corporation constructed prior to 1940, the FSI shall be 2.5 on the gross plot area or the FSI required for Re