The Bombay High Court rejected a challenge filed by Navi Mumbai-based developer Lakhani Housing Corporation, opening the way to renovate 25 housing societies in Sion’s GTB Nagar. The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA), which has been designated as the project’s special planning authority, will now oversee the reconstruction of the 11.20-acre site.
A February 2024 Government Resolution (GR) requiring a bidding process for selecting private developers was upheld by a court consisting of Justices Ajey Gadkari and Kamal Khata. According to the GR, developers must provide rehabilitation units to 1,200 displaced families, meet financial requirements, and give MHADA the largest housing stock or premium.
Asserting its vested rights in the redevelopment, Lakhani Housing Corporation claimed to have obtained approval from 909 families and invested ₹17.30 crore in preparatory work. Lakhani’s agreements with people, the state administration retorted, were not legally binding because they were neither registered nor stamped. In addition, Advocate General Birendra Saraf emphasised that the developer’s spending was negligible in comparison to the project’s projected ₹2,930.77 crore cost.
The court noted that 716 of the 1,200 people agreed with MHADA’s approach, and 14 of the 25 groups backed MHADA’s appointment. Additionally, it mentioned that 692 families have been waiting for rehabilitation after their buildings were demolished in 2019. The BMC demolished the deteriorating buildings, which were constructed for Punjabi and Sindhi refugees after the India-Pakistan partition, between 2019 and 2022 due to safety concerns.
The court declared Lakhani’s consents, which were acquired before the establishment of cooperative organisations, to be void. The bench noted that residents did not have legal rights against MHADA as a result of the developer’s Rs9.35 crore payments to them.
The court dismissed the petition, ruling that there were no legitimate reasons to interfere with the tendering process. It highlighted how urgent it is to get the project along quickly to alleviate the suffering of displaced families. Additionally, the court denied the developer’s request for a four-week stay of the ruling, citing the necessity to put the interests of the locals ahead of the petitioner, who had come to the court unrepresented.
Regulation 33(9) of the Development Control and Promotion Regulations for Greater Mumbai, 2034, will govern the redevelopment.
Source: The Free Press Journal
