4-WP-814-2023.DOC 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 p. 1 Kiran Kawre KAWRE KIRAN KALYAN Digitally signed by KAWRE KIRAN KALYAN Date: 2026.01.13 11:56:47 +0530 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. p. 2 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 p. 3 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 p. 4 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.) p. 5 Kiran Kawre