Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Vijay Shantaram Mandavkar and others, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the Bombay High Court challenging notices and orders of eviction issued by the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (MHADA) in respect of a redevelopment project. The project involved properties in Parel-Sewree Division, known as Dr. Vier's Wadi / Kale Wadi at G.D. Ambedkar Marg, Mumbai, under Regulation 33(7) of the Development Control Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 1991 (DCR). The properties, CS No.189 (Part) measuring 9,915 sqm and CS No.197 (Part) measuring 6,876 sqm, were amalgamated with the consent of the proposed cooperative societies formed by the occupiers. The occupiers of CS No.189 formed Aikyadarshan Cooperative Housing Society, and those of CS No.197 formed another society. The redevelopment was being carried out by respondent no.3. The petitioners were offered alternative permanent accommodation on the same land as part of the redevelopment. Despite having consented to the redevelopment, the petitioners challenged the eviction notices. The court, comprising Chief Justice Mohit S. Shah and Justice B.P. Colabawalla, heard the matter. The petitioners were represented by Mr. G.S. Godbole and Mr. Abdul Latif N. Khatri. The respondents included the State of Maharashtra, MHADA, the developer (respondent no.3), and others. The court considered the facts and held that since the petitioners had consented to the redevelopment and were offered alternative accommodation, the challenge to the eviction notices was not maintainable. The petition was dismissed. The judgment was pronounced on 6 February 2015.
Headnote
A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Maintainability - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Petitioners challenged eviction notices despite having consented to redevelopment and being offered alternative accommodation - Court held that once consent is given, challenge to eviction is not maintainable and dismissed the petition (Paras 1-2). B) Housing and Redevelopment - DCR 33(7) - Eviction - Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (MHADA) - Petitioners were occupiers of structures on CS No.189 and CS No.197, amalgamated for redevelopment under DCR 33(7) - They formed proposed cooperative societies and consented to redevelopment - MHADA issued eviction notices offering alternative permanent accommodation - Court held that eviction is lawful and petition dismissed (Paras 2-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the eviction notices/orders issued by MHADA in respect of a redevelopment project under DCR 33(7) are valid when the petitioners have been offered alternative permanent accommodation on the same land.
Final Decision
The petition is dismissed.
Law Points
- Consent for redevelopment
- Eviction orders
- Alternative accommodation
- DCR 33(7)
- MHADA powers
- Article 226 maintainability
