The Bombay High Court has criticized the Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority (MHADA) for hastily declaring several properties in Tardeo as dangerous without proper due process. The court's bench expressed disapproval of MHADA's reliance on visual inspections and emphasized that structurally sound buildings should not be prematurely deemed unsafe. The property owners filed petitions challenging MHADA's classification and proposed redevelopment under Section 79A of the MHADA Act. The court directed MHADA to inform all concerned parties about the structural conditions, allowing owners an opportunity to present their case. This highlights the importance of proper legal procedures in such matters.
In a recent development, the Bombay High Court expressed strong disapproval of the Maharashtra Housing and Development Authority (MHADA) for hastily declaring multiple properties on Shuklaji Street in Tardeo as dangerous, relying solely on visual inspections. The court rebuked MHADA for proposing the redevelopment of these properties without giving the owners the right to due process. The bench, comprising Justice Gautam Patel and Justice Kamal Khata, emphatically stated that structurally sound buildings should not be prematurely deemed unsafe, and property owners have a legitimate right to choose redevelopment options.
The court's intervention came in response to petitions filed by owners of the buildings, challenging MHADA's classification of their properties as dangerous under Section 79A of the MHADA Act, 1976. The petitions were filed on August 18, following MHADA's swift action in inspecting the buildings and categorizing them as "dangerous" on the same day. Critically, the owners were not provided with an opportunity to present their case during this process. Subsequently, on September 13, MHADA issued notices proposing redevelopment under Section 79A, a move contested by the property owners as a violation of due legal process.
Section 79A of the MHADA Act mandates compulsory redevelopment for cessed buildings declared dangerous by MHADA or its repair board. Property owners usually have three months to initiate redevelopment, with an additional six months for occupants to propose redevelopment if the owner fails to take action.
However, in this case, the building owners did not commence redevelopment within the specified period, prompting MHADA to initiate action under Section 79A. The petitioners argued that this provision is only applicable to cessed buildings, while many structures in the area do not fall into this category.
Cessed buildings are those maintained and repaired by the Mumbai Building Repair and Reconstruction Board of MHADA, and tenants pay a cess to the housing authority for this purpose. MHADA's repair board insisted that the buildings in question are indeed cessed and must undergo redevelopment due to their deteriorated state. This stance was echoed by tenants of one of the buildings, the Gyasuddin Nagar Sultana building, represented by advocate Sujit Bugade. Bugade argued that the structure had been declared a cess structure in 2012, and there is an ongoing civil dispute in the district court regarding the building owner's absolute ownership claim.
During previous hearings, the court pointed out several contentious claims by MHADA, highlighting that the repair board's declaration relied solely on a visual inspection, raising concerns about its credibility. Moreover, the notice was issued to a larger number of buildings than the mere three cessed ones, and the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai had not made a similar declaration, further questioning the validity of MHADA's actions.
In light of these observations, the Bombay High Court directed MHADA to inform all concerned parties about the structural conditions of the buildings on Shuklaji Street and afford owners an opportunity to present their case, emphasizing the importance of adhering to proper legal procedures in such matters.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
