The Bombay High Court criticised the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) for their 25-year delay in issuing an Occupation Certificate (OC) for a redeveloped property in Mahim. The court directed MHADA to issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) by August 30, and the BMC to grant the OC by September 20. The case involves a redevelopment project by Raj Realtors, with tenants facing financial and service hardships due to the lack of an OC. The court also ordered BMC and MHADA to investigate their officers' actions and rectify the situation.
The Bombay High Court recently rebuked the Brihanmumbai Municipal Corporation (BMC) and Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) for failing to issue an Occupation Certificate (OC) to tenants of a redeveloped property in Mahim (West), a situation that has persisted for over 25 years. The court highlighted that both BMC and MHADA had unjustly pressured tenants to bear the brunt of the developer's failure to comply with redevelopment conditions rather than holding the developer accountable.
On August 13, a division bench comprising Justices Mahesh S. Sonak and Kamal R. Khata directed MHADA's CEO and the BMC to conduct thorough investigations into their officers' conduct, which allegedly resulted in public financial losses. The court mandated that MHADA issue a No Objection Certificate (NOC) to the petitioners by August 30, allowing the BMC to grant the OC by September 20. The bench criticised the BMC, emphasising that as a public-serving entity, it should not permit any building to operate without an OC.
The plot in question, located in Mahim and dating back to 1946, includes three chawls, nine shops, and nine residential tenements. The property was acquired by Raj Realtors Construction Company Pvt Ltd in 1986, which undertook its redevelopment. The tenants, who had vacated their premises to facilitate the redevelopment, were assured that their shops would be part of the new construction's front wing, while the rear wing would house residential units and salable flats. Although the shops were handed over to the tenants in March 1997, the developer failed to secure the OC for the properties, resulting in BMC withholding essential services such as water and sewerage while imposing a 150% surcharge on property taxes. BMC attributed the delay in issuing the OC to MHADA's failure to provide the final NOC.
The court criticised the relationship between MHADA, BMC, and the developer, noting that the authorities had unfairly burdened the tenants with additional costs related to services that were not provided. The judges pointed out that MHADA, as a public authority, should not have allowed the developer to profit without fulfilling its obligations. Furthermore, BMC's lack of action in assisting the tenants in obtaining the OC and necessary services was also condemned by the court, which emphasised that these were inherent rights of the petitioners.
The court directed MHADA to either secure the surrender of the required floor space from the developer or its market value. Additionally, the court instructed BMC to reconcile the payments made by the petitioners and refund any surplus amounts related to the additional municipal taxes. This ruling marks a significant step toward resolving a long-standing issue that has caused undue hardship to the affected tenants.
Advertisement
Facebook
Whatsapp
