Issuance of notices under Section 79-A of the Maharashtra Housing Act without jurisdiction constitutes a misuse of powers, emphasizing statutory compliance for redevelopment decisions.

JUDGMENT :

G.S. KULKARNI, J.

1. This is a batch of petitions which assail notices issued by the Executive Engineer(s) of respondent No.2 - Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (for short “Board”) which is a statutory unit of respondent No.1-Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (for short “MHADA”).

2. As the issues arisen in all these proceedings are common, which relate to the legality of the notices issued under Section 79-A of the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act, 1976 (for short “MHAD Act”), we do not intend to delve on the facts of each and every proceeding. For convenience, wherever necessary we refer to the facts in the lead petition, Writ Petition (L) No. 34771 of 2024 (Javed Abdul Rahim Attar & Ors. Vs. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority & Ors.).

3. At the outset, we may observe that the issue as raised in the present petitions, is of a colossal misuse of the powers by the concerned officials of the Board, in issuance of host of notices under Section 79-A of the MHAD Act, which has seriously prejudiced and/or breached the Constitutional and the legal rights of the stakeholders, namely, of the owners of the buildings, as also in appropriate cases the tenants of the buildings. The reason being that Section 79- A of the MHAD Act which was introduced by the Amendment Act No.48 of 2022 with effect from 2 December 2022 in the circumstances as set out in Sub- section (1) thereof, is a provision which enables the rights of redevelopment of a building, on the premise that the building is declared to be dangerous. However, whether a building is dangerous or not, cannot be the ipse dixit of the concerned officers, as such factum is required to be decided only in the manner the provision ordains. This is precisely the issue in the present proceedings, namely, the petitioners’ contention of the Executive Engineer(s) of the MHADA/Board in the absence of any jurisdiction being available with them under sub-section (1) of Section 79-A, misusing and/or abusing such provision and highhandedly issuing notices to hundreds of buildings.

4. On such serious plea being urged before us of a patent abuse of powers vested with such officials of the Board, we inquired with Mr. Lad, learned Counsel for the Board as to how many such notices were issued, as the properties to which the notices are issued, are situated in the prime areas in the city of Mumbai, having very high monetary potential in terms of its redevelopment. Mr. Lad informed the Court that 935 notices were issued by different Executive Engineers. Many of these Executive Engineers singularly have issued hundreds of such notices in a short span against different properties. The pattern is quite unique. It appears to be quite clear that these notices are issued wholly without jurisdiction, as the further discussion would reveal.

5. We may also observe that the petitioners’ case being of an extreme, unfortunate and a blatant abuse of the powers by these officers. As a Constitutional Court, we would be failing in our duty, if we do not view the matter in the perspective of what the rule of law would mandate us to do in these circumstances, as also keeping in view the paramount faith of the litigants in the rule of law, the process of the Court and the justice delivery system in protecting their legitimate expectation that public officials need to act in a lawful manner and not abuse the powers vested in them. It is such faith of the citizens which, in our opinion, would be the paramo