Court’s Decision:
The Bombay High Court, in a landmark judgment dated 28 July 2025, declared 935 redevelopment notices issued under Section 79-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, by MHADA’s Executive Engineers to be ex-facie illegal and in abuse of power. Holding that the officials acted “without jurisdiction,” the Court found the notices were issued on mere “visual inspection” and not as per the statutory prerequisites. It directed a high-level inquiry headed by former Justice J.P. Devadhar and Retired Principal District Judge Vilas D. Dongre into the mass issuance of these notices, the conduct of MHADA officials, and the legality of the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 5 December 2024.
Facts:
The petitioners challenged the issuance of redevelopment notices by the Executive Engineers of the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board (MBRRB), a unit of MHADA. These notices were issued under Section 79-A of the MHAD Act, 1976, which enables redevelopment of “cessed” buildings declared dangerous. However, none of the buildings in question had been declared dangerous under Section 354 of the MMC Act or by a Competent Authority under Section 65 of the MHAD Act — conditions mandatory for invoking Section 79-A.
Despite this, 935 such notices were issued across Mumbai, particularly in prime localities with high redevelopment potential. Many buildings were not even in a dilapidated state, and the decisions were taken without structural audits. Petitioners argued this was a case of large-scale abuse of statutory powers, resulting in constitutional violations under Articles 14, 21, and 300-A.
Issues:
- Whether the Executive Engineers had the authority under Section 79-A to issue redevelopment notices.
- Whether these notices could be sustained without compliance with jurisdictional requirements under the MHAD Act.
- Whether the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) dated 5 December 2024 could supplant statutory provisions.
- Whether such acts constitute a wider abuse of official powers and require judicial inquiry.
Petitioner’s Arguments:
Senior Counsels appearing for the petitioners submitted that Section 79-A requires prior declaration of a building as dangerous either under Section 354 of the MMC Act or by the Competent Authority under Section 65 of the MHAD Act. They argued that no such declarations existed. The notices were instead issued by Executive Engineers based solely on “visual inspections” without any structural audits.
They contended that such conduct was ultra vires the Act, arbitrary, and designed to enable builders or developers to fast-track lucrative redevelopment deals. The SOP dated 5 December 2024 was also challenged as being issued without any statutory authority, in contravention of Sections 184, 185, and 186 of the MHAD Act which alone provide for making rules, regulations, and by-laws. It was argued that this SOP was a post-facto cover-up to regularize a pre-existing scam.
Respondent’s Arguments:
MHADA, through its counsel, admitted that 935 notices had been issued under Section 79-A, out of which 46 were issued after the Division Bench’s ruling in Vimalnath Shelters Pvt. Ltd. and would be withdrawn. They also conceded that the notices were based on “visual inspection” by qualified engineers and not preceded by any statutory declaration of danger.
However, MHADA contended that they had an obligation to repair and reconstruct dilapidated buildings under Chapter VIII of the MHAD Act. They defended the SOP dated 5 December 2024, arguing it was an internal administrative guideline issued in furtherance of this duty.
Analysis of the Law:
Section 79-A requires that for any action to be taken under its clauses (a), (b), or (c), a building must first be declared dangerous by the BMC under Section 354 of the MMC Act or by the Competent Authority under Section 65 of the MHAD Act. The statute does not permit any discretion to override these jurisdictional prerequisites.
The Court applied the maxim expressio unius est exclusio alterius, reaffirming that where the statute prescribes a specific method, no other method is permissible. Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court’s decisions in Nazir Ahmad v. King Emperor, State of UP v. Singhara Singh, and Hukam Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of India which held that statutory procedures must be strictly followed.
Precedent Analysis:
The Court referred to its own Division Bench decisions in:
- Pramod Vishwanath Saraf (2025): Held that Section 79-A notices require a prior declaration under Section 354 of the MMC Act or by the Competent Authority.
- Vimalnath Shelters Pvt. Ltd. (2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1109): Declared that Executive Engineers cannot declare buildings dangerous or issue Section 79-A notices.
Both cases clarified that neither visual inspection nor SOPs can substitute the statutory scheme.
Court’s Reasoning:
The Court found MHADA’s conduct to be “a racket/scam” and “a modus operandi of misusing the provisions of law” for facilitating redevelopment by interested parties. It observed that the actions were a direct affront to Articles 14, 21, and 300-A of the Constitution.
It severely criticised MHADA’s failure to withdraw even those notices that were admitted to be without legal basis. The SOP was condemned as being issued belatedly, and possibly with the “design to give a colour of legality to illegalities.”
Conclusion:
The High Court concluded that the entire process of issuing 935 notices was ultra vires, arbitrary, and a gross abuse of power. It passed the following directions:
- Constituted a Two-Member Judicial Committee headed by Justice J.P. Devadhar and Judge Vilas Dongre to inquire into:
- The legality and motives behind the 935 notices.
- Role of officials in issuing them.
- Legality and intent behind the SOP.
- Directed MHADA to withdraw the 46 notices issued post-Vimalnath Shelters and keep the remaining 889 in abeyance.
- Stayed all impugned notices in the present batch of writ petitions.
Implications:
This judgment sets a vital precedent that statutory power cannot be exercised arbitrarily, especially in matters involving property rights and redevelopment. The Court has sent a strong message to public bodies that bypassing statutory procedure, even in the name of public interest, will invite judicial scrutiny. The judgment also protects thousands of citizens from forced and potentially illegal redevelopment.
FAQs:
Q1. Can MHADA issue Section 79-A notices without a building being declared dangerous?
No. The Court has clarified that such notices are invalid unless the building is first declared dangerous by the BMC under Section 354 or by a Competent Authority under Section 65 of the MHAD Act.
Q2. What happens to the 935 notices already issued?
The Court has ordered 46 notices to be withdrawn and the rest to be kept in abeyance pending a judicial inquiry into their legality.
Q3. Is MHADA’s Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) legally binding?
No. The Court held that the SOP issued by MHADA cannot override statutory provisions and is ultra vires if it contradicts Section 79-A.