The Bombay High Court has set aside a decision by the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) to revoke a no-objection certificate (NOC) granted for the redevelopment of a Tardeo building, describing the action as “high-handed”.
The case concerns the redevelopment of the Satyabhama Building in Tardeo. In March 2018, the property register card reflected Samir Shyamsundar Thakre and Vaibhav Shyamsundar Thakre as owners. Based on this, a development agreement was signed with Kumar Agro Products, and MHADA issued an NOC in September 2019. Construction of the proposed 16-storey structure commenced and had progressed up to the 10th floor.
In May 2025, a lawyer representing Geetadevi Pratapsingh Jadhav approached the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board, a MHADA wing, asserting ownership claims. She cited an order by the Superintendent of Mumbai City Survey and Land Records that annulled the mutation entries in favour of the Thakres and restored the property to the original recorded owner, Pandurang Javji Choudhary.
Subsequently, in October 2025, the board’s chief officer cancelled the NOC, stating that no interim relief had been obtained and that the title stood restored to Choudhary. The developer was directed to stop work immediately, prompting a challenge before the High Court.
Senior advocate Vineet Naik, representing the developer, argued that questions of title fall within the jurisdiction of civil courts and that the officer lacked authority to adjudicate ownership disputes. He contended that the cancellation was based solely on revenue records.
A division bench of Justices GS Kulkarni and Aarti Sathe observed that officials must consider all relevant factors 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 termed the action “high-handed” and remarked, “Such a casual approach on the part of public officials cannot be countenanced. 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”.
MHADA informed the court that the order would be withdrawn, allowing redevelopment to continue as per the original NOC and sanctioned plan.
Source: Hindustan Times
