In a recent Mumbai redevelopment case, the court delved into a complex land dispute, offering crucial legal analysis that shaped the course of the proceedings. The court’s meticulous examination of the situation and its legal implications provided clarity and direction to the parties involved. Stay tuned to understand the intricacies of this significant legal battle and its impact on property redevelopment in Mumbai.
Facts
- MHADA insisted on demarcation of the subject property and issuance of separate property cards
- Builder/developer argued that MHADA cannot insist on these conditions post the Court’s order of 12.04.2017
- Tenants have waited for more than 25 years for flat construction
- MHADA, in an affidavit, stated that the sub-division condition will not be insisted upon based on the NOC of 09.05.2017
- The dispute revolves around the redevelopment of Jariwala Chawls in Mahim, Mumbai
- Permission was sought to redevelop all three plots together and execute conveyance deed in favor of proposed society
- Applicant’s grievance is regarding deliberate delay by MHADA in granting approvals and imposing unreasonable conditions
- No Objection Certificate issued by MHADA on 22.11.2016 with conditions not agreeable to developer
- Clarification that construction/redevelopment to be a joint venture superseded by Court’s order
- MHADA’s objection to conditions for land cost and tenant area size
- Court directed MHADA to issue fresh NOC, clarified three key issues, and directed cooperation for project completion
- Fresh NOC issued by MHADA on 09.05.2017, deleting three conditions as directed
- Tenants filed Contempt Petition for non-compliance by the builder with construction/redevelopment undertaking
- MHADA filed Miscellaneous Application seeking direction for property redevelopment
- Court held MHADA not entitled to land cost and directed issuance of necessary NOC/clearances
- MHADA conducted exercise to identify developer with 70% tenant consent for redevelopment
Also Read: Reversal of High Court’s Decision on Auction Sale Confirmation
Arguments
- The layout was conditionally approved by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM) on 11.11.2019.
- The approval was given with a condition to delineate the subject property into sub plots.
Also Read: Interest Compensation Dispute in Property Demolition Case
Analysis
- Consent given by the same occupants to both sides will not be considered for computing the 70% requirement
- Chief Officer’s finding on consent given by occupants is crucial
- MHADA/MCGM will continue all concessions, orders, NOCs, and permissions granted to the builder from 2016 without requiring a reapplication.
- The decision of the Chief Minister and court orders do not grant the builder title over the entire property including land acquired by MHADA.
- The builder must submit an amendment plan to MCGM within 4 weeks as per DCPR 2034, with MCGM required to approve the plans within 8 weeks.
- The builder must execute a conveyance deed for the entire land in favor of a Co-operative Housing Society, ignoring the acquired portion by MHADA.
- MCGM will sanction plans as per the government’s decision dated 02/08/2004 and both MHADA and MCGM will not obstruct the project development.
- The builder must complete tenant rehabilitation within 36 months after all eligible tenants vacate.
- MHADA objected to the builder executing a conveyance deed for the entire land and sought a lease deed for the acquired portion after project completion.
- The court found gross negligence by the builder in not complying with previous court directions.
- The builder must comply only with specific terms in the NOCs issued by MHADA and not the ones deleted by court order.
- Eligible tenants vacating will receive Rs. 25,000/month till they receive new premises as permanent alternate accommodation.
- Redevelopment will follow DCPR-2034 regulations, and eligible tenants will receive at least 508 sq. ft. carpet area in the redeveloped building.
- The builder must complete the project within a stipulated timeframe agreed upon after clearance from MHADA and MCGM.
- The builder is free to execute conveyance deeds for the remaining land, while MHADA retains the right to lease the acquired portion to the Co-operative Housing Society.
- The claim of MHADA for title over a specific portion of land is deemed unsustainable.
- The builder must execute a Permanent Alternate Accommodation Agreement within 8 weeks of receiving approvals.
- Further development will be carried out by developers with confirmed consent or by MHADA itself if consent cannot be established.
- MHADA is being unreasonable in insisting on executing a Lease Deed for the 2807.15 sq. mtrs. property to the proposed Co-operative Housing Society.
- The finding recorded by the Court on 12.04.2017 is unquestionable.
- MHADA’s insistence is not justified based on the Court’s previous order.
Also Read: Legal Interpretation of Extension of Judicial Member’s Term
Decision
- The decision of the Chief Officer will be final and binding on all concerned and will not be called into question.
- The entire exercise must be completed by the end of 15 April 2016, with conclusions filed in a sealed cover with the court.
- The Chief Officer will assess which developer has the authenticated and bona fide 70% consent.
- The builder is guilty of delaying construction and disobeying court orders based on its undertaking.
- MHADA is also responsible for creating hurdles by imposing unreasonable conditions and insisting on ownership over part of the land.
- Further disobedience of court directions will be viewed seriously.
- The undertaking by the builder must be scrupulously complied with by all parties involved.
- The entire property is to be handed over to the builder/developer, with MHADA not entitled to the land cost.
- The Writ Petition filed by the tenants/occupants sought directives for redevelopment and issuance of NOC.
- The High Court ordered the Chief Officer to file authenticated lists, developers to submit consent lists by specific dates, and a meeting for scrutiny to be held.
Case Title: JAGDISH MAVJI TANK Vs. HARRESH NAVNITRAI MEHTA (2022 INSC 441)
Case Number: CONMT.PET.(C) No.-000442 / 2021
