Cessed buildings revamp: HC forms panel to examine 935 notices issued by MHADA
The bench constituted a panel of Justice (Retired) Devadhar and Vilas D Dongre, retired Principal District Judge to examine the issue in regard to the notices and the subsequent actions to withdraw such notices, and the role of the different officials and/or motives if any, in issuance of these notices.
The notices were issued to acquire cessed buildings to carry out redevelopment, if the owner or tenants do not do it.
The cessed buildings are those structures the occupants of which pay cess tax or repair fund. The said buildings date back to pre-independence era and are largely present in south and central Mumbai. The MBRRB under MHADA conducts structural repairs of such old cessed buildings.
The court recorded MHADA's statement that 889 notices shall be kept in abeyance and no further action shall be taken under them, unless the parties have consented in the redevelopment and the redevelopment has progressed.
However, the committee will examine all 935 notices and submit its report preferably within six months. The HC said that the notices not withdrawn by MHADA will be stayed.
The court passed an order on pleas challenging the notices issued by the executive engineers of Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), which is a unit of Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA). The court stayed impugned notices.
The HC said it was not sufficient to merely pass stay order and observed, 'We are of the clear opinion that it would be imperative as also our duty as the Constitutional Court, to order an inquiry into such issues of highhandedness and abuse of powers by the concerned officials, to be undertaken by an independent committee appointed by the court.'
A division bench of Justices Girish S Kulkarni and Arif S Doctor noted that the issue raised in the petitions was of ' colossal misuse' of the powers by the officials concerned of the Board, in issuing notices under Section 79-A of the MHADA Act.
The provision under MHADA Act provides for compulsory redevelopment for cessed buildings that are declared dangerous. After the notices are issued, property owners or tenants get stipulated time to initiate the redevelopment within six months along with irrevocable agreement of minimum 51 percent of tenants or occupants.
If the owners or tenants fail to undertake redevelopment, the cooperative housing society formed by the residents can make a proposal within the next six months. In case of failure of any action within these 12 months, MHADA can take over the properties and undertake redevelopment
Senior advocates NV Walawalkar and MM Vashi for the petitioners argued that the impugned notices 'breached the Constitutional and the legal rights of the stakeholders including owners and tenants of the buildings' and executive engineers of the MHADA/Board did not have any authority under Section 79 (1) of the Act to issue notices.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Considerable interference by executive in appointment process of judges: Ex-SC judge
New Delhi, Former Supreme Court judge Justice Madan B Lokur on Wednesday said there had been a considerable interference by the executive in the appointment process of judges. Considerable interference by executive in appointment process of judges: Ex-SC judge He was speaking at an event organised by The Global Jurists on the topic 'Morality in Judiciary, A Paradigm or a Paradox'. "Now, about the appointment of judges. We have had a lot of problems in the recent past. There has been, I think, a considerable interference by the executive in the appointment process," he said. "The Memorandum of Procedure was finalised a long time back. But despite the MOP, which was, by the way, drafted in consultation with the Government of India, there have been all kinds of problems in its implementation," Justice Lokur added. In the appointment of judges, the former the former apex court judge said, "I believe, for reasons, that it has nothing to do with his merit. But it has something to do with a few cases that they decided," . He said that if the appointment process of judges was in the hands of the executive, "a kind of mischief" could be played. "You can appoint some person in the beginning, and a senior person can be kept pending for about six months or seven months so that he loses or he or she loses the seniority, and this is what is happening. Outstanding advocates who should have been appointed are not being appointed," Justice Lokur said. He said the process of making the appointment process less opaque needed to be deliberated upon. "Opaque not only from the side of the collegium of the high court or the collegium of the Supreme Court, but also from the side of the government," Justice Lokur said. He said that at present there were two impeachment motions pending against judges, one against Justice Yashwant Varma in the Parliament and the second against Justice Shekhar Yadav with the Rajya Sabha Chairperson. "I think for the first time in the history of the country, two impeachment motions are pending. I think we have to be very careful about the kind of persons that we appoint, and second, to keep a check on the judges while they are on the bench to make sure that these kinds of incidents do not happen," Justice Lokur said. Underlining the importance of delivering easily understandable judgments, he said, "I had to deal with a couple of judgments written by a particular judge. The English that he used, nobody could understand. The judges could not understand it. The lawyers could not understand it. So you know, this kind of quality is being demonstrated now." Regarding the transfer of judges, he said, "On the other hand, we have situations where judges are being transferred left and right without any reason. Delhi has had the experience in the recent past of Justice S Muralidhar everybody knows that this was during the riots in 2020, for passing an order which, for some reason, the government did not like." Justice Lokur, on post-retirement appointment of judges, said, "Now we have had a situation where a former Chief Justice of India has been apparently rewarded by a seat in the Rajya Sabha. We have another judge who has been rewarded with the governorship of one state. The third judge has also been awarded the governorship of another state." "We have had judges who have retired and joined politics immediately after. We had a sitting judge who resigned and joined politics, and actually got elected as a member of Parliament. We need to sort things out," he added. This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without modifications to text.
Indian Express
2 hours ago
- Indian Express
Punjab and Haryana HC pulls up Sirsa official for demolishing jhuggis, official assures to restore status within 1 week
The Punjab and Haryana High Court pulled up the Sirsa administration for demolishing jhuggis of the landless and asked officials to restore status within a week. The HC action comes a day after Haryana Chief Minister Nayab Singh Saini had said 'no poor family in the state will remain homeless'. The matter pertains to the petition filed by over a dozen people who claim that they 'don't have even an inch of land on this earth' and had been living in jhuggis in a village in Sirsa for years. For the past several years, they have been seeking benefit from Haryana government under the Gramin Awas Yojanas that ensure free plots to the 'poorest of the poor'. After hearing the contempt petition, the HC Tuesday ordered 'status quo ante' [the previously existing state of affairs]. Following which, the official (Sarthak who carried out the demolition of jhuggis assured the HC that the 'status quo ante' would be restored 'within one week'). The court has directed that the matter be listed in the 'urgent list' on August 13. Calling it a 'blatant violation' of the orders passed by the Division Bench, Justice Alka Sarin stated, 'Learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that the directions given vide order dated 09.08.2023 passed in CWP-2672-2020 have not been complied with. The respondents in blatant violation of orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court and after the notice had been issued in the present contempt petition on 11.07.2025; on 17.07.2025 around 3 pm respondent Nos 5 and 6 accompanied by the police personnel arrived at the site and forcibly demolished the jhuggis (huts) of the petitioners without any prior notice or adherence to the process of law'. 'Learned counsel for the petitioners has further pointed out that the said officer i.e. respondent No.5 herein, namely, Sarthak Srivastava (wrongly mentioned as Sombir Kadyan in the memo of parties and the same be corrected by the Registry), Block Development & Panchayat Officer, Sirsa was shown a copy of the order passed in the present contempt petition as well as the earlier orders passed in the civil writ petition. However, despite being made aware of the orders, he carried out the demolition. Photographs and video recording have been placed on the record and learned counsel for the petitioners has pointed out to one of the photographs where Sarthak Srivastava – is also seen standing at the spot,' Justice Sarin added. Referring to further points raised by petitioners' counsels Advocate Vivek K Thakur and Akshit Pathania wherein they showed that the Division Bench's orders were duly communicated to the officials, Justice Sarin stated – 'It is not a case where the officer was not in the knowledge of the orders passed by the Division Bench of this Court and the fact that the notice had already been issued in the contempt petition'. The case dates back to the year 2020, when petitioners approached the HC stating that they are members of Bhatt community residing in jhuggis for the last three decades constructed in village Bharokhan of Sirsa district with the permission of gram panchayat. The petitioners claimed that despite being beneficiaries under the Mahatma Gandhi Gramin Basti Yojana launched by the state of Haryana in 2008 to provide free residential plots of 100 square yards to SCs/ BCs (A) and BPL families, they were excluded solely on the ground that they were already residing on panchayat land. Hearing their petition, the HC in August, 2023 had directed Haryana government's officials to decide the petitioners' representations within two months. It was also ordered that Assistant Collector shall not pronounce any judgment under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Regulation Act, 1961 until such decision is taken. 'Despite the directions, the respondents failed to take any action on the petitioners' representations and in blatant violation of the Hon'ble High Court's order, yet demolished the petitioners' jhuggis. A legal notice was also sent to the respondents, but yet no action was taken. This is why we moved the Contempt Petition against the officials of the state government,' Advocate Thakur told The Indian Express.
Time of India
2 hours ago
- Time of India
Interim stay on smart meter case against Karnataka minister George, officials
Bengaluru: The Karnataka high court Wednesday granted an interim stay on proceedings over a complaint against state energy minister KJ George and a couple of Bescom officials. This is in connection with a private complaint filed by BJP functionaries alleging irregularities in the issuance of a tender for procuring and installing smart electric meters across the state. Justice MI Arun also ordered issuance of notices to the complainants and Lokayukta police while adjourning the hearing on the two petitions to Aug 20. Apart from the minister, former Bescom managing director Mahantesh Bilagi — currently Karnataka State Minerals Development Corporation MD — along with Bescom director (technical) HJ Ramesh, sought to quash the July 17 complaint registered under the BNS and the Prevention of Corruption Act. They also sought to quash the order dated July 23, through which a special court directed the superintendent of Lokayukta police to file his report by the next hearing. You Can Also Check: Bengaluru AQI | Weather in Bengaluru | Bank Holidays in Bengaluru | Public Holidays in Bengaluru Three BJP MLAs—CN Ashwath Narayan, SR Vishwanath and D Muniraj—lodged a complaint with Lokayukta police in April. Subsequently, they filed the private complaint before the special court for elected representatives, which issued the impugned order.
