MUMBAI: The Bombay high court recently struck down what it termed a “high-handed” decision of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to cancel a no-objection certificate (NOC) for the redevelopment of a Tardeo building after construction had already reached the 10th floor.
The dispute arose from a redevelopment project of the Satyabhama Building in Tardeo. In March 2018, the property register card recorded the names of Samir Shyamsundar Thakre and Vaibhav Shyamsundar Thakre as the owners, based on which, the development agreement was executed with a construction firm, Kumar Agro Products, and MHADA granted an NOC in September 2019. Accordingly, the redevelopment project of the proposed 16 floors began and progressed up to 10 floors.
In May 2025, a lawyer representing Geetadevi Pratapsingh Jadhav approached the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), a wing of MHADA, claiming rights over the property. She relied on an order passed by the Superintendent of Mumbai City Survey and Land Records, which set aside the mutation entries in favour of the Thakres and directed restoration of ownership in the name of the original recorded owner, Pandurang Javji Choudhary.
In October 2025, the board’s chief officer cancelled the NOC, noting that no stay or interim protection had been produced and that the title stood restored in Choudhary’s name. The officer held that the development rights granted by the previous owners were no longer valid and directed the developer to immediately halt work. This prompted the developer to move the high court immediately.
Senior advocate Vineet Naik, appearing for the developer, argued that the chief officer had no authority to determine or declare legal rights between parties, a matter that falls within the jurisdiction of a civil court. He added that the cancellation of NOC was merely based on the revenue entries, and instead of filing a civil suit, the rival party sought to create hurdles by taking extra legal measures, causing serious prejudice to the rights of the developer and the owners as guaranteed under the Constitution.
Considering the nature of illegality highlighted, the board informed the court that the order will be withdrawn and the developer would be allowed to proceed with the redevelopment as per the NOC and the sanctioned plan.
A division bench of justices GS Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe observed that it was the officer’s duty to examine all relevant issues and obtain legal opinion before exercising statutory powers. “There is an increasing tendency of persons to approach public officials, who are vested with high powers, which can be exercised in respect of the constructions and projects being undertaken which involve substantial investments and resources”, the bench said.
The court stated that such an order, being “high handed”, has nullified the valuable rights of the owners and the legal rights of the developer, who is undertaking the development by investing substantial resources. “Such casual approach on the part of public officials cannot be countenanced (accepted). We do not know in what manner the prejudice and the losses which are suffered by the petitioner, can at all be compensated when they are caused due to such high-handed and illegal action on the part of the officers”, the court remarked.
