Advertisement
When should a housing society in Mumbai start considering re...
From GST on JDAs to SEBI’s REIT reclassification and the S...
Stay ahead in the world of real estate with our daily podcas...
Stay ahead in the world of real estate with our daily podcas...
The Bombay High Court has quashed a decision by a Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) officer to revoke a redevelopment no-objection certificate (NOC) after construction had progressed up to the tenth floor of a 16-storey redevelopment project in Tardeo, South Mumbai. The project, sanctioned under an NOC issued in 2019 for Satyabhama Building, had advanced with the developer, Kumar Agro Products Pvt Ltd, investing substantially in construction before the NOC was cancelled following a 2025 representation alleging altered ownership. The court, in hearings earlier this week, held that the officer acted beyond statutory authority and emphasised that ownership disputes must be resolved in civil courts, not through administrative revocation of redevelopment rights. The cancellation was withdrawn in open court and the NOC reinstated, with the bench warning officials to exercise caution and seek legal advice before issuing disruptive orders affecting ongoing real estate projects.
A division bench of the Bombay High Court on 24 February reprimanded a senior officer of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) for rescinding a redevelopment no-objection certificate (NOC) after the developer had completed ten floors of a sanctioned 16-floor building in Tardeo, South Mumbai. Advertisement
The dispute centres on Satyabhama Building, where MHADA, in September 2019, had granted a redevelopment NOC to Kumar Agro Products Pvt Ltd based on ownership details showing Samir and Vaibhav Shyamsundar Thakre as proprietors. Construction began subsequently, and the developer advanced work up to the 10th floor in reliance on the NOC and sanctioned plan.
In May 2025, legal counsel for Geetadevi Pratapsingh Jadhav approached the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), a MHADA wing, contending that mutation entries in the property records favouring the Thakres were incorrect and should be restored in the name of Pandurang Javji Choudhary, an original owner. Following this, the MHADA officer Milind Shambarkar cancelled the NOC, citing illegality in redevelopment permissions despite construction being well underway.
In hearings, the bench made clear that the unilateral cancellation effectively upended significant investment by the developer and undermined legal rights accruing from the valid NOC. Senior counsel for the developer, Vineet Naik, argued that exclusive ownership rights and redevelopment entitlements were already determined under a deed executed in 1968, and that the officer's cancellation intruded into domains reserved for civil courts to adjudicate.
The judges observed that a public official vested with statutory power has a duty to comprehensively examine all relevant factors and, where necessary, seek independent legal opinions before issuing orders that could cripple ongoing projects. They noted an "increasing tendency" of litigants seeking to influence administrative executives rather than approaching appropriate civil forums for property disputes.
Highlighting the severe prejudice and potential losses caused by such high-handed actions, the bench described the cancellation as exceeding the authority of the officer and violative of constitutional rights. When MHADA's advocate agreed in court to withdraw the cancellation, the bench quashed the contested order and effectively reinstated the original NOC, allowing the redevelopment to proceed.
While sparing the officer from financial penalty on this occasion, the court underscored that it would take a sterner view should similar procedural excesses recur in future cases involving statutory powers and real estate development rights.
The judgment reinforces judicial scrutiny of administrative interventions in urban redevelopment projects in central city precincts, where construction timelines and investment stakes are high and stakeholders depend on statutory clearances to ensure regulatory certainty.
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
