Advertisement
Private equity has played a significant role in shaping Indi...
In today’s real estate landscape, fitness is often treated...
In this episode of Prop Personalities, we sit down with Hars...
Luxury real estate is one of the most talked-about segments ...
Welcome to Prop Personalities by Prop News Time - a podcast ...
Bombay High Court has ruled that authorities cannot insist on obtaining a no-objection certificate (NOC) from defence establishments at a belated stage after construction has substantially progressed under approved plans. The court directed authorities to issue an occupancy certificate for two residential buildings near INS Trata in Worli, Mumbai, while holding that the late insistence on a defence NOC was arbitrary and legally unsustainable. The ruling came in response to a petition filed by Techno Freshworld LLP against stop-work notices and denial of occupancy certification by MHADA. The judgment is expected to have implications for redevelopment and real estate projects located near defence establishments, particularly in dense urban areas such as Mumbai.
Bombay High Court has held that authorities cannot belatedly insist on no-objection certificates from defence establishments for construction projects that have already progressed substantially in accordance with sanctioned plans and approvals granted by planning authorities. Advertisement
The ruling was delivered earlier this week by a bench comprising Justices G S Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe while hearing a petition filed by Techno Freshworld LLP, developer of the Prabhadevi Indraprastha Cooperative Housing Society project at Worli in central Mumbai.
The dispute concerned two residential buildings located near INS Trata, a naval establishment. According to the case records, the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) had issued stop-work notices in October 2025 on the grounds that the developer had not obtained a mandatory NOC from naval authorities. MHADA had also refused to grant an occupancy certificate for the buildings.
The court observed that insistence on defence-related NOCs must follow a fair, reasonable and legally sustainable approach. The bench stated that if security concerns genuinely existed, the required objections and legal processes should have been initiated at the beginning of the construction activity rather than after substantial progress had already been made.
The judges further noted that there could not be a casual approach in matters involving security concerns, particularly when planning authorities themselves had repeatedly issued commencement certificates permitting continuation of construction works over a period of time.
Referring to Article 300A of the Constitution, the court observed that the right to property could not be infringed in a manner not recognised by law. It held that the naval authorities’ insistence on an NOC in the present case was illegal, invalid and unjustified.
The bench also ruled that MHADA’s earlier decisions granting commencement certificates to the developer were lawful and valid. According to the judgment, the residential buildings were located beyond the prescribed restricted norms and therefore did not require a defence NOC.
The court declared the stop-work notices and refusal to issue occupancy certificates as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner informed the court that one of the buildings intended for rehabilitation of 72 original tenants had already been completed, while the second structure was nearing completion.
The bench additionally observed that several other buildings already existed in the vicinity of INS Trata without such NOCs and stated that defence authorities could not selectively impose the requirement on specific projects.
Source - PTI
5th Jun, 2025
25th May, 2023
11th May, 2023
27th Apr, 2023
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
