'Violates Constitutional Right To Property': Bombay HC Directs Inquiry Into Issuance Of Unilateral Redevelopment Notices U/S 79A Of MHADA Act

The Bombay High Court has held that it is the duty of a constitutional court to intervene and inquire into instances where state power is alleged to have been abused for extraneous considerations. It directed the constitution of a high-level committee to examine the issuance of 935 notices under Section 79-A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Act, 1976, by the Executive Engineer(s) of the Mumbai Building Repairs and Reconstruction Board, a statutory unit under the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority.Section 79A of the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development (MHADA) Act primarily focuses on the redevelopment of cessed and dilapidated buildings in Mumbai, particularly those declared dangerous under Section 354 of the Mumbai Municipal Corporation Act.The Division Bench of Justice G. S. Kulkarni and Justice Arif S. Doctor was hearing a batch of writ petitions filed alleging that hundreds of owners and tenants of the buildings were served notices under Section 79-A of the MHADA Act by the executive engineers without any jurisdiction. The petitioner argued that the issuance of such notices to the petitioners under Section 79-A is ex facie illegal, and in fact, it amounts to a large-scale abuse of the powers, considering the magnitude at which such notices are issued to different properties. The Court noted that in its previous order dated 8 July 2025, it had observed that for issuing a notice under Section 79-A, the sine qua non requirement is the categorisation of a building as dangerous by a notice under Section 354 or such a declaration by the Competent Authority defined under Section 65. The Court had also observed that the Executive Engineer has no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices.“… such notices are issued purely at the ipse dixit of these officers and on a brazen non-compliance of the requirements of sub-section (1) of Section 79-A… the Executive Engineers could not have assumed authority, power and jurisdiction alien to what has been provided by the Legislature for invoking Section 79-A, which was only two circumstances, as noted by us herein above…” the Court observed.The Court also came down heavily on the Vice-Chairman, questioning whether the Vice-Chairman was not duty-bound to apply his mind to the provisions of Section 79-A and the requirements to be fulfilled in taking any action under Section 79-A. The Court observed that such actions violated the rights under the Constitution:“… considering the proportion and/or magnitude of the illegality and the high-handedness of such actions… and the very severe impact of such actions on the Constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 300A read with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution, it is difficult to brush aside such actions lightly.” The Court further observed that it could not remain a passive spectator in the face of highhandedness and abuse of powers by the officials, and it is imperative upon it as a constitutional court to inquire into such issues. Accordingly, the Court constituted a committee headed by Justice J. P. Devadhar, Former Judge of Bombay High Court and Shri. Vilas D. Dongre, Retired Principal District Judge, to examine the issues in regard to the 935 notices issued under Section 79-A, including the subsequent actions to withdraw such notices, and the role of the different officials in the issuance of these notices. Case Title: Javed Abdul Rahim Attar & Ors. v. The Maharashtra Housing & Area Development Authority & Ors. [WRIT PETITION (L) NO. 34771 OF 2024]Click Here To Read/Download Order

'Violates Constitutional Right To Property': Bombay HC Directs Inquiry Into Issuance Of Unilateral Redevelopment Notices U/S 79A Of MHADA Act

Saksham Vaishya

Tags