Bombay High Court

DILIPKUMAR NENMAL JAINversusMAHARASHTRA HOUSING AND AREA DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY

Decided: 8 January 2026
Disposal: DISPOSED OFF
Bench: G S KULKARNI AARTI A SATHE

Holding

The Court declined to grant mandamus and disposed of the petitions, directing the parties to pursue appropriate remedies before MHADA while keeping all contentions open.

Summary

The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus under Article 226 to compel the Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority (MHADA) to revoke a No Objection Certificate (NOC) dated 11‑11‑2013 that had been cancelled, alleging that the developer (respondent No.5) had flouted its conditions and failed to redevelop the demolished property. The Court noted that the matter had been previously directed to the Chief Officer of MHADA, who, after hearing the parties, rejected the developer’s application for restoration of the NOC on 25 November 2025. Considering the demolition of the original building in 2013 and the tenants’ pending rehabilitation, the Court declined to issue mandamus and instead allowed the petitioners to pursue any other legal remedies, including filing fresh applications with MHADA. It also permitted the developers to approach the Chief Officer with a new proposal within two weeks, with a decision to be rendered within four weeks, and kept open the right to challenge the Chief Officer’s order. All contentions were expressly kept open and the petitions were disposed accordingly.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court can issue a writ of mandamus directing MHADA to revoke and cancel the NOC issued to the developer.
Whether the petitioners are entitled to restoration of the NOC on the ground of alleged non‑compliance by the developer.
Whether the decision of the Chief Officer of MHADA rejecting the developer’s application can be challenged in this proceeding.
What remedies are available to the tenants for rehousing and transit rent in the context of the demolished building.

Subjects

Article 226
Writ of Mandamus
No Objection Certificate
MHADA
Redevelopment
Tenants' Rights
Rehabilitation
Joint Development
Chief Officer

Judgment

Digitally
signed by 4-WP-814-2023.DOC
KAWRE
KAWRE KIRAN
KIRAN KALYAN
KALYAN Date:
2026.01.13
11:56:47
+0530
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 814 OF 2023

Suresh Maganlal Jain & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Maharashtra Housing &
Area Development Authority & Ors. ...Respondents
WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 2929 OF 2023

Dilipkumar Nenmal Jain & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
Maharashtra Housing &
Area Development Authority & Ors. ...Respondents
_________
Mr. Bhavik Lalan i/b L. D. Shah & Co., for Petitioner in WP No.814 of 2023.
Mr. V. Y. Sanglikar a/w Archana Gaware and Payal Cheeda for Petitioner in WP
No.2929 of 2023.
Mr. P. G. Lad a/w Hassan Khan and Sayali Apte for MHADA - Respondent Nos.1
to 3.
Mr. Vishal Kanade a/w Bharatkumar Jain a/w Raj Adhia i/b Economic Laws
Practice for Respondent No.5.
__________

CORAM: G. S. KULKARNI &
AARTI SATHE, JJ.

DATE: 08 JANUARY 2026

P.C.

1. Both the petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India

espouse a similar cause of action. The prayers as made in the petition are also

quite similar and hence, these petitions are disposed of by this common order.

2. The prayers in Writ Petition No.814 of 2023 reads thus:

“a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ, direction or order to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2
directing them to revoke and cancel the NOC dated 11.11.2013 issued to the
Respondent No.5 for flouting the conditions stipulated therein and for total

Page 1 of 5
08 January 2026
Kiran Kawre
4-WP-814-2023.DOC

inaction of the Respondent No.5;”

3. The prayers as made in the second Writ Petition being No.2929 of 2023

reads thus:

a) that this Hon’ble Court be pleased to issue Writ of Mandamus or any
other appropriate Writ, direction or order to the Respondent Nos.1 and 2
directing them to revoke and cancel the NOC dated 11.11.2013 issued to the
Respondent No.5 for flouting the conditions stipulated therein and for total
inaction of the Respondent No.5;”

4. We find from the record that the proceedings were heard on the earlier

occasion, and more particularly, on 25 July 2025 when a substantive order came

to be passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court of which one of us (G. S.

Kulkarni, J.) was a member. The said order reads thus:

“1. We have heard Mr. Sanglikar, learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Lad,
learned counsel for the respondent/MHADA and Mr. Jain, learned counsel for
respondent no. 5-landlord.

2. The situation is peculiar insofar as the building on land CS No. 1/2299
and 2311 has already been demolished. The tenants who are stated to be 45 in
numbers are out of their premises since the year 2013. The adjoining land,
namely, CS No. 2299 also has a building which is of the ownership of respondent
no. 5. The said building is partly demolished and redevelopment work is in
progress, namely, it has only come upto the plinth level.

3. On such backdrop, today the concern of the petitioners is that the
development needs to be taken forward by respondent no. 5. The petitioners
have serious grievance in regard to the intentions of respondent no. 5 for
undertaking the redevelopment, as according to them, nothing has happened
insofar as their building is concerned, which is subject matter of property CS No.
1/2299 and 2311. We are informed by learned counsel for respondent no. 5 that
recently a “No objection” granted by MHADA for redevelopment of the property
CS 1/2299 and 2311 with which the petitioners are concerned, has been
cancelled by the MHADA.

4. During the course of arguments, we are informed by learned counsel for
respondent no. 5 that respondent no. 5 is keen to undertake the redevelopment
and in fact the intention is to undertake joint development of property CS No.
1/2299 and 2311 and property CS No. 2299 and in that regard, an application
was made far back to the Chief Officer of Mumbai Building Reconstruction and
Repair Board (MBRRB) dated 13 June 2023, a copy of which is placed on
record . Also a copy of the same is furnished to Mr. Lad, learned counsel for
MHADA.

Page 2 of 5
08 January 2026
Kiran Kawre
4-WP-814-2023.DOC

5. We find that there is a grievance on the part of the tenants that they ought
to be rehoused and also transit rent need to be paid to them, which has not been
paid for several years. On the other hand, there is concern of respondent no. 5
who has stated that it is desirous of undertaking redevelopment and which would
be a joint redevelopment in respect of both.

6. Learned counsel for respondent no. 5 also submits that the cancellation of
NOC has prejudicially affected respondent no. 5 in the present circumstances,
hence respondent no. 5 is desirous of making an application to the Chief Officer,
MHADA for restoration of NOC, so that such application along with application
dated 13 June, 2023 which is kept pending and which has not been considered in
regard to the joint development, can be taken up and decided by the Chief
Officer.

7. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties in the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate that
the Chief Officer hears respondent no. 5 as also the petitioners on the application
of respondent no. 5 dated 13 June 2023 as also on the application of the
petitioners for restoration of NOC, which may be filed by respondent no. 5. Let
such application be filed within one week from today.

8. We are also informed by learned counsel for respondent no. 5 that
respondent no. 5 is keen to undertake redevelopment and rehouse the tenants
and comply with all the other obligations. It is also the submission that a bar
chart in that regard would also be provided as also proper undertaking that
redevelopment would be completed, can also be furnished.

9. In this view of the matter, we direct the Chief Officer of the MHADA to
consider such application, which would be filed by respondent no. 5 for
restoration of NOC as also the application dated 13 June 2023 for clubbing of
joint development on both the properties, namely, CS 1/2299 & 2311 and
property CS No. 2299.

10. The parties are directed to appear before the Chief Officer on 4 August
2025 at 4.30 p.m. with all their materials. We request Mr. Sanglikar as also Mr.
Lad to appear before the Chief Officer so that the situation in a proper
perspective is appraised and appropriate decision is taken considering the interest
of all the stakeholders. We keep open all contentions of the parties in that regard.
Let a decision on the hearing be taken on or before 7 August 2025 and the Court
be informed of such decision on 13 August 2025.
11. Stand over to 13 August 2025 (H.O.B.).

12. We clarify that the decision shall be taken by the Chief Officer strictly in
accordance with law. This more particularly that it is very surprising that since
last three years the application has been kept pending by the Chief Officer.”

5. In pursuance of the directions issued in paragraph 10 of the aforesaid

order, the Chief Officer of the MHADA had heard the parties and by an order

dated 25 November 2025 has rejected the application of the landlord/developers

Page 3 of 5
08 January 2026
Kiran Kawre
4-WP-814-2023.DOC

for revival of the “no objection certificate” (NOC) which had stood revoked. A

copy of the said order is placed on record by Mr. Sanglikar who also intended to

place on record a draft amendment. However, as Mr. Lad has already tendered a

copy of the order, we have taken the said order passed by the Chief Officer on

record of the present proceedings.

6. Considering the nature of the grievances as also the existing building

having already been demolished in the year 2013, and as the tenants are awaiting

rehabilitation, we are of the opinion that it would be appropriate that the present

proceedings are disposed of in terms of the following order:

ORDER

(i) The petitioners are at liberty to pursue / assert, their legal rights as may

be available to them in law, by taking recourse to such remedies and/or

approaching the MHADA by an appropriate application/proposal as

may be permissible in law.

(ii) If such an application/proposal is made within a period of two weeks

from today, a decision on the same be taken by the Chief Officer, in

accordance with law, within a period of four weeks from the date of

submission of such application/proposal.

(iii) Insofar as the rights of the owners of the land/developer in relation to

the order dated 25 November 2025 passed by the Chief Officer are

concerned, the same are expressly kept open or in other words, the

landlords are at liberty to pursue appropriate proceedings in the event

Page 4 of 5
08 January 2026
Kiran Kawre
4-WP-814-2023.DOC

they feel aggrieved by the order dated 25 November 2025 passed by

the Chief Officer.

7. All contentions of the parties in that regard are expressly kept open.

8. The petitions are disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(AARTI SATHE, J.) (G. S. KULKARNI, J.)

Page 5 of 5
08 January 2026
Kiran Kawre

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…

Lawyer court records for this case

Associated through the court’s case reference.

Bhavik Lalan