Case Note & Summary
The ten petitioners, occupants of a cessed structure on CS 1101, Khandia Street, Byculla, Mumbai, challenged a redevelopment scheme sanctioned by MHADA under DCR 33(7). MHADA had granted NOC on 4 November 2009 and permitted composite redevelopment of two adjacent properties, CS 1101 and CS 1102. Out of seventeen occupants on CS 1101, seven vacated; the ten petitioners remained. Construction had proceeded to the fifteenth floor. The petitioners' basic grievance was that they had not furnished their consents to the scheme. The Executive Engineer of the Repair Board passed an order on 1 June 2011 noting that before issuing NOC, his office had verified consents and that tenants had signed their consents once again, with proceedings video recorded. Consequently, notices under Section 95A of the MHADA Act, 1976 were issued to the petitioners to vacate. Each petitioner was to be allotted permanent alternate accommodation of 300 sq.ft in the new building free of cost, whereas they currently occupied areas less than 300 sq.ft. The court, after hearing arguments, found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, upholding the redevelopment scheme and the notices issued.
Headnote
A) MHADA Act - Redevelopment - Consent Verification - Section 95A, DCR 33(7) - Petitioners challenged redevelopment scheme claiming they did not give consent - Executive Engineer verified consents and video recorded proceedings - Court held that verification and video recording sufficiently established consent - Notices under Section 95A were validly issued - Petition dismissed (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the petitioners' grievance that they had not furnished their consents to the redevelopment scheme under DCR 33(7) is valid and whether the scheme should be set aside.
Final Decision
The court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the redevelopment scheme and the notices issued under Section 95A of the MHADA Act.
Law Points
- Consent verification by MHADA
- Video recording of consent
- Section 95A MHADA Act
- DCR 33(7) redevelopment
- Alternate accommodation of 300 sq.ft free of cost
Case Details
2011 LawText (BOM) (06) 88
Writ Petition No. 924 of 2011
Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, Anoop V. Mohta
Mr. Kevic Setalvad with Mr. Ivor Peter D’cruz for the petitioners, Mr. G. W. Mattos, AGP for respondents 1 to 4, Ms. S.M. Modale for respondent no.5, Mr. D. D. Madon, Sr. Advocate with Mr.J. P. Sen i/by M/s.Dastur Dadhich and Kalambi for respondents 6 to 10
Sajid Abdul Sattar Urankar and 9 ors.
State of Maharashtra and 9 ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging a redevelopment scheme sanctioned by MHADA under DCR 33(7).
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought to set aside the redevelopment scheme and the notices issued under Section 95A of the MHADA Act.
Filing Reason
Petitioners claimed they had not furnished their consents to the redevelopment scheme.
Previous Decisions
Executive Engineer of the Repair Board passed an order on 1 June 2011 dealing with the grievance, noting that consents were verified and video recorded.
Issues
Whether the petitioners' grievance that they had not furnished their consents to the redevelopment scheme is valid.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioners argued that they had not given their consent to the redevelopment scheme.
Respondents contended that consents were verified by the Executive Engineer and video recorded, and notices under Section 95A were validly issued.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the verification of consents by the Executive Engineer, including video recording of the proceedings, sufficiently established that the petitioners had given their consent. Therefore, the notices under Section 95A were valid and the redevelopment scheme could proceed.
Judgment Excerpts
The Executive Engineer noted that before issuing an NOC for its redevelopment, his office has verified the consents and that at the time of verification, the tenants had signed their consents once again. Moreover, the proceedings are stated to have been video recorded.
Each of the Petitioners is to be allotted permanent alternate accommodation admeasuring 300 sq.ft in the newly constructed building free of cost.
Procedural History
The petitioners filed Writ Petition No. 924 of 2011 under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the redevelopment scheme. The Executive Engineer had passed an order on 1 June 2011 regarding the consent grievance. The petition was heard and dismissed on 23 June 2011.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976: Section 95A
- Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991: DCR 33(7)
