MHADA Redevelopment Dispute: Supreme Court Resolves Decades-Long Land Acquisition Case

The case of Shankar Hiranna Rajanna vs. Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) & Ors. was a complex land acquisition and redevelopment dispute that had been ongoing for over four decades. The Supreme Court was tasked with deciding the fate of a dilapidated housing property and determining whether a private developer or MHADA should carry out its redevelopment.

Background of the Case

The dispute centered around a housing complex known as Building 102 in Maharashtra, consisting of four sub-buildings—102 A, B, C, and D—admeasuring 2807 square meters. The Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority (MHADA) declared the buildings dangerous and beyond economic repair under Section 88 of the MHADA Act in 1989 and subsequently acquired them under Section 93 in 1990.

After a series of legal challenges, the Bombay High Court ruled against the petitioners in 1994, solidifying MHADA’s acquisition. However, the tenants and developers continued to contest the redevelopment process, leading to further litigation.

Legal Challenges and Disputes

• Initially, only Buildings 102 B, C, and D were demolished, while Building 102 A remained occupied by tenants.
• In 2002, the Supreme Court directed MHADA to reconsider a redevelopment proposal submitted by the tenants.
• In 2004, after a meeting chaired by the Chief Minister, it was decided that a private developer, M/s Raj Doshi Exports Pvt. Ltd., would be given the land for redevelopment under Regulation 33(7) and 33(9).
• Despite this, MHADA failed to issue the necessary No Objection Certificate (NOC), leading to further delays.
• In 2006, the tenants filed a writ petition in the Bombay High Court, which was finally disposed of in 2016.

High Court’s Ruling

The Bombay High Court ruled that either M/s Raj Doshi Exports Pvt. Ltd. or another competing developer, M/s Matoshree Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., had to secure 70% tenant consent before proceeding with redevelopment. MHADA was instructed to verify this.

Supreme Court’s Judgment

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman, delivered the final ruling on September 29, 2016. The key points from the judgment were:

Verification of Tenant Consent

• The Supreme Court ordered an independent verification process to determine whether M/s Raj Doshi had the required 70% tenant consent.
• A report submitted on September 3, 2016, confirmed that M/s Raj Doshi had 78.89% tenant consent, fulfilling the regulatory requirement.

Comparison of Developer Offers

• M/s Matoshree Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. offered a 425 sq. ft. carpet area to each tenant and a monthly rent of Rs. 25,000 for transit housing.
• M/s Raj Doshi originally offered 400 sq. ft. but agreed to match Matoshree’s offer of 425 sq. ft. along with Rs. 25,000 monthly transit rent.

Final Directions by the Supreme Court

• The Supreme Court ruled in favor of M/s Raj Doshi as the designated developer, based on tenant consent.
• Tenants were given eight weeks to vacate the remaining building to facilitate demolition and redevelopment.
• MHADA and other government authorities were directed to issue all necessary NOCs and clearances within eight weeks.
• M/s Raj Doshi committed to completing construction within 42 months from the date of tenant relocation.
• The Court directed M/s Raj Doshi to pay all statutory dues to MHADA as per the policy.

Impact of the Judgment

• The ruling ended a 40-year-old redevelopment dispute and provided clarity on the tenant consent requirement under Regulation 33(7) and 33(9).
• It reinforced the importance of tenant participation in redevelopment projects.
• The case serves as a significant precedent for similar redevelopment disputes in Mumbai and other urban areas.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Shankar Hiranna Raja vs Maharashtra Housing Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 29-09-2016-1741883963539.pdf