IMPORTANT POINT
The court established that unauthorized constructions lacking necessary permissions are illegal, and parties claiming rights through such constructions cannot assert legal entitlements, especially when the original developer's rights have been terminated.

JUDGMENT/ORDER

G.S.PATEL J. - Heard. Since there are Affidavits in Reply and Rejoinders, Rule, by consent returnable forthwith.

2. The two Petitioners seek protection in respect of two premises. Specifically, the relief sought is directed against an order dtd. 5/2/2021 by the 1st and 2nd Respondent, respectively the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority ("MHADA") and its vice president or CEO. The 1st Petitioner ("Gandhi") claims to be the owner of Shop No. C-05. The 2nd Petitioner claims to be the owner of Shop No. C-01. Gandhi's claimed shop C-05 has already been demolished. Both shops are said to be in Building No. 20-C.

3. MHADA owns a large tract of land of over 2,22,000 sq mtr at Mouje Poisar, Taluka Borivali, known as Samata Nagar. This is referred to in some of the filings as 'the larger property'. Between 1980 and 1985, MHADA constructed some 166 buildings on this larger property and periodically allotted residential premises in these buildings to various persons under different schemes. Over time, as many as 74 cooperative societies came to be formed. There were six other entities which were government or semi-government authorities. Of these 74 cooperative societies, 73 societies and one government entity came together to form the Samata Nagar Cooperative Society Union Limited as an apex society.

4. By 1995, most of these buildings had started showing structural distress. There were cracks on the terraces and outer walls. The members of the Samata Nagar Union passed general body resolutions in their respective general body meetings, agreeing to a redevelopment project, and conferring and confirming power on the Union to appoint a developer. The Samata Nagar Union submitted a proposal for redevelopment of the entire plot to MHADA under the then applicable DC Regulation 33(5) of the Development Control Regulations 1991.

5. On 10/11/1996, an entity with an extraordinary and perhaps prescient name of Truly Creative Developers Private Limited ("Truly Creative") was appointed to develop these 166 buildings.

6. On 12/12/1996, MHADA issued a letter of offer to the Samata Nagar Union for redevelopment of nine member societies.

7. There was an Agreement of 31/1/1998 between the Union and the Truly Creative. Sometime around 2005, Truly Creative joined hands and formed a joint venture with another entity, one with an equally endearing name: Labh Shubh Developers Private Limited ("LSD"). This joint venture contemplated that Truly Creative would construct the rehab buildings with financial assistance from LSD, while LSD was to undertake construction of the free sale component.

8. Many things remain unclear about what Truly Creative precisely did towards redevelopment, but there is no doubt that Truly Creative did not fulfil its obligations under the 1996 letter of offer, and that committed various defaults including defaulting in paying premium to MHADA. The result was that Truly Creative could not obtain a No Objection Certificate ("NOC") from MHADA. This was a pre-requisite for any further development/re- development permission. For want of this NOC, Truly Creative did not get the necessary permissions from the planning authority, the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai ("MCGM").

9. Despite not having an NOC from MHADA or the necessary approvals from the MCGM, Truly Creative continued illegally and unauthorisedly to construct proposed Buildings Nos. 19 (Wings 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D'), Building No. 20 ( with components including 20C, in which the subject premises are located), Building No. 26, Building No. 2 and two other structures named T-1 and T-6 (1 to 4).

10. Truly Creative lived up to its name. It did not stop at this illegal construction. It continued to sell premises in these constructions in the open market to third party purchasers, leaving out entirely the allottees of MHADA. Two of these third-party purchasers from Truly Creative were the alleged predecessors-in- title of the present Petitioners.

11. Pausing brie