SC upholds redevelopment of Mumbai's Motilal Nagar by MHADA C&DA model
MHADA
) has received the
Supreme Court
's clearance to proceed with the redevelopment of Motilal Nagar, a 142-acre cluster in Mumbai's suburb of Goregaon (West).
The apex court on Monday upheld the housing agency's decision to redevelop Mumbai's Motilal Nagar by way of construction and development agency (C&DA) model.
Explore courses from Top Institutes in
Please select course:
Select a Course Category
Public Policy
Degree
Data Analytics
Data Science
CXO
Others
Leadership
others
Technology
Finance
PGDM
Design Thinking
Product Management
MCA
Operations Management
Digital Marketing
Healthcare
Management
Artificial Intelligence
Data Science
Skills you'll gain:
Duration:
12 Months
IIM Calcutta
Executive Programme in Public Policy and Management
Starts on
undefined
Get Details
Skills you'll gain:
Economics for Public Policy Making
Quantitative Techniques
Public & Project Finance
Law, Health & Urban Development Policy
Economics for Public Policy Making
Quantitative Techniques
Public & Project Finance
Law, Health & Urban Development Policy
Duration:
12 Months
IIM Kozhikode
Professional Certificate Programme in Public Policy Management
Starts on
Mar 3, 2024
Get Details
Skills you'll gain:
Economics for Public Policy Making
Quantitative Techniques
Public & Project Finance
Law, Health & Urban Development Policy
Duration:
12 Months
IIM Kozhikode
Professional Certificate Programme in Public Policy Management
Starts on
Mar 3, 2024
Get Details
Earlier this month, MHADA and
Adani Properties
, the real estate arm of the Adani Group, entered into an agreement to redevelop Motilal Nagar in the state housing body's largest-ever single redevelopment project.
A division bench of justice Vikram Nath and Justice Sandeep Mehta dismissed a special leave petition filed by resident associations Jankalyankari Samiti headed by Madhavi Rane, Motilal Rahivasi Vikas Sangh and Gaurav Rane upholding Bombay High Court's March 2025 order in favour a holistic redevelopment of Motilal Nagar I, II and III via C&DA.
While the Solicitor General of India, Tushar Mehta, argued in favour of MHADA, senior counsel Siddharth Bhatnagar appeared for the petitioners.
The Solicitor General argued that the project has been given a 'special status' by the state government and the land was owned by MHADA and therefore consent is not required.
The bench also termed fair the state government's decision to provide 1,600 sq ft built up area in lieu of about 230 sq ft, higher than the existing entitlement as per 33 (5) of Development Control and Promotion Regulations (DCPR) 2034.
On Friday, a division bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Bharti Dangre of the Honourable Bombay High Court had quashed a review petition by Motilal Nagar Vikas Samiti, led by Nilesh Prabhu and upheld the redevelopment of Motilal Nagar in
Goregaon West
, Mumbai via C&DA route.
As per the C&DA agreement between MHADA and Estatevue Private Developers, a unit of Adani Realty around 3,700 residents of this 142-acre layout will be rehoused in newly developed apartments measuring 1,600 sq ft built-up area, while commercial spaces will get new 987 sq ft establishments.
MHADA retains full control over the project, including ownership of the land. It has chosen a private agency to execute the project given its large-scale redevelopment.
The Maharashtra government has accorded a 'Special Project' status and it is estimated redevelopment cost is around Rs 36,000 crore, and the rehabilitation period is seven years from the project commencement date.
This project aims to eliminate illegal construction and rehabilitate 3,372 residential units, 328 eligible commercial units and 1,600 eligible tenements from a nearby slum. The redevelopment will solve the area's major issues like flooding and waterlogging, improving living conditions for residents.
As per the pact, the C&DA will bear the full cost of the project and must provide all rehabilitated housing, including commercial spaces and slum tenements, MHADA premises, and necessary infrastructure and amenities to MHADA, free of cost.
Motilal Nagar is one of the earliest MHADA colonies developed in the 1960s. The developer C&DA is expected to introduce modern construction technologies and urban planning expertise to rehabilitate 3,372 eligible residential units, 328 commercial units and around 1,600 eligible slum tenements, in line with the 1971 Slum Act.
MHADA built nearly 100 colonies between 1960s and late 1980s, housing over two lakh dwelling units. Many of these structures are now in dilapidated condition and have been declared unfit for habitation by the Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai (MCGM), making their redevelopment an urgent necessity.
MHADA, through the C&DA, is aiming to transform Motilal Nagar into a modern residential hub, built around the concept of a '15-minute city', a model that promises access to transport, healthcare, education, shopping, and entertainment within a 15-minute radius keeping its green cover intact. These also include large open spaces, gardens, pedestrian plazas and community centres.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
an hour ago
- Indian Express
Vadodara: Day after head of fire department, two other officers suspended over ‘scam', new appointees take charge
A day after Vadodara Municipal Commissioner Arun Mahesh Babu ordered the suspension of three officers, including Head of Department of Fire and Emergency Services Dr Devesh Patel, Chief Fire Officer Manoj Patil and Deputy Fire Officer Naitik Bhatt, the new officers appointed to the positions took charge on Wednesday. While Harendrasinh Chauhan has been appointed as the Chief Fire Officer, Amit Chaudhary has been given the charge of Deputy Fire Officer. The new appointments came a day after the suspensions of the three officials, including Dr Patel, who was also the Medical Officer, Health. The charge of the same has now been handed over to Dr Mukesh Vaidya. The suspensions came after an alleged scam in procurement of tools and items needed by the fire department came to light. Although the purchases were made by way of the government's e-marketplace portal and also passed through the Third Party Inspection (TPI) agency and the Vadodara Municipal Corporation's auditing department, besides the Standing Committee, officials said that the inflated prices 'went unnoticed'. An official, speaking on the condition of anonymity, said that several items in the tender, including whistles, lighters and mosquito nets had been bought at a cost of over Rs 3,500 each, for which tenders had been invited in February and March this year. The total procurement amount was Rs 3.17 crore for 16 pieces each of pocket knives, gas lighters, whistles and other tools. 'While a departmental inquiry is underway to ascertain how the discrepancy was not raised by the TPI and the auditing committee, the VMC is already staring at an internal controversy with the new appointments as those fire officials, who were hopeful of getting the posts vacated by Patil and Bhatt, have already sounded a rebellion… The fact is that no one pointed out the inflated cost of the items listed in the procurement list,' the official said.
News18
4 hours ago
- News18
SC fixes 3-year deadline to clear Rs 27,200 cr power dues to Delhi discoms
New Delhi, Aug 6 (PTI) In a significant verdict, the Supreme Court on Wednesday directed that the regulatory assets including carrying costs to the tune of Rs 27,200.37 crore be paid within three years to Delhi's three private discoms. Regulatory assets, essentially deferred revenue gaps to be recovered in future tariffs, have risen sharply, reaching Rs 12,993.53 crore for BSES Rajdhani Power Ltd (BRPL), Rs 8,419.14 crore for BSES Yamuna Power Ltd (BYPL) and Rs 5,787.70 crore for Tata Power Delhi Distribution Ltd (TPDDL) as on March 31, 2024, totalling Rs 27,200.37 crore. The verdict, which may have a significant bearing on Delhi power consumers, was delivered by a bench of Justices P S Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta on the petitions filed by three electricity distribution companies against the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission's (DERC) tariff orders over the years that led to the ballooning of regulatory assets. Dealing with the term 'regulatory asset", the bench said, 'In the context of tariff determination for electricity utilities is an intangible asset that is created by the Regulatory Commissions in recognition of an uncovered revenue gap or revenue shortfall when a distribution licensee could not fully recover the costs reasonably incurred by it through revenue from tariff. 'This portion of the revenue requirement is not included while determining the tariff for the particular year. Rather, the distribution company is entitled to receive or recover such revenue in the future, over a period of time." Justice Narasimha, writing an 82-page judgment, examined issues relating to regulatory assets, their position in the regulatory regime for the determination of tariffs and the powers of regulatory commissions. The bench said, 'As a first principle, tariff shall be cost-reflective… and the revenue gap between the approved ARR (Annual Revenue Requirement) and the estimated annual revenue from approved tariff may be in exceptional circumstances." It directed that the regulatory asset should not exceed a reasonable percentage, which percentage can be arrived on the basis of the Electricity Rules that prescribe three per cent of the ARR as the guiding principle. 'If a regulatory asset is created, it must be liquidated within a period of 3 years, taking Rule 23 as the guiding principle… The existing regulatory asset must be liquidated in a maximum of 4 years starting from April 01, 2024, taking Rule 23 as the guiding principle," it directed. According to this direction, the discoms will have to be paid their dues within four years which will be counted from 2024. 'Regulatory Commissions must provide the trajectory and roadmap for liquidation of the existing regulatory asset, which will include a provision for dealing with carrying costs. Regulatory Commissions must also undertake a strict and intensive audit of the circumstances in which the distribution companies have continued without recovery of the regulatory asset," it said. The regulatory commissions shall, in general, follow the principles governing creation, continuation and liquidation of the regulatory asset, as laid down in the judgment, it said. The bench said, 'Electricity is a public good. Its generation, transmission, and distribution are statutorily regulated to ensure access to supply, on a non-rival and non-exclusive basis." It further said, 'The statutory regulators, that is Central and State Regulatory Commissions along with Union and State Governments and other stakeholders are equally bound by the mandate under Part-IV of the Constitution for its equitable distribution." While acknowledging that regulatory assets can help avoid sudden tariff shocks, the court warned that their unchecked growth reflects 'regulatory failure" and disproportionately burdens consumers. It directed that tariffs must be cost-reflective and revenue gaps allowed only in exceptional cases. The bench said that the regulatory assets must not exceed three per cent of the annual revenue requirement, as guided by Rule 23 of the Electricity Rules. It said the regulators must set and publish clear recovery roadmaps, audit causes for delays and account for carrying costs. It also said the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (APTEL) must monitor compliance using its statutory powers. PTI SJK KSS KSS KSS (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: August 06, 2025, 23:30 IST News agency-feeds SC fixes 3-year deadline to clear Rs 27,200 cr power dues to Delhi discoms Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
5 hours ago
- Business Standard
Supreme Court pulls up states, discoms; sets April 2028 dues deadline
The Supreme Court ordered on Tuesday that electricity distribution companies must liquidate all their pending 'regulatory assets' by April 1, 2028. A two-judge apex court Bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Sandeep Mehta also held that fresh regulatory assets created by distribution companies (discoms) should be liquidated within three years of their creation. 'Regulatory commissions must provide the trajectory and road map for liquidation of the existing regulatory asset, which will include a provision for dealing with carrying costs. Regulatory commissions must also undertake strict and intensive audits of the circumstances in which the discoms have continued without recovery of the regulatory asset,' the apex court said in its judgment. A regulatory asset is an intangible asset created by electricity discoms to account for the gap between the price at which they purchase power and the price at which they sell it to customers, due to discounts or electricity bill waivers provided by the respective state governments. For accounting purposes, discoms treat regulatory assets as receivables from state governments over a future period. This portion of the revenue requirement is not included while determining the electricity tariff for that particular year. The top court was hearing pleas and appeals filed by BSES Rajdhani Power (BRPL), BSES Yamuna Power (BYPL), and Tata Power Delhi Distribution, which had challenged the Delhi Electricity Regulatory Commission's (DERC's) tariff-setting practices. The regulatory asset burden across the three Delhi discoms stood at a staggering ~27,200 crore, including carrying costs, until 2020–21. Regulatory commissions must undertake joint and collaborative efforts with other authorities to enable access to electricity across urban and rural areas and improve affordability through tariff rationalisation, the court said. 'The statutory authorities must work in cohesion towards a common goal of ensuring supply of electricity across regions and terrains, and cheaper and affordable...,' the court said. Regulatory asset not statutory, but permissible The Bench also clarified that while the creation of regulatory assets is not a statutory mandate under the Electricity Act, 2003, it is a recognised regulatory mechanism designed to prevent sudden tariff shocks to consumers. However, it must be exercised sparingly and in strict compliance with the principles laid down under the Electricity Act, the National Tariff Policy of 2006 and 2016, and Rule 23 of the Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2024, the court said. 'Electricity is a public good,' the court observed, adding that regulatory commissions must balance consumer interests with the financial viability of power discoms. 'A disproportionate increase and long-pending regulatory assets depict a 'regulatory failure'. It has serious consequences for all stakeholders, and the ultimate burden falls on the consumer,' the court observed. Court faults DERC for delay, inaction The court found that DERC failed to comply with multiple statutory guidelines requiring that regulatory assets be created only in exceptional circumstances and recovered within three to seven years. The Commission's road map, submitted in 2014 and promising liquidation of the assets by 2020-21, was never implemented, the court said. Instead, the quantum of regulatory assets kept ballooning, driven by delayed true-ups, unrealistic tariff assumptions, unpaid government subsidies, and rising power purchase costs, the apex court observed. 'This creeping regulatory inaction has undermined investor confidence and the commercial viability of the distribution sector,' the court noted, adding that such prolonged revenue gaps go against the very objective of private sector participation envisioned under the Electricity Act. Other directions issued The Supreme Court also said that DERC should ensure that no further regulatory assets are created, except in extraordinary and clearly defined circumstances. It also asked the electricity regulatory commission to use mechanisms such as the deficit recovery surcharge, fuel adjustment charges, tariff rationalisation, and government subsidies to recover the gap between the amount paid by users and the amount owed to the discoms. Any surplus revenues should first be adjusted against existing regulatory assets, the court said. The court also reminded state governments of their constitutional obligation to ensure equitable electricity access. If states wish to grant subsidies, they must do so upfront and through budgetary allocations — not by forcing distribution companies to bear the burden, the court said. The two-judge Bench further stressed that the Electricity (Amendment) Rules, 2024, particularly Rule 23, must now form the baseline for all regulatory commissions in handling tariff gaps. The court, however, clarified that it was not adjudicating individual liabilities or recoveries in this judgment. Appeals by BRPL and BYPL against earlier orders of the Appellate Tribunal for Electricity (Aptel) remain pending and will be heard separately. However, the court reiterated that orders of the Aptel must be implemented unless stayed.
