SBI Term Loan: RLLR: 8.15 | 7.25% - 8.45%
Canara Bank: RLLR: 8 | 7.15% - 10%
ICICI Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.5% - 9.65%
Punjab & Sind Bank: RLLR: 7.3 | 7.3% - 10.7%
Bank of Baroda: RLLR: 7.9 | 7.2% - 8.95%
Federal Bank: RLLR: -- | 8.75% - 10%
IndusInd Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.5% - 9.75%
Bank of Maharashtra: RLLR: 8.05 | 7.1% - 9.15%
Yes Bank: RLLR: -- | 7.4% - 10.54%
Karur Vysya Bank: RLLR: 8.8 | 8.5% - 10.65%

Bombay High Court clears BMC takeover of stalled Dadar redevelopment property after decades-long dispute

#Law & Policy#Infrastructure#India#Maharashtra#Mumbai City
Last Updated : 30th May, 2026
Synopsis

• The Bombay High Court has allowed the BMC to proceed with termination of the lease of the Khanna Construction House property in Dadar after prolonged disputes among partners and legal heirs.
• Civic authorities stated that no common redevelopment proposal was submitted despite multiple court directions, while property tax arrears and lease violations remained unresolved.
• The BMC has said the property, already under civic possession following demolition of the dilapidated structure, will move towards redevelopment while protecting tenant and occupant rights.
• The dispute, dating back to 1973, involved redevelopment disagreements, tenancy claims and litigation over one of Dadar’s prominent old properties.

The Bombay High Court has permitted the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) to proceed with the takeover of a disputed redevelopment property in Dadar after decades of litigation involving the erstwhile Khanna Construction House partnership, legal heirs and tenants. The order follows prolonged disputes over redevelopment rights, lease obligations and tenant rehabilitation concerning the property governed under a 1965 lease agreement.


According to civic records and the speaking order issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner (Improvement), the Corporation concluded that the lessees had failed to comply with earlier High Court directions requiring submission of a common redevelopment proposal for the property. The BMC stated that despite repeated opportunities and hearings, no consensus proposal was submitted collectively by all partners and legal heirs.

The dispute over the property reportedly dates back to 1973, when internal disagreements emerged among partners regarding ownership and redevelopment interests. Over the years, the matter expanded into multiple legal proceedings, eventually resulting in the dissolution of the partnership firm by the City Civil Court in 2018 and appointment of a Court Receiver to manage the property.

The civic body informed the court that the building had deteriorated due to lack of timely repairs and maintenance. The structure was subsequently demolished after being declared unsafe, displacing several tenants and occupants. Court records also noted unresolved property tax liabilities and lease rent defaults linked to the property. The BMC stated that lease conditions had been breached and that arrears remained unpaid for several years.

In its submissions, the Corporation maintained that it could not intervene in disputes relating to inter-se ownership shares among partners or legal heirs. Officials further stated that multiple redevelopment proposals submitted independently by different factions could not be treated as valid common redevelopment plans under earlier court directions.

The order also recorded objections and submissions from various stakeholders, including tenants, occupants and legal representatives claiming tenancy and occupancy rights in portions of the demolished structure. The Corporation said verification of such claims would be undertaken separately in accordance with redevelopment procedures and court directives.

The High Court also observed that interim protection granted earlier against coercive action had been vacated in June 2025, enabling the Corporation to proceed further in accordance with law. Following review of submissions and hearing proceedings, the Deputy Municipal Commissioner directed the Estates Department to initiate formal termination of the lease granted to the original partners of Khanna Construction House under the 1965 agreement.

The BMC further stated that while civic authorities would safeguard municipal interests in the property, rights of tenants and occupants would continue to be protected during subsequent redevelopment proceedings as per applicable regulations and court orders.

Source- MCGM GOV

Have something to say? Post your comment