Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Bom) 6719
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
A. S. Gadkari, Kamal Khata, JJ
LAKAHANI HOUSING CORPORTATION PRIVATE LIMITED – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA THROUGH THE GOVERNMENT PLEADER – Respondent
WP/2167/2024
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 are invalid post-formation of cooperative societies, and the majority's consent is necessary for redevelopment under applicable regulations.
Headnote:(A) Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034 - Regulation 33(9) - Writ of Certiorari - Petitioners challenged Cabinet Decision and Government Resolution appointing MHADA for redevelopment of land occupied by former refugees - Petitioners claimed vested rights based on individual agreements with residents - Court found no merit in Petitioners' claims as they lacked locus standi and failed to produce valid documents - Majority of residents supported MHADA's redevelopment plan - Petition dismissed. (Paras 12, 16, 26)
(B) Locus Standi - Petitioners lacked standing to challenge the Government Resolution as they did not represent the majority of residents and their agreements were unregistered and invalid. (Paras 8.2, 9.1, 22)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. sizeable plot of land (Para 1) |
| 2. government intervention for redevelopment (Para 2 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. petitioners claim vested rights (Para 3) |
| 4. cabinet decision dated 14th february 2024 (Para 4) |
| 5. mhada's authority to redevelop (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 6. petitioners lack locus standi (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 7. petition dismissed (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
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 Rules 42 and 33 framed under Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act , 1
