Redevelopment Dispute Over Additional Flat Area, Amenities Can't Be Decided In Writ Jurisdiction: Bombay High Court

A writ of certiorari or mandamus cannot be issued to adjudicate a private dispute between flat owners and a developer concerning claims for additional flat area, amenities, parking and compensation arising out of a redevelopment project, the Bombay High Court has held.

A division bench of Justice Suman Shyam and Justice Gautam Ankhad dismissed a petition filed by a Mumbai-based couple seeking additional area and compensation from a developer over alleged non-compliance with the terms of a redevelopment agreement.

The bench noted that the couple had opposed the redevelopment and refused to vacate their flats, following which the developer approached the High Court and obtained an order directing them to hand over possession. The redevelopment was completed in October 2024, an Occupation Certificate was issued, and all other society members had taken possession of their respective flats, except the petitioners, who owned two flats in the society. 

"In our view, the present Petition seeking a Writ of Certiorari is not maintainable. Assuming that the Petitioners seek 'any other appropriate Writ,' even then this Petition is not maintainable. The substance of the reliefs sought by the Petitioners is additional area and a claim for compensation/damages against the Developer in the course of a private redevelopment undertaken by the Society. In these circumstances, a Writ of Mandamus would not lie against a private person, who is not discharging any public duty. The Writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for an ordinary civil remedy for adjudication of private claims relating to additional area, parking, amenities etc." the bench held. 

In its October 9 order, the bench even rejected the argument of the couple that since they have imploded municipal authorities in the petition, the 'writ' can be issued. However, the bench opined that mere impleadment of municipal authorities, does not create a public law element, more so, since the relief prayed for is exclusively against the Developer. On this ground alone, this Petition cannot be entertained, the bench said. 

"We also note that the Petitioners have admitted that they had suggested some other builders for the purpose of redevelopment, but the Society failed to consider the same. No explanation is forthcoming as to why the Petitioners did not pursue civil remedies to agitate their rights. From the pleadings in the Petition and the arguments advanced before us, we find that the dispute is of private nature and cannot be agitated in a Writ Petition. Hence, we find no merit and Writ Petition is dismissed," the bench said. 

With these observations, the bench dismissed the plea. 

Appearance:

Advocates Rajesh Kachare, Vincent D'silva and Sujit Mane appeared for the Petitioners.

Advocates Arvind Rathod and Komal Punjabi represented BMC.

Advocates Amanjhot Anand, Vasim Shaikh and Pravin Mehta instructed by Mithi Co. represented the Developer.

Advocate Vaishali Sanghvi represented the Society.