Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, seventeen occupants of residential tenements in Dalal Estate, Mumbai Central, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the redevelopment scheme sanctioned under Development Control Regulation 33(7) by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). The developer, the Thirteenth Respondent, had entered into Development Agreements with occupants in 2006, 2007, and 2010, agreeing to provide permanent alternate accommodation free of cost on ownership basis and monthly compensation until completion. A corpus fund of Rs. 5 crores was to be constituted, and bank guarantees of Rs. 25 crores and Rs. 15 crores per year were furnished. Out of 305 tenants/occupants, about 87% consented to the scheme, plans were sanctioned by the Municipal Corporation, and a majority vacated the premises. MHADA issued a notice under Section 88(3) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 declaring the buildings as dilapidated. The court found that the petitioners' objections were not sufficient to stall the project, as the scheme had overwhelming majority support and all statutory approvals were in place. The court dismissed the petition, holding that no interference under Article 226 was warranted.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Interference in redevelopment scheme - Petitioners, minority occupants, challenged redevelopment scheme under DCR 33(7) - Court held that since 87% of occupants consented, plans were sanctioned, and majority vacated, no interference warranted - Held that writ petition was devoid of merit and dismissed (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the redevelopment scheme under DCR 33(7) sanctioned by MHADA and the Municipal Corporation should be interfered with under Article 226 at the instance of a minority of occupants who have not consented.
Final Decision
Writ petition dismissed. No interference under Article 226.
Law Points
- Article 226 of the Constitution of India
- Development Control Regulation 33(7)
- Section 88(3) of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act
- 1976
- Majority consent in redevelopment
- Sanctioned plans
- Bank guarantee for compensation
Case Details
2010 LawText (BOM) (12) 33
WRIT PETITION (LODGING) NO. 2641 OF 2010
DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, ANOOP V. MOHTA
Mr. Dinyar D. Madon, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mikhial Behl, Mr. J.S. Solomon and Ms. Shirin Hornuzdi i/by M/s. Solomon & Co. for the Petitioners. Mr. E.P. Bharucha, Sr. Advocate with Mr. P.G. Lad for Respondent Nos. 2 to 5. Mr. Narendra V. Walavalkar, Sr. Advocate with Ms. V.S. Gharpure for Respondent Nos. 6 to 9. Mr. Fredun E. Devitre, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vineet Naik i/by Mr. Sangramsingh S. Yadav for Respondent Nos. 10 to 12. Mr. V.A. Thorat, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Behram Shroff and Mr. Chandra Naik i/by M/s. Chandra Naik & Associates for Respondent Nos. 13 and 14.
Dinoo Baji Todiwalla and Ors.
The State of Maharashtra & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 challenging redevelopment scheme under DCR 33(7).
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to stall the redevelopment scheme.
Filing Reason
Petitioners, minority occupants, objected to the redevelopment scheme despite majority consent and statutory approvals.
Issues
Whether the redevelopment scheme under DCR 33(7) should be interfered with under Article 226.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued against the scheme; respondents supported it based on majority consent and approvals.
Ratio Decidendi
A redevelopment scheme sanctioned under DCR 33(7) with majority consent, sanctioned plans, and statutory approvals cannot be interfered with under Article 226 at the instance of a minority of occupants.
Judgment Excerpts
These proceedings have been instituted under Article 226 of the Constitution by seventeen occupants of residential tenements of an immovable property called Dalal Estate, situated at Mumbai Central.
Out of 305 tenants/occupants, about 87% have consented to the scheme for redevelopment which has been sanctioned by the Second Respondent.
Procedural History
Petitioners filed Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 2641 of 2010 under Article 226 before the Bombay High Court challenging the redevelopment scheme. The court heard the matter on December 10 and 13, 2010, and dismissed the petition.
Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India: Article 226
- Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976: Section 88(3)
