Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6718
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A. S. Gadkari, Kamal Khata, JJ
LAKAHANI HOUSING CORPORTATION PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER AND 22 ORS. – Respondent
IAL/25969/2024
Mr. Dinyar Madon, Senior Advocate, a/w Adv. Mutahhar Khan, Adv. Sachi Lodha, Ms. Ferzana Behramkamdin, Adv. Kalyani Deshmukh, Adv. Aashi Sirohiwalla i/by FZB Associates for the Petitioner. Ms. Anupamaa Pawar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.1-State. Dr. Birendra Saraf, Advocate General, a/w Adv. P.G. Lad, Adv. Aparna Kalathil, Adv. Sayli Apte and Adv. Anjali Maskar for Respondent No.3-MHADA. Dr. Abhinav Chandrachud, a/w Adv. Idris Vohra and Adv. Sakshi Agarwal, i/by Adv. Bipin Joshi for Respondent Nos.5 to 10, 12 to 20 and 23. Mr. M.S. Ahmed, a/w Mr. A.S. Khan for Respondent No.21.
The court ruled that individual agreements with residents prior to society formation do not confer rights to challenge redevelopment decisions, emphasizing the necessity of obtaining resolutions from the societies.
Headnote:(A) Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034 - Regulation 33(9) - Writ of Certiorari - Petitioners sought to set aside Cabinet Decision and Government Resolution for redevelopment of land - Petitioners claimed vested rights based on agreements with individual members prior to society formation - Court found no merit in Petitioners' claims, emphasizing the need for resolutions from newly formed societies. (Paras 12, 18, 26)
(B) Locus Standi - Petitioners lacked locus to challenge MHADA's authority to issue e-Tender for redevelopment, as they failed to secure necessary consents from societies. (Paras 8, 12, 26)
(C) Clean Hands Doctrine - Court noted Petitioners did not approach with clean hands, presenting misleading information regarding consents and financial disbursements. (Paras 22, 25)
Facts of the case:
The Petitioners sought to challenge a Cabinet Decision and Government Resolution appointing MHADA as the planning authority for redevelopment of dilapidated buildings in Sion Koliwada, claiming vested rights based on individual agreements with residents. (Paras 3, 4, 7)
Findings of Court:
The Petition was dismissed as the Petitioners lacked locus and failed to provide sufficient evidence of their claims, with the court emphasizing the need for proper resolutions from the societies. (Paras 26, 27)
Issues: Whether the Petitioners had the right to challenge the redevelopment process initiated by MHADA and if they had secured valid consents from the societies. (Paras 12, 18)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the Petitioners could not claim rights over the redevelopment without proper consent from the newly formed societies, and their misleading claims undermined their position. (Paras 18, 22)
Result: Petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. petitioners sought to challenge (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. cabinet decision dated (Para 4) |
| 3. government resolution issued (Para 5) |
| 4. gr specifies mhada (Para 6) |
| 5. mr. madon learned senior counsel (Para 7) |
| 6. advocate general representing mhada (Para 8) |
| 7. dr. chandrachud represented (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 8. the petition is not maintainable (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 9. the petitioners have overlooked (Para 20) |
| 10. we make no comment (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
JUDGMENT (Per : Kamal Khata, J) :-
1) In the heart of Mumbai, in Sion Koliwada, lies a sizeable plot of land by Mumbai standards, measuring 45,308.58 square meters (approximately 11.20 acres), commonly known as Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar ("the subject land"). This land once held 25 buildings that housed around 1,200 occupants, originally refugees from Pakistan. Due to the dilapidated condition of these buildings, the BMC demolished them between 2019 and 2022. Consequently, the land has remained vacant for over five years.
2) The residents sought Government intervention for the redevelopment of the property, which led to a Cabinet Decision and the issuance of a Government Resolution to that effect. MHADA was appointed as the planning authority responsible for overseeing the redevelopment of the subject land. Subsequently, MHADA issued an e-Tender to select a Construction and Development Agency (C & D A) for the redevelopment project.
3) Through this Petition, the Petitioners, Lakhani Housing Developers Private Limited ("Lakhani"), who are developers claiming vested rights in the subject land, seek a Writ of Certiorari to set aside the Cabinet Decision, the Government Resolution, and the e-Tender issued by MHADA for the redevelopment of the subject land.
Brief facts:
4) By a Cabinet Decision dated 14th February 2024, the State of Maharashtra (Respondent No.1) appointed MHADA as the special planning authority to redevelop the 25 buildings at the Guru Teg Bahadur Nagar Cooperative Society in Sion Koliwada, Mumbai. The original decision, in Marathi, is annexed at page 56, with an English translation provided at page 62. The relevant portion of the decision is available in Marathi on page 60 and is extracted below:
5) A Government Resolution (GR) was subsequently issued on 23rd February 2024, recording this decision. The original GR, in Marathi, is annexed at page 75, with an English translation on page 80. Since it is under challenge, the relevant portion from page 76 in Marathi is extracted below:
6) The GR specifies that MHADA will implement the redevelopment project under Regulation 33(9) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai , 2034 (DCPR), by appointing a Construction and Development Agency (C & D A) through a tender process as provided in the DCPR. The GR requires at least 51% of each building's residents, or 60% of the total tenants/residents across all buildings, to consent to the redevelopment. Additionally, it mandates that the C & D A must provide MHADA with proof of the right to develop at least 70% of the area, along with irrevocable consents from residents agreeing to MHADA's redevelopment plans, before the project can proceed.
6.1) The GR further stipulates that the tender documents must specify, as a minimum requirement, that the selected C & D A must build and provide rehabilitation units free of charge, offer the highest housing stock/premium to MHADA, and meet all financial and physical conditions specified in the tender.
7) Mr. Madon learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioners submitted that initially the land belonged to the President of India. Punjabi and Sindhi refugees who proposed to settle in Mumbai, after the partition, were sold 1200 residential tenements in these 25 buildings. Sanad’s were executed in favour of some of the purchasers between the period 1954 and 1987. The conveyances were executed by the President of India in favour of the purchasers in accordance with the provisions of
