Trending :
Lawtext
Search
Login / Register
Sign In
HomeJudgement
Scroll Down To Discover
High Court

High Court of Bombay Issues Judgment on Official Trustee's Petition Against MHADA Notice and Redevelopment Approvals — Matter Concerns Temple Property and Involves Heritage and Coastal Zone Regulations. The petition seeks setting aside of notice under Section 95-A of MHADA Act, building plans, and TDR certificate, while developer relies on Memorandum of Understanding and court orders.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
Admin
2026-09-16 22:35:34
  • 81
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Issue of Consideration

Validity of notice under section 95-A of MHADA Act; legality of building plans and permissions for temple redevelopment; entitlement to TDR certificate; compliance with CRZ Notification and DC Regulations; effect of court order dated 08-08-1997

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (BOM) (03) 40

Writ Petition No. 1469 of 2009

2014-03-06

S.J. Vazifdar, K.R. Shriram

Mr. Kirit Hakani, Mr. Rahul Hakani, Mr. M.D. Naik, Mr. P.G. Lad, Mr. Aspi Chinoy, Mr. Pravin Samdani, Mr. Vatsal K. Merchant, Mr. Vinod Mahadik

Official Trustee, State of Maharashtra

Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority, Mumbai Building Repairs & Reconstruction Board, State of Maharashtra, M/s. Earth Designers & Developers, Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 challenging notice under MHADA Act, building permissions, and TDR certificate regarding temple property.

Remedy Sought

Official Trustee sought to set aside notice dated 28-04-2009 under Section 95-A, all building plans/permissions/NOCs for redevelopment of temple, and direction not to grant TDR certificate unless measurements corrected and irregularities removed.

Filing Reason

MHADA and MBR&RB issued notice under Section 95-A in name of Poojari; Official Trustee claimed sole trusteeship and alleged irregularities in development scheme and building plans.

Previous Decisions

Court's order dated 08-08-1997 in Trust Petition No.5 of 1995 and Writ Petition No.147 of 1995 disposing of the matters with parties to be heard; earlier orders dated 04-10-1927 appointing Official Trustee as sole trustee; 12-04-1950 authorizing lease; 26-09-1951 permitting further lease; 29-01-1982 sanctioning use of FSI.

Issues

Validity of notice under Section 95-A MHADA Act Legality of building plans and permissions for temple redevelopment Entitlement to TDR certificate Compliance with CRZ Notification and DC Regulations Effect of court order dated 08-08-1997

Judgment Excerpts

The Official Trustee originally sought an order setting aside a notice dated 28th April, 2009, issued by respondent Nos.1 and 2 under section 95-A of the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act, 1976 (MHADA Act) issued in the name of the Poojari of the Shree Venkatesh Balaji Temple. The Official Trustee and the developers - respondent No.4 entered into a Memorandum of Understanding dated 29th November, 1994. By an order and judgment dated 8th August, 1997, the Division Bench of this Court disposed of the Trust Petition No.5 of 1995 and Writ Petition No.147 of 1995.

Procedural History

4.10.1927: Court appointed Official Trustee as sole trustee; 12.4.1950: Court authorized lease of 1600 sq yds; 26.9.1951: further lease permitted; 29.1.1982: Court sanctioned use of FSI; 29.11.1994: MOU between Official Trustee and developer; 1995: PILs filed opposing sale; Government letters directing not to sell; 21.4.1995: Regulation 67 introduced; 8.8.1997: Court disposed of Trust Petition and Writ Petition; 28.4.2009: MHADA issued notice under s.95-A; 2009: Writ Petition filed (No.1469 of 2009); subsequently amended to include reliefs; 6.3.2014: Judgment delivered (partial text).

Acts & Sections

  • Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Act, 1976: 95-A
  • Official Trustees Act, 1913:
  • Indian Companies Act, 1956:
  • Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act, 1888:
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Tags :
Official Trustee Shree Venkatesh Balaji Temple MHADA Act Section 95-A CRZ Notification DC Regulation 33(7) DC Regulation 67 Heritage property Walkeshwar TDR certificate Building plans Redevelopment Memorandum of Understanding Public Interest Litigation

Pay once for this file or subscribe for unlimited downloads

Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Writ Petition for Compensation in Medical Negligence Case — State and Doctors Held Liable for Death Due to Negligent Sterilization Operation. Failure to Provide Adequate Post-Operative Care Amounts to Violation of Right to ... 2026-09-21 23:01:00
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Revision Against Condonation of Delay in Appeal — Negligence of Advocate Not Sufficient Cause Under Section 5 of Limitation Act. The Court held that the respondents failed to show sufficient cause for delay of 90 days in fi... 2026-09-21 23:00:56
Categories
Popular Tags
Writ Petition Natural Justice acquittal murder Compensation burden of proof limitation Article 226 land acquisition benefit of doubt
Follow Us

Bombay High Court Allows Appeals by Acquiring Body in Land Acquisition Compensation Cases,...

Bombay High Court Dismisses NHAI Appeals in Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute — Upho...

Bombay High Court Dismisses Writ Petition Challenging Concurrent Findings in Suit for Spec...

High Court of Bombay Hears Section 11 Arbitration Application for Appointment of Arbitrato...

Bombay High Court Allows Assessee in Central Excise Refund Interest Dispute Under Section ...

Supreme Court Upholds Appellant in Limitation Dispute — Suit Remitted for Fresh Consider...

Supreme Court Refers Jurisdiction Conflict in Trade Marks Act and Commercial Courts Act to...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Tender Eligibility Dispute — Clarifies Judicial Revie...

Supreme Court Rejects Application Under Section 28A of Land Acquisition Act Due to Limitat...

Supreme Court Dismisses Appeals in Income Tax Dispute — Jurisdiction under Section 263 U...

Lost Your Password?