28-07-2025
Cessed buildings revamp: HC forms panel to examine 935 notices issued by MHADA
In a move that may further delay the redevelopment of several dilapidated dangerous cessed buildings in Mumbai, the Bombay High Court on Monday appointed a two-member committee headed by former HC judge to examine 935 notices issued by MHADA executive engineers.
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 The HC said that the notices not withdrawn by MHADA will be stayed.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.
