Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, eight members and owners of tenements in Chitranjan Nagar Vidya Cooperative Housing Society Limited, Rajawadi, Ghatkopar (East), Mumbai, filed a writ petition before the Bombay High Court challenging an order dated 11 November 2011 passed by the Executive Engineer, Ghatkopar Division, under Section 95A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 (MHAD Act). The impugned order directed them to vacate their tenements and shift to transit camp accommodation within seven days, failing which summary eviction would be carried out. The petitioners also sought a declaration that the redevelopment scheme for the society's land admeasuring 7806.17 sq. mtrs. was illegal and void. The dispute arose from a long-standing redevelopment proposal initiated by the society's managing committee. The society consisted of 32 members who originally held tenancy rights in chawls constructed in 1954 under a subsidized industrial housing scheme. In 1999, the tenancies were converted into ownership rights upon payment of consideration to MHADA, and a sale deed was executed in favour of the society in 2005. From late 2005, a majority of members resolved to redevelop the property and appointed Tanishq Builders as the developer. The petitioners, along with a few other members, opposed the redevelopment and sought individual development of their tenements, demanding allotment of 'tit bit' land appurtenant to their dwellings. They raised objections through letters, society meetings, and representations to MHADA and the Municipal Corporation. The society, acting through its chairman and secretary, proceeded with the redevelopment plan, obtaining the majority's approval. In the face of the redevelopment push, the Executive Engineer issued the eviction order under Section 95A against the non-cooperative members. The petitioners challenged this order, citing the pending dispute and claiming that the redevelopment scheme was illegal. The High Court was seized of the matter under a restricted prayer clause as per the Division Bench's order dated 11 January 2012. The submissions of the parties and the court's analysis were not recorded in the provided excerpt, and the final decision remains unknown.
Issue of Consideration
Validity of the eviction order dated 11/11/2011 under Section 95A of MHAD Act and legality of the redevelopment scheme.
Law Points
- Section 95A of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act
- 1976 summary eviction
- redevelopment scheme challenge
- cooperative society member rights
- conversion of tenancy to ownership
Case Details
2012 LawText (BOM) (04) 18
Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 2529 of 2011
Mr. Rajeev Kumar, Ms. Sheetal Kumar, Mr. P.G. Lad, Ms. Kejali H. Mastakar, Mr. R.A. Thorat, Mr. P.K. Samdani, Mr. Soli Cooper
Radhika George, Niteen Bhaskar Prabhu, David Moses, Champak P. Poladia, Kanti D. Mahida, Pandurang G. Mayadeo, Keena Desai, Hemlata D. Sawant
Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, The Executive Engineer Ghatkopar Division, Deputy Chief Engineer (BP) ES Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai, The Chairman Chittaranjan Nagar Vidya Cooperative Housing Society, The Secretary Chittaranjan Nagar Vidya Cooperative Housing Society, Tanishq Builders
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging a statutory eviction order and seeking quashing of a redevelopment scheme.
Remedy Sought
Petitioners sought a writ of certiorari to quash the eviction order dated 11/11/2011, a declaration that the redevelopment scheme is illegal, and interim restraint on the developer from utilizing FSI and on enforcement of the eviction order.
Filing Reason
The Executive Engineer, Ghatkopar Division, passed an order under Section 95A of the MHAD Act directing the petitioner-tenement owners to vacate their premises within seven days for a redevelopment scheme they opposed.
Previous Decisions
Division Bench order dated 11 January 2012 directing disposal with restricted prayers; order dated 14 March 2012 allowing amendment to prayer clauses; impugned order of Executive Engineer dated 11 November 2011; Registrar of Cooperative Societies’ order dated 7 January 2005 rejecting membership claim of Kanu Patel.
Issues
Whether the eviction order dated 11/11/2011 passed under Section 95A of the MHAD Act is valid and legal.
Whether the redevelopment scheme of 7806.17 sq. mtrs. is illegal and void.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to a stay on eviction and restraint on the developer from utilizing FSI pending the petition.
Judgment Excerpts
The NonCooperative Members No. 1 to 8 are hereby directed to vacate the tenements in their use, occupation and possession and to shift to the Transit Camp accommodation as described in the Show Cause Notices dated 16.5.2010, within a period of 7 days from the date of receipt of this Order, failing which action for their summary eviction under Section 95A of the MHAD Act, 1976 be taken against them.
Ordering and declaring of the scheme in respect of the redevelopment scheme of 7806.17 sq. mtrs. is illegal, null and void.
Procedural History
In 1954, Maharashtra Housing Board constructed 8 chawls with 32 tenements on the land. Tenants paid rent until 1976; thereafter, rent was paid to MHADA. On 18 May 1987, a notification permitted conversion of tenancy to ownership. On 3 November 1998, the state government ordered conversion. On 17 July 1999, MHADA issued letters to tenants to deposit consideration; petitioners paid Rs.47,350 each on 20 July 1999. On 26 August 1999, MHADA confirmed conversion of tenancy rights to ownership. On 7 February 2000, the society was registered. On 30 March 2001, Central Railways paid Rs.4,38,20,000 for land acquisition. On 26 May 2005, MHADA executed a sale deed for chawls and a lease deed for land in favour of the society. From November 2005, the society called special general body meetings; a majority of members voted for redevelopment and appointed Tanishq Builders as developer on 19 February 2006. The petitioners objected, sought individual development, and issued a notice under Section 164 of the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act on 18 February 2006. On 11 November 2011, the Executive Engineer passed an eviction order under Section 95A of the MHAD Act. The petitioners filed the writ petition, and on 11 January 2012, a Division Bench directed hearing with restricted prayers. The petition was amended on 14 March 2012. The court reserved judgment on 21 March 2012 and pronounced it on 24 April 2012. The text of the judgment is incomplete and does not include the court’s analysis or final order.
Acts & Sections
- Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976: Section 95A
- Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960: Section 164
