Bombay High Court Orders Judicial Inquiry into Mass Unilateral Redevelopment Notices – 935 Section 79A MHADA Notices Under Scrutiny
In a landmark judgment that reinforces judicial oversight over arbitrary state action, the Bombay High Court has stepped in to address what it described as a colossal misuse of statutory powers by officials of the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), a unit of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA).
A Division Bench comprising Justice G.S. Kulkarni and Justice Arif S. Doctor, on 28 July 2025, directed the constitution of an independent high-level committee to examine the issuance of 935 redevelopment notices under Section 79A of the MHADA Act, 1976 — most of which were found to be issued without jurisdiction.
What Triggered the Court’s Intervention
A batch of writ petitions was filed by building owners, trusts, and societies alleging that Executive Engineers of the MBRRB had served hundreds of notices under Section 79A without fulfilling the sine qua non legal requirement — namely, a prior declaration that the building is dangerous under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation (MMC) Act or by a Competent Authority under Section 65 of the MHADA Act.
Section 79A governs the process for redeveloping cessed buildings declared dangerous, granting:
- First right to the landlord to redevelop,
- Second right to the tenants’ co-operative housing society if the landlord fails,
- Final authority to MHADA if both default.
The petitions alleged that the notices were issued purely on “visual inspection”, bypassing statutory safeguards, and in some cases even where the buildings were repairable.
Read Also Delhi Consumer Commission Orders Capital Heights to Refund ₹1.03 Crore with 9% Interest, Awards Mental Agony Compensation to Homebuyers
Court’s Findings – Abuse of Power and Violation of Constitutional Rights
The Bench held that:
- The Executive Engineers had no jurisdiction under Section 79A to declare a building dangerous or issue redevelopment notices.
- Issuing notices without fulfilling statutory prerequisites amounted to blatant non-compliance with the law.
- The Vice-Chairman of MHADA had failed in his duty to ensure adherence to Section 79A before authorising such large-scale actions.
Quoting the judgment:
“…such notices are issued purely at the ipse dixit of these officers and on a brazen non-compliance of the requirements of sub-section (1) of Section 79-A… the Executive Engineers could not have assumed authority, power and jurisdiction alien to what has been provided by the Legislature…”
The Court further observed:
“…considering the proportion and/or magnitude of the illegality and the high-handedness of such actions… and the very severe impact of such actions on the Constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 300A read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, it is difficult to brush aside such actions lightly.”
Read Also Delhi State Commission Orders Parsvanath Developers to Compensate Flat Buyer for Delay
Invalid SOP and Questionable Administrative Conduct
The Court scrutinised a Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) issued by the Vice-Chairman on 5 December 2024, purportedly governing the implementation of Section 79A. It found:
- The SOP had no statutory basis under Sections 184, 185, or 186 of the MHADA Act.
- It illegally empowered Executive Engineers to act as Competent Authorities.
- The timing of the SOP, issued after 800+ notices had already been served, raised serious questions of motive and legality.
Constitutional Duty of the Court
Reiterating the role of constitutional courts, the Bench held that when there is credible allegation of abuse of state power for extraneous considerations, the Court cannot be a passive spectator. It must intervene and inquire to uphold the rule of law and citizens’ faith in governance.
Final Orders
The Court directed:
- Appointment of Inquiry Committee – Headed by Justice J.P. Devadhar (Retd.) and Shri Vilas D. Dongre (Retd. Principal District Judge) to:
- Examine all 935 notices,
- Investigate subsequent withdrawals,
- Review the Vice-Chairman’s authority to issue the SOP,
- Identify the role and motives of involved officials.
- Withdrawal of 46 notices issued post the Vimalnath Shelters Pvt. Ltd. judgment.
- Keeping 889 notices in abeyance, barring those with mutual redevelopment consent.
- Immediate stay on impugned notices in pending petitions unless already withdrawn.
Implications for Mumbai’s Redevelopment Landscape
This ruling is a watershed moment for Mumbai’s redevelopment regime:
- It safeguards due process in redevelopment under MHADA laws.
- Reinforces that urban renewal must not override legal safeguards.
- Warns government agencies that SOPs cannot dilute statutory mandates.
- Ensures transparency and accountability in decisions affecting high-value urban property.
For property owners and housing societies:
- Do not accept any Section 79A notice without verifying the legal prerequisites.
- Seek legal recourse if notices are served without a prior Section 354 MMC Act notice or Competent Authority declaration.
- Document and challenge arbitrary redevelopment actions promptly.
Case Title: Javed Abdul Rahim Attar & Ors. v. The Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Ors. [Writ Petition (L) No. 34771 of 2024]
👉 Click here to read and download the order
📰 For more consumer & RERA law updates, visit: www.thelawsuits.in
📣 Published in public interest by:
Adv. Sulaiman Bhimani
Citizens Justice Forum | The Law Suits
📍 413, Golden Chambers, Opp. Tanishq Showroom, Near Lower Oshiwara Metro Station, Andheri West, Mumbai – 400053
📱 +91-8928372392 | ✉️ adv.bhimani@gmail.com
