2026 D : ig B ita H lly C-OS:717-DB 4-WP-814-2023.DOC signed by KAWRE KAWRE KIRAN KIRAN KALYAN KALYANDate:

2026.01.13

11:56:47 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY +0530 ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 814 OF 2023 Suresh Maganlal Jain & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Maharashtra Housing &

Area Development Authority & Ors. ...Respondents WITH WRIT PETITION NO. 2929 OF 2023 Dilipkumar Nenmal Jain & Ors. ...Petitioners Versus Maharashtra Housing &

Area Development Authority & Ors. ...Respondents _________

Mr. Bhavik Lalan i/b L. D. Shah & Co., for Petitioner in WP No.814 of 2023.

Mr. V. Y. Sanglikar a/w Archana Gaware and Payal Cheeda for Petitioner in WP No.2929 of 2023.

Mr. P. G. Lad a/w Hassan Khan and Sayali Apte for MHADA - Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w Bharatkumar Jain a/w Raj Adhia i/b Economic Laws Practice for Respondent No.5.

__________

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &

AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE: 08 JANUARY 2026 P.C.

1. Both the petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India espouse a similar cause of action. The prayers as made in the petition are also quite similar and hence, these petitions are disposed of by this common order.

2. The prayers in Writ Petition No.814 of 2023 reads thus:

“a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 directing them to revoke and cancel the NOC dated 11.11.2013 issued to the Respondent No.5 for flouting the conditions stipulated therein and for total inaction of the Respondent No.5;”

3. The prayers as made in the second Writ Petition being No.2929 of 2023 reads thus:

a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate Writ, direction or order to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2 directing them to revoke and cancel the NOC dated 11.11.2013 issued to the Respondent No.5 for flouting the conditions stipulated therein and for total inaction of the Respondent No.5;”

4. We find from the record that the proceedings were heard on the earlier occasion, and more particularly, on 25 July 2025 when a substantive order came to be passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court of which one of us (G. S.

Kulkarni, J.) was a member. The said order reads thus:

“1. We have heard Mr. Sanglikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lad, learned counsel for the respondent/MHADA and Mr. Jain, learned counsel for respondent no. 5-landlord.

2. The situation is peculiar insofar as the building on land CS No. 1/2299 and 2311 has already been demolished. The tenants who are stated to be 45 in numbers are out of their premises since the year 2013. The adjoining land, namely, CS No. 2299 also has a building which is of the ownership of respondent no. 5. The said building is partly demolished and redevelopment work is in progress, namely, it has only come upto the plinth level.

3. On such backdrop, today the concern of the petitioners is that the development needs to be taken forward by respondent no. 5. The petitioners have serious grievance in regard to the intentions of respondent no. 5 for undertaking the redevelopment, as according to them, nothing has happened insofar as their building is concerned, which is subject matter of property CS No. 1/2299 and 2311. We are informed by learned counsel for respondent no. 5 that recently a “No objection” granted by MHADA for redevelopment of the property CS 1/2299 and 2311 with which the petitioners are concerned, has been cancelled by the MHADA.

4. During the course of arguments, we are informed by learned counsel for respondent no. 5 that respondent no. 5 is keen to undertake the redevelopment and in fact the intention is to undertake joint development of property CS No. 1/2299 and 2311 and property CS No. 2299 and in that regard, an application was made far back to the Chief Officer of Mumbai Building Reconstruction and Repair Board (MBRRB) dated 13 June 2023, a copy of which is placed on record . Also a copy of the same is fu