Case Note & Summary
Background: The case concerns the redevelopment of 17 residential buildings owned by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) at Poonam Nagar, Andheri (East), Mumbai. The buildings, constructed in 1990-92, had become dilapidated and were classified C-1 (unsafe and unfit for habitation). 942 families resided in these buildings, facing serious risk of collapse. The petitioner is an association of cooperative housing societies formed by the occupants of these buildings. MHADA, as owner, proposed redevelopment under Regulation 33(5) of the Development Control & Promotion Regulations, 2034 (DCPR 2034). Facts: The government initially approved redevelopment by communication dated 28 May 2025, but subject to a condition that each of the 17 cooperative societies must pass a resolution granting no-objection under Clause 7(b) of Regulation 33(5). On 30 May 2025, the government issued a corrigendum deleting this condition, stating it was considering the facts and circumstances. The petitioner challenged this waiver. Prior to this, a developer (Shreepati) had been appointed, a tripartite agreement executed between the petitioner, MHADA and Shreepati, and later terminated for failure to furnish bank guarantee and lack of financial capacity. Shreepati had invoked arbitration under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, but no substantive orders were passed. Legal Issues: The core issue was whether the government could validly waive the requirement of prior NOC from all cooperative societies under DCPR 2034. Implicit were questions about the legal rights of the societies over the land and buildings, given that MHADA had never conveyed title or entered into any lease with them. Arguments: The petitioner contended that the NOC condition was mandatory and could not be waived, while the state and MHADA argued that the waiver was justified due to the urgent need for redevelopment and the lack of any independent legal right of the societies over the property. Court's Analysis: No analysis available from the provided text. Decision: Not available from the provided text.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the impugned communication dated 30 May 2025 deleting/waiving the condition of obtaining No Objection Certificate from all 17 cooperative housing societies is legal and valid under Regulation 33(5) of DCPR 2034.
Law Points
- Regulation 33(5) of DCPR 2034 provides for redevelopment with additional FSI and free sale components
- clause 7(b) requires no-objection from each cooperative society
- MHADA retains ownership of land and buildings as no conveyance or lease executed in favour of societies
- urgent redevelopment needed due to dilapidated and unsafe condition of buildings classified C-1
Case Details
2026 LawText (BOM) (01) 124
Writ Petition (L) No. 19246 of 2025
G.S. Kulkarni, Aarti Sathe
Anil Sakhare, Chaitanya R. Kulkarni, Hrutik Chavan, Sneha Tewari for Petitioners; P.G. Lad, Sayali Apte for MHADA; P. H. Kantharia, Akshay Patakar for State; Abhijeet Joshi, Onkar Joshi for Respondent No.4; Kunal Mehta, Madhur Surana, Prangana Barua, Vyoma Joshi for Respondent No.5
Andheri P.M.G.P. Colony Co-op.Hsg. Societies Association Ltd.
State of Maharashtra, Mumbai Housing and Area Development Board, Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority, Shreepati Real Ventures Pvt. Ltd., B. G. Shirke Construction Techno Pvt. Ltd.
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 the validity of a government communication waiving the requirement of obtaining No Objection Certificates from 17 cooperative housing societies for redevelopment of MHADA buildings.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought quashing of the impugned communication dated 30 May 2025 and restoration of the condition requiring each society to pass a resolution granting NOC under Clause 7(b) of Regulation 33(5) of DCPR 2034.
Filing Reason
The State Government, by corrigendum dated 30 May 2025, deleted the condition of obtaining NOC from all societies which was earlier imposed in its letter dated 28 May 2025, allegedly in violation of the mandatory requirement under DCPR 2034.
Previous Decisions
Shreepati Real Ventures Pvt. Ltd. filed an application under Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 challenging the termination of the tripartite agreement, but no substantive orders were passed. MHADB had earlier cancelled Shreepati's appointment and terminated the tripartite agreement on 20 June 2022.
Issues
Whether the impugned communication dated 30 May 2025 deleting/waiving the condition of obtaining NOC from all cooperative societies is legal and valid under Regulation 33(5) of DCPR 2034.
Judgment Excerpts
This petition concerns subject matter of the redevelopment of 17 buildings belonging to the Maharashtra Housing Area Development Authority (for short, 'the MHADA').
By the impugned communication dated 30 May 2025, the State Government has deleted/waived the said condition requiring a prior No Objection Certificate from the 17 societies, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case.
there is neither any conveyance of the land and the buildings in favour of the society nor any lease agreement entered between the MHADA and the societies, whereby it can be said that in a manner known to law, the legal rights of the MHADA in respect of the land and the buildings were extinguished and transferred in favour of these societies, so that the societies independently can assert legal rights in respect of anything to do with the buildings and/or the land.
On 20 June 2022, the MHADB terminated the tripartite development agreement entered into between the parties, the consequence of which was that Shreepati ceased to have any legal rights to undertake the redevelopment of the project in regard to the 17 buildings.
Procedural History
The petitioner association filed the writ petition challenging the government corrigendum dated 30 May 2025. The matter came up before the Division Bench; rule was issued and made returnable forthwith. By consent of parties, the petition was heard finally. The court reserved judgment on 22 January 2026 and pronounced it on 28 January 2026. Prior to this petition, Shreepati had filed a Section 9 application before the High Court seeking interim relief after termination of its development agreement, but no substantive orders were passed.
Acts & Sections
- Development Control and Promotion Regulations, 2034: Regulation 33(5), Clause 7(b) of Regulation 33(5), Regulation 33(9)
- Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996: Section 9
- Development Control Regulations, 1991: Regulation 33(5)
