Rajesh Tanaji Bachhav And Anr. vs The Deputy Chief Officer (W) (Mhada) And 7 Ors.

CNR No : HCBM020208322021

WP-2283-2021(J).doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO. 2283 OF 2021
Rajesh Tanaji Bachhav
Age 53 years, Indian Inhabitant
Through his Constituent Attorney
Gautam Jitendra Rushi
Age 56 years, Indian Inhabitant
Residing at Flat No.C-502, Vatsalya CHSL
MHADA Building, near MTNL Building, Sector 8,
.....Petitioner
Charkop, Kandivali (W), Mumbai 400067.
Versus
1. The Deputy Chief Officer (W)
Mumbai Housing & Area
Development Board, MHADA
Grihanirman Bhavan, Bandra (E),
Mumbai 400 051.
2. Chief Executive Officer, MHADA Authority
MHADA Building, Kala Nagar, Bandra (E),
Mumbai 400 051.
3. Chief Officer, Mumbai Board MHADA
MHADA Building, Kala Nagar, Bandra (E),
Mumai 400 051.
4. Joint Chief Officer, Mumbai Board MHADA
rd
Room No.404, 3 Floor, MHADA Building,
Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051.
5. Estate Manager, World Bank Project
th
Room No.565, 4 floor, MHADA Building,
Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051.
6. Assistant Estate Manager
World Bank Project
th
Room No.565, 4 Floor, MHADA Building,
Wakodikar
1/8
Digitally signed
by RUPALI
RAJESH
WAKODIKAR
Date:
2026.10.26
18:36:41 +0530
RUPALI
RAJESH
WAKODIKAR
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:48:12

WP-2283-2021(J).doc
Kala Nagar, Bandra (E), Mumbai 400 051.
7. Principal Secretary, Housing Department
rd
Govt. of Maharashtra, 3 floor, Mantralaya
Mumbai 400 032.
Through Govt.Pleader High Court, Bombay
8. Chief Commissioner Maharashtra
RTS Commission New Administrative Building
th
7 Floor, Hutatma Rajguru Chowk, Madam Cama
Road, Opp. Mantralaya, Mumbai 400 032.
Through Govt.Pleader High Court, Bombay. .....Respondents
.....
Mr. Vishwanath Patil i/b Mr. Deepak Pandey, for the Petitioner.
Mr. P.G.Lad a/ Mr. Muralidharan Kalathil for the Respondent –
MHADA.
Mr. Milind More, Addl.G.P, for the Respondent-State.
..…
CORAM : M. S. KARNIK &
SANDESH D. PATIL, JJ.
th
RESERVED ON : 6 OCTOBER, 2026
th
PRONOUNCED ON : 26 OCTOBER, 2026
JUDGMENT (PER SANDESH D. PATIL, J.)
1. The petitioner in this petition is seeking directions against the
respondent Nos.1 to 6 to hand over the physical possession of the
open plot of land bearing plot No.100, admeasuring at about 76.75
sq.mtrs. area situated at RSC-11, Charkop, Kandivali (West),
Mumbai-400067 (‘the said plot’ for short).
Wakodikar
2/8
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:48:12

WP-2283-2021(J).doc
2. It is the contention of the petitioner that the petitioner was
allotted the said plot by the respondent No.1 through a registered
th
Lease Agreement dated 27 October, 2005 for a period of 99 years.
The petitioner had complied with all the requisitions of the said
Lease Deed. The petitioner, thereafter, corresponded with the
respondent authorities for the purpose of handing over the actual
and physical possession of the land to the petitioner.
3. The respondent authorities, however, have not handed over the
actual physical possession of the land. Hence, the present writ
petition is filed.
4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner argued that a
registered Lease Deed was executed by the respondent No.1 in
favour of the petitioner; the respondents were duty-bound to act
upon the same and hand over the possession of the same to the
th
petitioner in lieu of the registered Lease Deed dated 27 October,
2005. He argued that the delay on the part of the respondents has
caused grave injustice to the petitioner.
5. The learned Counsel for the petitioner further argued that
Wakodikar
3/8
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:48:12

WP-2283-2021(J).doc
th
there was a letter dated 4 August, 2021 issued by the MHADA
stating that the plot of land in question does not fall under the
Coastal Regulation Zone (CRZ) affected zone. In these premises,
learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that, the argument of
the MHADA that the said plot falls under CRZ category is a vague
statement. He relied upon instances of transfers affected in favour of
adjacent owners. He submitted that, in these premises, the MHADA
was duty-bound to give possession of the said plot to the Petitioner.
6. Learned Counsel for Respondent-MHADA opposed the said
Petition. The learned Counsel submitted that the plot in question
falls within the CRZ zone, and therefore, in view of the judgment
passed by the Bombay High Court, in the matter of Bombay
Environment Action Group and Ors. v/s The State of Maharashtra &
Ors. in WPL/3246/2004, the said plot cannot be allotted to the
petitioner. He further submitted that the original allottee has
transferred the said plot to a third party, and therefore, the present
petition out not to be entertained.
7. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for both the
sides. We have perused the documents on record. Admittedly, the
Wakodikar
4/8
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:48:12

WP-2283-2021(J).doc
th
MHADA has executed the Lease Deed on 27 October, 2005 in favour
of the petitioner. The MHADA was the owner of the said land. The
MHADA had by a public advertisement, published in the newspaper
invited offers from public at large for allotment of open developed
plots of MHADA. In pursuance of the public advertisement, the
petitioner had applied and was ultimately allotted the said land. The
said plot was leased to the petitioner on payment of certain premium
for a period of 90 years with effect from the date of execution of the
Lease Deed. Today, the petitioner has not sought any relief other
than handing over the actual and physical possession of the said
property to the petitioner. The MHADA is not denying execution of
the said Lease Deed.
8. The respondents have stated that the development activities
could not be carried out under the CRZ notification. It is nobody’s
th
case that the registered Lease Deed dated 27 October, 2005 is
cancelled, rescinded or otherwise declared null and void or illegal by
any competent Court. Since the Lease Deed today is valid, legal and
subsisting, it would not be open for MHADA to contend that they
would not hand over possession of the property to the petitioner. The
Wakodikar
5/8
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:48:12

WP-2283-2021(J).doc
property, in question is an open plot of land as is evident from the
schedule annexed to the Lease Deed. The Lease Deed finds place at
Exhibit-A to the petition.
9. The next issue raised by the MHADA is that the petitioner has
sold the property to the person who has filed the present petition.
This is certainly a vague statement and lacks bonafides. There is
nothing on record to show that the property has been sold to the
Power of Attorney holder. As on date, there is no document to
substantiate the case of MHADA. We, therefore, do not accept the
submissions made on behalf of MHADA that possession of the
property could not be handed over to the petitioner on the ground
that the petitioner has sold the property to a third party.
10. We accordingly reject the said submission of MHADA. It is
however, always open to MHADA to take appropriate action in the
event that they come across cogent material to substantiate that the
petitioner has sold the property to a third party.
11. In these premises, to deny the petitioner the property which he
has duly acquired from MHADA would amount to a travesty of
Wakodikar
6/8
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:48:12

WP-2283-2021(J).doc
justice.
12. It is not the contention of the petitioner that there is any
structure on the said plot. Whether the petitioner is entitled to
construct any such structure and whether the provisions of CRZ
permit or restrict the petitioner from constructing such a structure
are separate issues with which we are not concerned in the present
petition.
13. In these premises, the petitioner certainly cannot be denied of
the plot of land, despite of having acquired the same pursuant to the
advertisement issued by MHADA. MHADA accepted the premium
and lease rent as far back as in the year 2005, but has not handed
over the possession of the plot till date. Such an act on the part of
MHADA cannot be countenance in any circumstances.
14. We make it clear that we have not gone into the issue of
whether construction is permissible in view of the CRZ Regulations.
We have also not examined the issue of the CRZ buffer zone or
whether the plot falls within a buffer zone area. All that we have
considered is whether the petitioner is entitled to obtain the said
Wakodikar
7/8
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:48:12

WP-2283-2021(J).doc
land from MHADA. The MHADA being an instrumentality of the
State cannot deprive the citizens of their rights in such a high-
handed manner. Hence, we are inclined to allow the present
petition. Hence the following order :
ORDER
(i) The Writ Petition No. 2283 of 2021 is allowed.
(ii) The Respondent-MHADA is directed to handover
possession of the plot of land bearing plot No.100,
admeasuring 76.75 sq.mtrs. Area situated at RSC-11, Charkop,
Kandivali (West), Mumbai as mentioned in the Lease Deed
th
dated 27 October, 2005 to the petitioner within a period of
four weeks from the date of producing this order before the
respondent No.1.
15. The Petition is disposed of accordingly.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
16. After the Judgment is pronounced, learned Counsel for the
MHADA makes a request for stay. The same is rejected.
(SANDESH D. PATIL, J.) (M. S. KARNIK, J.)
Wakodikar
8/8
Uploaded on - 26/10/2026 Downloaded on - 26/10/2026 18:48:12
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)