Issuing Sec 79-A Redevelopment Notices on 'Visual Inspection' Without Authority is a 'Colossal Misuse of Power': Bombay HC - 2025-07-28

Law, Judgments & Legal Insights.

Bombay High Court Slams MHADA for "Colossal Misuse of Power," Orders Inquiry into 935 Redevelopment Notices

Mumbai: In a scathing indictment of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), the Bombay High Court has described the issuance of 935 redevelopment notices under Section 79-A of the MHAD Act as a "colossal misuse of powers" and suggestive of a "racket/scam." A division bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Arif S. Doctor quashed the impugned notices and appointed a high-level committee to investigate the matter, highlighting a "brazen violation" of constitutional rights.

The Core of the Controversy

The case involved a batch of writ petitions filed by property owners and other stakeholders challenging notices issued by Executive Engineers of the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), a unit of MHADA. These notices, issued under Section 79-A of the MHAD Act, initiated a redevelopment process for cessed buildings, citing their dangerous condition.

The petitioners argued that these notices were issued without jurisdiction, as the essential legal prerequisite—a formal declaration of the building as "dangerous" by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) under Section 354 of the MMC Act or by a designated 'Competent Authority'—was absent in all cases.

Arguments in Court

Petitioners' Stance: - Senior Counsels Mr. N. V. Walawalkar and Mr. G. S. Godbole argued that the Executive Engineers lacked the legal authority to issue notices under Section 79-A. -

They pointed out that MHADA's own affidavit admitted that the 935 notices were issued merely on "visual inspection," a method that contravenes the statute. -

The lawyers contended that this "high-handed" action was part of a larger, motivated scheme to aid developers in taking over prime properties, creating a "fait accompli" for redevelopment.

MHADA's Defence: - Representing MHADA, Senior Counsel Mr. Janak Dwarkadas and Mr. P.G. Lad acknowledged that 935 notices were issued. -

They conceded that the notices were based on "visual inspection" but claimed they were issued "bonafidely" by qualified engineers. -

MHADA agreed to withdraw 46 notices issued after a previous High Court ruling ( Vimalnath Shelters ) had clarified the law. However, they proposed to keep the remaining 889 notices in abeyance, pending a challenge to that ruling.

Court's Stern Rebuke and Legal Reasoning

The High Court unequivocally rejected MHADA's position, terming the actions of its officials a "brazen non-compliance" with the law. The bench underscored that the power to act under Section 79-A is triggered only after a building is officially declared dangerous by the stipulated authorities.

The court cited its own recent judgments in Pramod Vishwanath Saraf and Vimalnath Shelters Pvt. Ltd. , which firmly established this jurisdictional requirement. The judgment stated:

"It is thus beyond one’s imagination as to how in such large number the impugned notices under Section 79-A could at all be issued... Thus, there is no manner of doubt... that such notices are issued purely at the ipse dixit of these officers and on a brazen non-compliance of the requirements of sub-section (1) of Section 79-A."

The court expressed deep concern over the motives behind this mass issuance of notices, observing:

"...surely the issue has gathered the colour of a racket/scam under a modus operandi of misusing the provisions of law, namely, Section 79A, to foster redevelopment of the property, obviously at the behest of unscrupulous persons with vested interests..."

The bench also invalidated a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the MHADA Vice-Chairman, deeming it an illegal attempt to create a parallel machinery that bypasses statutory mandates.

Final Order and Implications

Finding a severe impact on the constitutional rights to property (Article 300A) and equality (Article 14), the court refused to let the "large scale illegality" pass with a simple stay order.

The High Court ordered:

1. Judicial Inquiry: A committee headed by Former Bombay HC Judge, Shri. Justice J. P. Devadhar , and Retired Principal District Judge, Shri. Vilas D. Dongre , has been appointed to probe the issuance of all 935 notices and the role of the officials involved.

2. Withdrawal of Notices: MHADA must formally withdraw the 46 notices issued post the Vimalnath Shelters judgment.

3. Stay on Notices: The remaining 889 notices are to be kept in abeyance, and the specific notices challenged in the petitions are stayed.

4. Committee's Mandate: The committee will examine the entire record, hear all stakeholders, and submit a report to the court within six months.

This landmark judgment serves as a powerful check on administrative overreach and reinforces the principle that statutory powers must be exercised strictly within the confines of the law, protecting citizens from arbitrary state action.