Bombay HC Clears MHADA Redevelopment – Waiver of Consent of Housing Society Upheld
The 17 buildings of ground plus four structures with 986 tenements were built in 1990-92. MHADA is the owner of buildings and also of the land.
By the letter dated 28.5.2025, the Government has granted permission for redevelopment of 17 buildings subject to a condition that each of the cooperative housing societies of said buildings shall pass a resolution of no-objection for redevelopment as per clause 7(b) of Regulation 33(5) of DCPR 2034.
However, the said condition was waived / deleted by the impugned communication dated 30.5.2025. As a result, MHADA has taken steps for redevelopment and invited tenders.
On a plain reading of Clause 2.2, it is seen that where the redevelopment of the buildings in the existing housing schemes of MHADA is being undertaken by MHADA or jointly by MHADA along with the housing societies or with the occupiers of such building or with lessees of MHADA, the entitlement to the rehabilitation tenement shall be as per the Rehabilitation Area entitlement as prescribed by the said regulation. In such context, the said regulation in clause 7(b) provides, that for redevelopment of buildings, in any existing Housing Scheme of MHADA under clause 2.2, by MHADA, the consent of the Co operative Housing Society in the form of a valid Resolution as per the Co operative Societies Act, 1960 would be sufficient, and in respect of members not co-operating as per approval of the redevelopment project, an action under section 95-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976 may be taken by the MHADA.
we find that although the societies are formed, however, as stated hereinabove, the legal rights in respect of the buildings and the land as asserted by the MHADA has remained with the MHADA, in the absence of any lease agreement being entered between the MHADA and the societies, qua the land and the buildings. The rights of the MHADA in respect of the land and buildings could be legally transferred, only if such transfer stands recognized under the ‘document of transfer’, which the law would recognize and not otherwise. Thus legally, the consequence necessarily would be that the societies were formed merely for the management of day to day affairs of the buildings, which were legally incapacitated to assert any corporeal rights in respect of the land and buildings in question. In these circumstances, to stricto sensu apply the requirements of sub-clause 7(b) of Regulation 33(5) of the DCPR (supra) insofar as the requirement of an approval / no objection, being dispensed with and /or waived by the State Government, cannot be said to be any illegality whatsoever. The MHADA, which has continued to remain the owner of the land and the buildings, therefore, was free to undertake development as any other owner of the land and buildings would have in these circumstances, as permissible under the provisions of Regulation 33(5) of the DCPR 2034.
Judgment 28.1.2026 of the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay in Writ Petition (L) No.19246 of 2025 of Andheri P.M.G.P. Colony Coop Hsg. Societies Association Ltd Vs. State of Maharashtra and others.
